The following Fedora 14 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/moodle-1.9.14-1.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hardlink-1.0-12.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freetype-2.4.2-6.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xml
The following Fedora 15 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/moodle-1.9.14-1.fc15
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freetype-2.4.4-6.fc15
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hardlink-1.0-12.fc15
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ope
Sorry (about the lack of clarification, *and* for top-posting - on a sucky
client) -
I was going for brevity, and mistakenly thought that the policies/requirements
for each election was on the main election page and/or each nomination page -
and it's not, which should also be corrected.
-Robyn
On Fri, Nov 04, 2011 at 08:16:57 -0700,
Robyn Bergeron wrote:
>
> Full information about the elections, including the elections schedule,
> and links to where one may nominate, can be seen here:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections
This misses an important link. FESCO has their policy f
The following Fedora 16 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/moodle-2.0.5-1.fc16
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/hardlink-1.0-12.fc16
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/openswan-2.6.37-1.fc16
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/php
I am running Thunderbird 7.01 on 64 bit Fedora 16 RC5.
I tried installing the "undigestfy" plug-in but it complains
the Fedora test list digest is in an improper format.
So how do I reply in thread?
--
Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R c...@omen.com www.omen.com
Developer of Industrial ZMODEM(T
On 11/05/2011 09:32 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
>> The release notes say:
>> "Upgrades from earlier Fedora releases will keep their configuration,
>> starting user accounts from 500."
>> Might be worth noting that that only user accounts starting at 1000
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 08:45 -0400, Gilles J. Seguin wrote:
> That is confusing
>
> Subject: Fedora 15 updates-testing report
> Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2011 00:23:39 + (11/02/2011 08:23:39 PM)
> The following Fedora 15 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved:
> https://admin.fedora
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 3:22 AM, Per Bothner wrote:
> The release notes say:
> "Upgrades from earlier Fedora releases will keep their configuration,
> starting user accounts from 500."
> Might be worth noting that that only user accounts starting at 1000 with
> be listed in the login screen,
> even
On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 10:59 -0400, John Dulaney wrote:
>
> > My question is. Since Fedora 16 RC5 was declared good does that mean
> > that the ISO that will be released Nov 8 be a renamed RC5? Are
> they/will
> > they be the same ISO?
> Basically, yes. There will be some renaming and suchlike,
On Sat, 2011-11-05 at 08:34 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:
> Where would that be? I think it disappeared when the installer
> exited without actually doing anything.
You'd have to re-do the test, and when you reach the point where you
can't continue because you have nowhere to put the
On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R
wrote:
> Where would that be? I think it disappeared when the installer
> exited without actually doing anything.
STOP CREATING NEW THREADS FOR EVERY MAIL YOU SEND.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
ht
On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 15:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 14:54 -0700, Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX N2469R wrote:
> > Here is the anaconda storage log from the successful install
> > with the loader going to the 2 TB drive not the 3 TB.
>
> I think the log from the fail case (no 2
On 11/5/2011 10:59 AM, John Dulaney wrote:
>> Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 10:40:19 -0400
>> From: dgbo...@gmail.com
>> To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
>> Subject: Does RC5 - Fedora 16 gold?
>>
>> My question is. Since Fedora 16 RC5 was declared good does that mean
>> that the ISO that will be released N
Where would that be? I think it disappeared when the installer
exited without actually doing anything.
On 11/05/2011 05:00 AM, test-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote:
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 15:35:27 -070
> Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2011 10:40:19 -0400
> From: dgbo...@gmail.com
> To: test@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Subject: Does RC5 - Fedora 16 gold?
>
> My question is. Since Fedora 16 RC5 was declared good does that mean
> that the ISO that will be released Nov 8 be a renamed RC5? Are they/will
> they be t
My question is. Since Fedora 16 RC5 was declared good does that mean
that the ISO that will be released Nov 8 be a renamed RC5? Are they/will
they be the same ISO?
--
David
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On Sat, Nov 05, 2011 at 09:02:20 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I noticed that the path to f16 updates changed last night. There is now
> an f16-updates directory under 16 that wasn't there before. Is this
> intentional?
> There was not an equivalent change for updates-testing.
Apparently this
I noticed that the path to f16 updates changed last night. There is now
an f16-updates directory under 16 that wasn't there before. Is this
intentional?
There was not an equivalent change for updates-testing.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedorapr
Compose started at Sat Nov 5 08:15:12 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
4ti2-1.3.2-7.fc17.1.x86_64 requires libgmp.so.3()(64bit)
1:anerley-0.3.0-5.fc17.i686 requires libedataserver-1.2.so.15
1:anerley-0.3.0-5.fc17.i6
20 matches
Mail list logo
