On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 05:17:25PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Daniel P. Berrange
> wrote:
> > FYI libvirt Fedora packages no longer carry patches as a general rule.
> > Instead for libvirt we aim to provide stable release branches with
> > trivial f
Hi
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> FYI libvirt Fedora packages no longer carry patches as a general rule.
> Instead for libvirt we aim to provide stable release branches with
> trivial fixes applied. This ensures that the stable packages are
> easily available to ever
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:44:10PM +0100, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:23:12PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Christophe Fergeau
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > After this thread and the spice-gtk 0.17 release, I'm _very_ surprised to
> > > s
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:49:53PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Christophe Fergeau
> wrote:
> > In my opinion, we should follow what libvirt does here, send the patch to
> > the list with a note indicating that it has already been pushed to fix the
> > build.
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> In my opinion, we should follow what libvirt does here, send the patch to
> the list with a note indicating that it has already been pushed to fix the
> build.
> This is very helpful to let others know about such fixes. People have been
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 04:23:12PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Christophe Fergeau
> wrote:
> >
> > After this thread and the spice-gtk 0.17 release, I'm _very_ surprised to
> > see some patches on top of the F18 and rawhide package, including (at
> > least)
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
>
> After this thread and the spice-gtk 0.17 release, I'm _very_ surprised to
> see some patches on top of the F18 and rawhide package, including (at
> least) one patch which is mandatory to build spice-gtk with newer gtk+
> versions. jhbu
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 01:48:32PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> The fedora package was updated in fedora/koji for the reporter to
> check if it solves his
> problem, before doing the release which was planned to come quickly
> after, as it did. There was only a few days between the two release
Hi,
On 01/23/2013 03:18 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 01:48:32PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Christophe Fergeau
wrote:
But I agree with Hans that we currently are a bad upstream to work with
from a distro point of view, and that we
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 01:48:32PM +0100, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Christophe Fergeau
> wrote:
> > But I agree with Hans that we currently are a bad upstream to work with
> > from a distro point of view, and that we need to improve on that...
>
> The fedora pac
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM, Christophe Fergeau
wrote:
> But I agree with Hans that we currently are a bad upstream to work with
> from a distro point of view, and that we need to improve on that...
The fedora package was updated in fedora/koji for the reporter to
check if it solves his
prob
Hi,
On Tue, Jan 01, 2013 at 11:37:26AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Marc-André just did a new Fedora build fixing the
> SSL issues we we're having with 0.15 (thanks for that),
> but this is based on a git snapshot, and because of
> the way our buildsys code generates git snapshot
> tarbals is num
Hi
- Mensaje original -
> Hi,
>
> On 01/02/2013 05:02 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> >> Nor can we realistically expect other distros to go and figure out
> >> which magic combination of fixes to apply! Therefor we *must* do
> >> bugfix releases, to make stable, well-working, v
Hi,
On 01/02/2013 05:02 PM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
Hi
Nor can we realistically expect other distros to go and figure out
which magic combination of fixes to apply! Therefor we *must* do
bugfix releases, to make stable, well-working, versions of spice-gtk
available to as wide an audience as p
Hi
> Nor can we realistically expect other distros to go and figure out
> which magic combination of fixes to apply! Therefor we *must* do
> bugfix releases, to make stable, well-working, versions of spice-gtk
> available to as wide an audience as possible.
We only stick to a specific version in
Hi,
On 01/02/2013 11:46 AM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
Hi
- Mensaje original -
If we want a new release, let's just do 0.16
This is what we've been doing so far, and *it is not working*
We keep on packaging git snapshots in Fedora and RHEL left and
right, showiing this scheme is broke
Hi
- Mensaje original -
> > If we want a new release, let's just do 0.16
>
> This is what we've been doing so far, and *it is not working*
>
> We keep on packaging git snapshots in Fedora and RHEL left and
> right, showiing this scheme is broken.
Please explain what is broken. Btw, we d
Hi,
On 01/02/2013 11:24 AM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
Hi
- Mensaje original -
Hi all,
Marc-André just did a new Fedora build fixing the
SSL issues we we're having with 0.15 (thanks for that),
but this is based on a git snapshot, and because of
the way our buildsys code generates git sn
Hi
- Mensaje original -
> Hi all,
>
> Marc-André just did a new Fedora build fixing the
> SSL issues we we're having with 0.15 (thanks for that),
> but this is based on a git snapshot, and because of
> the way our buildsys code generates git snapshot
> tarbals is numbered 0.15.3
>
> Ther
Hi all,
Marc-André just did a new Fedora build fixing the
SSL issues we we're having with 0.15 (thanks for that),
but this is based on a git snapshot, and because of
the way our buildsys code generates git snapshot
tarbals is numbered 0.15.3
There are several problems with this:
1. If we've a se
20 matches
Mail list logo
