seth vidal fedoraproject.org> writes:
> Just to make sure I understand you. You're changing the packages to have
> different requirements and you're NOT changing the evr of the pkg?
> Really? Don't do that.
>
> but even so - what dep errors are you getting? Can you include them?
Well, I know it
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Scott Robbins wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:40:48PM -0600, Larry Vaden wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
>
>> Fellow Fedora Test List Members,
>>
>> Please accept my apologies; as fellow OKie Will Rogers said,
>> "Everybod
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:40:48PM -0600, Larry Vaden wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Fellow Fedora Test List Members,
>
> Please accept my apologies; as fellow OKie Will Rogers said,
> "Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.", I've certainly
> sh
The following Fedora 13 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/abcm2ps-5.9.21-1.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dbus-1.2.24-2.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/subversion-1.6.15-1.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/r
The following Fedora 14 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/q-7.11-8.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/patch-2.6.1-8.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/asterisk-1.6.2.16.2-1.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/moodle-
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 9:57 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 2/26/2011 7:43 PM, David wrote:
>> Sorry please disregard my message.
>> For some idiotic reason I mistakenly was thinking F15 was released.
>> My apologies.
> Released or not, bugzilla is still the place for bug reports.
Fellow Fedora
On 2/26/2011 7:43 PM, David wrote:
> Sorry please disregard my message.
> For some idiotic reason I mistakenly was thinking F15 was released.
> My apologies.
Released or not, bugzilla is still the place for bug reports.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://adm
On 27 February 2011 13:32, David wrote:
> Hi Larry
>
> All bug reports are appreciated, and Fedora has infrastructure to
> receive them, but submitting them in the wrong place, as you are,
> achieves nothing.
>
> Please read
> 1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate#Providing_Feedback_to_Deve
Hi Larry
All bug reports are appreciated, and Fedora has infrastructure to
receive them, but submitting them in the wrong place, as you are,
achieves nothing.
Please read
1) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate#Providing_Feedback_to_Developers
2) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PostIsOffTopic#
Addendum 4:
While ctrl-alt-f2 and ctrl-alt-f3 would function, allow logins, run
'ps auxw | grep ntp', each trip through the GUI resulted in another
set of four matches to the grep.
Finally, 'shutdown -r now' was echoed but not executed, resulting in a
requirement for power on reset which could le
Addendum 3:
"Starting NTP service. Please wait." did not complete in 20 minutes.
ctrl-alt-f2 was functional, ps auxw | grep ntp showed 4 lines of
output, namely:
S+ sh -c /sbin/service ntpd start > /dev/null
S+ /bin/sh /sbin/service ntpd start
S+ b/inbash /etc/init.d/ntpd start
S+ /bin/systemctl
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 7:02 PM, Larry Vaden wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Larry Vaden wrote:
>> When entering password, chosen password did not result in good rating
>> (vs. it does in FC14).
>>
>> Entered two additional characters which resulted in "purple Very strong."
>>
>> Chose
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Larry Vaden wrote:
> When entering password, chosen password did not result in good rating
> (vs. it does in FC14).
>
> Entered two additional characters which resulted in "purple Very strong."
>
> Chose to hit backspace to make sure I knew what was in the field.
>
When entering password, chosen password did not result in good rating
(vs. it does in FC14).
Entered two additional characters which resulted in "purple Very strong."
Chose to hit backspace to make sure I knew what was in the field.
System hung. Mouse moves as expected but neither mouse clicks n
Compose started at Sat Feb 26 13:15:37 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
Io-language-extras-20080330-4.fc15.x86_64 requires
libevent-1.4.so.2()(64bit)
balsa-2.4.9-3.fc15.x86_64 requires libgtkhtml-3.15.so.19()(64bit)
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> I would test with 1GB of memory for the current installs.
OK, memory is now 1GB of ECC, selected option to upgrade F14; next error is:
"There was an error running your transaction for the following
reason(s): required package, pac
> >
> > This is probably a bad question because I think I know the answer
> already,
> > will gnome*2.91.90* make it into F15 Alpha Release???
> >
>
and comparing it with the list from Gnome, I would say not exactly.
>
The release numbers all look like they were frozen right before hand.
> My guess
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 15:47, Larry Vaden wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> How much ram do you have. I think at the moment for F-15 you need at
>> least 768Mb due to an anaconda bug.
>
> 512 MB ECC. If this report is redundant, it can be disregarded;
> otoh,
Dear Stephen:
Thank you so much for the response! I had figured as much...
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 15:12, Rob Healey wrote:
> > Greetings:
> >
> > This is probably a bad question because I think I know the answer
> already,
> > wi
On Sat, 2011-02-26 at 12:38 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> Starting with the current F14 deltarpm src rpm, I used rpmbuild to build
> binary
> rpms that use the new F15 xz compression. These have the same EVR as the
> standard F14 binary rpms but require liblzma.so.5 instead of liblzma.so.0. In
>
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 15:12, Rob Healey wrote:
> Greetings:
>
> This is probably a bad question because I think I know the answer already,
> will gnome*2.91.90* make it into F15 Alpha Release???
>
Well lets see what is in the tree at the moment:
http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/dev
Install menu times out, proceeds to crash, presumably because of the
anaconda situation mention earlier on this list on machines with < 768
MB RAM.
Changing to a PS2 style keyboard on the Dell 340 results in expected
operation save the crash.
regards/va...@texoma.net
--
test mailing list
test@li
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 4:39 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> How much ram do you have. I think at the moment for F-15 you need at
> least 768Mb due to an anaconda bug.
512 MB ECC. If this report is redundant, it can be disregarded;
otoh, if needed, we can probably find another Dell 340 and increas
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Larry Vaden wrote:
> F-15 fails to install on Dell 340, but F-14 installs OK.
>
> F-15 issues "trying to unpack rootfs image", then scrolls screen into
> traceback or other info. Scroll Lock doesn't stop the scroll.
>
> Last message is
>
> [5718173 ] [] ? kernel-
F-15 fails to install on Dell 340, but F-14 installs OK.
F-15 issues "trying to unpack rootfs image", then scrolls screen into
traceback or other info. Scroll Lock doesn't stop the scroll.
Last message is
[5718173 ] [] ? kernel-thread-helper+0x6/0x10
If someone knows where the hardware profile
Greetings:
This is probably a bad question because I think I know the answer already,
will gnome*2.91.90* make it into F15 Alpha Release???
--
Sincerely yours,
Rob G. Healey
"Always surround yourself with people that inspire you to
greatness!"
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
Dear Chris and Bruce:
> Greetings All:
>
> I would appreciate if anyone can answer this either to the list or
directly
> to me???
>
> I must ask again, please, is fc15 updates-testing gnome*2.91.90* or
rawhide/
> fc16 stable enough with gnome-shell to update to either one???
>
> I have loaded and
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 09:54:50 -0800,
Rob Healey wrote:
>
> I must ask again, please, is fc15 updates-testing gnome*2.91.90* or rawhide/
> fc16 stable enough with gnome-shell to update to either one???
Maybe. gdm just got a widget that allows picking a desktop. F15 RC2 was just
built and is
On 02/26/2011 12:54 PM, Rob Healey wrote:
> Greetings All:
>
> I would appreciate if anyone can answer this either to the list or directly
> to me???
>
> I must ask again, please, is fc15 updates-testing gnome*2.91.90* or rawhide/
> fc16 stable enough with gnome-shell to update to either one???
>
>
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Rob Healey wrote:
> Greetings All:
>
> I would appreciate if anyone can answer this either to the list or directly
> to me???
>
> I must ask again, please, is fc15 updates-testing gnome*2.91.90* or
> rawhide/ fc16 stable enough with gnome-shell to update to eithe
Greetings All:
I would appreciate if anyone can answer this either to the list or directly
to me???
I must ask again, please, is fc15 updates-testing gnome*2.91.90* or rawhide/
fc16 stable enough with gnome-shell to update to either one???
I have loaded and blown up my computer too many times ov
Starting with the current F14 deltarpm src rpm, I used rpmbuild to build binary
rpms that use the new F15 xz compression. These have the same EVR as the
standard F14 binary rpms but require liblzma.so.5 instead of liblzma.so.0. In a
yum shell transaction which includes the reinstall command to swit
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
Still broken compared with F-15+updates:
110 builds
Fixed packages compared with F-15+updates:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
Broken packages in F-13 + Updates (src.rpm names):
almanah
fawkes
gmpc
gxneur
intell
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
Broken packages in F-14 + Updates (src.rpm names):
389-ds-base
dmapd
gdb-heap
gxneur
35 matches
Mail list logo
