Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818769
Michael Cronenworth changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812575
--- Comment #6 from Michael Cronenworth 2012-05-04 23:31:16
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 581982 [detai
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665539
Erik van Pienbroek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=665539
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-04
18:55:07 EDT ---
mingw-bzip2-1.0.6-1.fc17, mingw-boost-1.48.0-8.fc17 has be
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811909
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System 2012-05-04
18:54:54 EDT ---
mingw-bzip2-1.0.6-1.fc17, mingw-boost-1.48.0-8.fc17 has be
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812573
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System
2012-05-04 18:55:00 EDT ---
mingw-bzip2-1.0.6-1.fc17, mingw-boost-1.48.0-8.fc17 has b
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> MinGW 32-bit packages version discrepancies
> ---
I needed to account for my system being 64-bit when I ran this script.
The 32-bit package list was wrong. Here is the correct list.
+--