age, which seems to only work with man-db. Could this be a
Feature for F14 to use man-db instead of man or are there major reasons
not to do this?
Btw. I cc'ed man-ow...@fpo.
Regards
Till
[0] http://man-db.nongnu.org/
pgph4MSFOwdQx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mai
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 09:50:29AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> gpscorrelate-1.6.0-4.fc13 (build/make) till
fixed in release 6 by using g++ for linking.
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
r, or clearly decide to
> remove
> the package from Fedora.
I agree totally.
Regards
Till
pgpP59V58eWz0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
pply if you want to remove the
master branch remotely:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/RelNotes-1.7.0.txt
Regards
Till
pgpC1vx8iOsD1.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
nym, it won't be found by the wiki
search engine when searching for "fedora engineering services":
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=fedora+engineering+services&go=Go
Regards
Till
pgplSHic4B9n4.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
affected dependent packages, if they are required to fix
a bug. Afaik currently kde does not use a custom tag, and therefore if
one wants to update a kde/qt dependent package, it would be build with
a incompatible kde/qt version and therefore cannot be pushed to stable.
Regards
Till
pgp83Pfc7
. E.g. major updates
should now break rawhide first and if the fallout is handled, then it
could be done for F-13.
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:28:37PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 17.02.2010, 15:07 +0100 schrieb Till Maas:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 02:23:22PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > Usually when some of mine packages n
ything about branching.
It would help a lot to avoid duplicating content in the wiki, because it
only leads to out-of-sync contents and makes it harder to update it.
Regards
Till
[0] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Important_Release_Milestones
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/13/Schedu
I have to ask, because it does not contain any hint, that
it is. If it is, it seems not to know F13, because F13 is not on the
list.
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 07:36:00AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-17 at 16:33 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > Is the branch freeze a week late or is it now the same as the alpha
> > freeze? In the "Important Release Milestones" wiki page[0], the branch
> &g
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:52:57AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 04:40:33PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 06:11:58AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> > > The branched repo config is the fedora.repo file. Mirrormanager will b
unication method for this stuff
> > because it's real time, please use it!)
>
> I'm assuming that Till is talking about my comment
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549717#c2 on merkaartor
> (which he co-maintains).
>
> So nothing to see here
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:40:15PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:28:37PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >
> >> Take KDE for example: Although the KDE SIG is doing a great job in
> >> avoiding breakdowns, I dou
e maintained by the same group, there is no harm in
using a buildroot override. But as soon as several different maintainers
and there are a lot of packages to be updated and the buildroot
override is there for a long time, then using custom tags seem to be
appropriate for me.
Regards
Till
pgpb
r to help with buildroot overrides assuming that it does not
take that much time. I am located in CET/UTC+1, too. Is there maybe a
schedule about how well the timeslots are covered?
Regards
Till
pgpIGbFd6vYCw.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists
component=koji&owner=rel-eng%40lists.fedoraproject.org&order=priority
I added this to the SOP as well.
Regards
Till
pgpSdLGrkJOEB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
to push the big Qt 4.6.2 / KDE 4.4.0 / SIP 4.10 update set out),
> so this particular version bump should no longer be a source of trouble.
Now that I know the command to do this, here it is:
$ koji latest-pkg dist-f12-build qt | grep override
If this returns something, the package must only be
but
after suspend/hibernate the values are normally restored by pm-utils
(eventually this might happen in the kernel). In the past some devices
needed a manual override in /etc/pm-utils-hd-apm-restore.conf But this
might not be needed anymore.
Regards
Till
pgpJF0VZxLkKb.pgp
Description:
ering
> http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Pm-utils to hack the pm-utils.
The hook in sleep.d is not required in Fedora, because it should be
already handled. I just wrote a mail to pm-utils devel mailinglist to
decide whether the Fedora hook should be included in the upstream
release.
Regards
Till
pg
ing Readiness Meetings" is very easy to confuse
with the other meeting, especially because both happen within
about 24 hours or not.
Regards
Till
pgp9LfyBMdoVU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
gh to unload.
But since there is afaik no proper documentation about this issue,
everything is just guessing.
Regards
Till
pgpRCZKiBkkmT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
he docs:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
Regards
Till
pgp9kLzYxTKq8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
directories
Regards
Till
pgpW7wEiNbUiv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
earch
>
> ...is never going to ==
>
> https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=rawhide&arch=$basearch
It seems that it would be enough to rename the repo from rawhide to
fedora-rawhide in MirrorManager, so that one can use
--releasever=rawhide
Regards
Till
pgpvQSpnGKzF
ver=rawhide worked, then this would be better than having to
install the rawhide-release package.
Regards
Till
pgpTibxsXWxpS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
ry annoying bugs any further.
Regards
Till
pgpfupgEkrBg7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
of that
someone else cares about the bug. But it still does not mean that they
would use updates-testing or bodhi.
Regards
Till
pgpoakL6A4Cxc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:36:41AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:23:33PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> >> I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
> &
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 02:51:46PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 17:34:50 +0100
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Maybe the meetbot could be patched to only accept a topic change
> > after a #agreed command was used (or some other command except the
> > #action
so repoquery returns F12 results but accepts --releasever:
$ repoquery --releasever=rawhide --repoid=fedora kernel
kernel-0:2.6.31.5-127.fc12.x86_64
Regards
Till
pgppzKqZesfCB.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
it is usually
best to follow upstream closely to avoid that Fedora users even hit bugs
that are already fixed.
Regards
Till
pgpZ3yOI6cb0F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
matically test packages, so mabye they could build that first and
then write tests for packages.
Regards
Till
pgpeveYpvpFoY.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
the current
SPEC would still build the current upstream SCM version.
Regards
Till
pgp71FapuHipC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:12:53PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 17:14 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 04:29:31PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >
> > > New:
> > > yum --releasever= upgrade
> > >
> >
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:01:56AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 18:56 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > Something I am dreaming about is to have some infrastructure to
> > automatically test packages, so mabye they could build that first and
> > th
It allows new users of the package not to find/debug the bugs again that
are already fixed upstream
4) It is not made easy to test packages, e.g. normal uses normally do
not have a test environment set up and most likely do not want to mess
their own system. Maybe providing one-click access (
Others don not have gigabit internet access all around the clock. I am trying
> to update
> my Netbook over a mobile connection as I write this.
But why do you want to update your Netbook anyhow? And with yum-presto
the demand for high speed internet access is not that big.
Regards
Till
pgpUxCJreJ5TU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:18:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:15:43PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > 1) to fix a bug or add a feature the maintainer experienced/uses
>
> If nobody is complaining about the bug, then fixing the bug can wait
>
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:56:02PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:41:07PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 07:18:58PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:15:43PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > >
>
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:36:41AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 20:26 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > First”) include
> > "first.
>
> I take this to mean the first to include something in a release, as we
> develop it, not the first one to throw
tain
amount of karma. I just checked that stable packages may still receive
karma, so then everyone can pre-select packages based on the karma. And
people for whom the current system works good enough, can disable it.
And security updates could still be installed using the yum-security
p
sure, that there is more
manpower than in Fedora alone.
Regards
Till
pgpVgJ7ctHpno.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:46:39PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> > I just have another idea: Add the karma value to the repository
> > metadata and write a yum plugin to only install packages with a certain
> > amount of karma. I jus
hanges
that can easily be tested.
Regards
Till
pgpFwha0Fv53L.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
, but
both went away in a distribution upgrade. But I was more often hit by
not up to date packages in Fedora.
Regards
Till
pgpZ4wblnxXgo.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:22:25PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 04:14:37PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
>
> > ...and as in all threads about this that I can remember, the obvious fix
> > to the above is having two repos. and let everyone who wants a giant
>
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 03:11:50AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > I do not remember that I ever wanted to downgrade something except that I
> > am still missing kpdf/kprinter, but both went away in a distribution
> > upgrade.
>
> kprinter is stil
me for Fedora. E.g. there
are updates that certainly should happen only in Rawhide, e.g. if they
require manual intervention. Afaik this is required regularly for
postgres updates, because the format of the database files changes.
Regards
Till
pgpgVy4ojHtlD.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
de
Rawhide that are not meant to be
consumed directly or without manual intervention.
Regards
Till
pgpnh11xlZwK9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 05:28:26PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 19:53 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:01:56AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 18:56 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > > >
> > >
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 03:00:39PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Friday 26 February 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:12:53PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 17:14 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > > > Also repoquer
stion: Rawhide is
not partly rolling as Fedora is.
And a typical reason not to upgrade from F(current-1) to F(current) is
because the major updates may make systems unusable, e.g. X not working
anymore. But this does not mean that the same person does not want
bugfixes for e.g. yum-builddep installing build dependencies again.
Regards
Till
pgpL2CZg2MOO7.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:45:49AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> > Did you read what he wrote? I feel tempted to just copy the paragraph
> > Kevin wrote again, because it already answers your question: Rawhide is
> > not partly rolling
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 08:43:58PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> I like it more to have bugs fixed
> in F(current) at the cost of not fixing that much bugs in F(current-1)
> to keep it stable.
This should read as "to have more bugs fixed in F(current)" (even at the
cost
also only
happen from release to release. There was a good list about criteria
for good updates somewhere in the thread, I can try to find it again if
you want.
Regards
Till
pgpfCabgWkH5Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
whide as it is,
because there needs to be a usable, newer release available within less
than six months.
Regards
Till
pgpGDZ4p4Ck7o.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
more strict, than it would be nice to know
that it breaks the current upstream SCM version of a package I maintain
directly, so it can be fixed sooner.
Regards
Till
pgpKZnNGZshfE.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
My proposal: If it passes all AutoQA tests and matches the criteria by
Kevin Koffler[0], then the update is ok, except that critical path
packages should be inspected more carefully.
Regards
Till
[0] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-February/131570.html
pgpruvvB3gBQu.pgp
Descript
t something that should checked
in a stable release, but Rawhide or maybe branched-Rawhide, because this
simple change does imho not justify a package update.
Regards
Till
pgpS9oMTmDHpU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
ral case, I do not think that for
every package manual testing will always be required, except while
creating new automatic tests. E.g. if you have a library package with
good unit test and behaviour test coverage and tests for RPM
metadata, what do you want to test manually?
Regards
Till
pgpbl
to avoid problems with other projects using CVS.
Regards
Till
pgppMcmO4wG0k.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 09:09:08PM +0100, Alexander Boström wrote:
> mån 2010-03-01 klockan 20:13 +0100 skrev Till Maas:
>
> > But I wonder, how do you access CVS without this?
>
> You shouldn't need it. What happens if you don't have it?
It still seems to work.
oduced with updates. If updates are slowed
down, this will get even worse. Especially because the proposal is to
use time instead of test coverage as the criterion to push an update to
stable.
Regards
Till
pgpuKfMIZ9keg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
t; updates once every 2 weeks. Everything else once a month.
How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
only updates repo enabled by default.
Regards
Till
pgpbBYdWQf47R.pgp
Description: PGP signatu
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> > What kind of tests need to be done always manually? The only ones I can
> > think are tests for the appearance of applications or tests that require
> > specific hardwar
you are
So there is an easy way to get around 25% (two week stay in testing) to
50% (one week stay in testing) more time to test packages without
negative impact: make them faster available to the users.
Regards
Till
pgp7EJcFZLn9K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> > Are there even any metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
> > bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
> > with updates or new
become better.
> If we had less updates, that changed less things and required more
> testing before pushing them to users ... this would be entirely
> possible.
Less updates mean more changes per update or you have more buggy
packages, because updates usually fix bugs.
Regard
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:50:22AM -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On 3/3/2010 2:51, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> > another repo like update
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:37:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> > another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> > only updates repo enabled by default.
&g
intaining is a good option with different co-maintainers caring
> more about one or the other stream.
This came to my mind, too.
Regards
Till
pgp2wP6P7g1jT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:48:18AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:09 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:02:51AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> > > If we had less updates, that changed less things and required more
> > > testing b
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:07:27AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> >>> Are there even an
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > As far as I understood, there is no need to backport security fixes. One
> > could just copy the package with the security fix with all needed
> > dependencies to the stable repo imho.
&g
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:08:22PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Bug avoiding regressions at all costs is what some are willing to take.
> > With the repo split there can be at least better co-operation as e.g.
> > splitting the distribution. At least for
with the disabled logging anyways? Afaics, it
only requires a simple change in a conf file, which is something a user
can be expected to do. And security by default is something I can only
support.
Regards
Till
pgphQ4gTY7oOc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapr
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 02:06:33PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:04 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > I mind have misunderstood it, but afaics it only says that it will be
> > tested, because it spent time in updates-testing, but this is not even
> >
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:55:46AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> So here is a first ugly script to easily give feedback for all installed
> testing updates that were created after a certain date (I did not find
> an easy way to get all testing updates, one did not yet comment on
tty straight forward, I will do this later today, too.
Regards
Till
pgpdc26Tt0Hjk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
ch is included:
http://fedorapeople.org/gitweb?p=till/public_git/fedora-easy-karma.git;a=summary
Regards
Till
pgp91dNDmVRfL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:26:17AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:23:30AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >> Great script here's a small set of changes to have easy-karma use yum
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:36:53PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> small nit: if a single update has, say, three packages in it, the script
> presents it for your feedback three times.
This is fixed in the current git release.
Regards
Till
pgp1JcxH9MT6j.pgp
Description: PGP sig
am more in favor of packaging by its own, to make it easy to update
it, but it could be added to the fedora-packager comps group, iirc there
is one.
Regards
Till
pgpdQ5ZecnP5E.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 11:34:20AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> Where is the module 'fedora_cert' packaged? I can't seem to find it.
It is in fedora-packager-0.4.0-1.fc12 from updates-testing.
Regards
Till
pgp7Sganx4A6n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel
, but e.g. only for
around nine months. A Milestone could be the Alpha release of the
Rawhide branch of N+2, e.g.
F13 updates will be supported until F15 Alpha is created, so
everyone has a about a three month update window to get from FN-updates to
F(N+1)-updates or F(N+1)-updates-stable.
Regards
into a guideline
for maintainers to help them decide.
Regards
Till
pgpQqdD79EfGc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:46:01AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > F13 updates will be supported until F15 Alpha is created, so
> > everyone has a about a three month update window to get from FN-updates to
> > F(N+1)-updates or F(N+1)-updates-stable.
>
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 06:39:11PM +, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, this looks useful. I will try to use them, too. From their
> > description they should be helpful to just check whether the current
> >
Here is now a review request for fedora-easy-karma:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570771
pgp3bH9mzb8w2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
"F13" to RedHat Bugzilla or the branching of F13, depending on
what happened later, are touched by the "Rawhide bug rebase".
Regards
Till
pgp2O6CHdoh1x.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
repos $repo-recent, that only includes
metadata for the new rpms, but references to the same rpms on the
filesystem that $repo uses.
Regards
Till
pgpoG8I7DOakT.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:08:09AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
> > reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:11:23PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Especially it needs to be made sure that only bugs created prior to
> > adding "F13" to RedHat Bugzilla or the branching of F13, depending on
> > what happened later, are tou
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:53:59AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > Also a link to an example spec would be helpful.
>
> For just the #VCS key? Let me instead write up a formal proposal:
It helps to have something that is supp
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:42:57PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:11:23PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Till Maas wrote:
>
> > > Especially it needs to be made sure that only bugs created prior to
> > > adding "F13" to RedHat Bugzil
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:23:17PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> > I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
> > reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to
> > this? I cr
y return for you?
python -c "import fedora_cert; print fedora_cert.read_user_cert()"
python -c "import os; print os.getlogin()"
But it seems that os.getlogin() is too smart for this purposes, e.g. for me it
always uses
the username that started X, even if I "su -" or
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:49:09PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> > > It seems to be missing something - it says 'all rpms that are not included
> > > in the prior metadata will be deleted', but there's nothing in t
in F12 updates
testing when I last ran fedora-easy-karma and only 108 (28%) received
any comment with karma != 0. For F11 its 34/272 (12.5%). I am curious to
to how these numbers have changed in a week. I hope then everyone from
the QA SIG is using the script to report feedback, s
201 - 300 of 1153 matches
Mail list logo
