On 08/28/15 18:45, Joachim Backes wrote:
> On 28.08.2015 12:30, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 08/28/15 18:15, Joachim Backes wrote:
>>> it seems that the updates-testing mirror repos are actually
>>> unresponsive! Anybody sees this too?
>>
>> No
>
> Hi Ed,
>
> I try to update my f22 box with enabling
On 28.08.2015 12:30, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 08/28/15 18:15, Joachim Backes wrote:
it seems that the updates-testing mirror repos are actually
unresponsive! Anybody sees this too?
No
Hi Ed,
I try to update my f22 box with enabling updates-testing repo using dnf,
it hangs up after reportin
On 08/28/15 18:15, Joachim Backes wrote:
> it seems that the updates-testing mirror repos are actually
> unresponsive! Anybody sees this too?
No
egreshko@f22k ~]$ dnf --refresh --enablerepo updates-testing --disablerepo
rpmfu* check-update
vivaldi3
On Dec 21, 2013, at 6:59 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> I had a working UEFI Fedora 20 all on Btrfs 'infrastructure' (minimal install
> plus docs and a few additional services basically). Everything was up to date
> and working. I enabled updates-testing and did a yum update, a kernel update
> was
On 10/10/2011 01:30 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>> I find that I now ignore this report since it doesn't indicate the
>> package name. Too many entries to chase down via clicking thru. Not
>> sure of the reason for the change, the old format seems, to me at least,
>> better.
>>
>
> I am, of cours
On 10/10/2011 01:27 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> On 10/09/2011 10:35 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
>>The email now says things like:
>>
>> The following Fedora 15 Security updates need testing:
>>
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-13785
>>
>>instead of
>>
>>
On 10/09/2011 10:35 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> The email now says things like:
>
>The following Fedora 15 Security updates need testing:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-13785
>
> instead of
>
> rpm-4.9.1.2-1.fc15 critical path security update
>
>
>
>
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 10/09/2011 11:39 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
>>
>> Or as intended, because the older reports became less readable due to
>> updates containing N>1 packages. Also see
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103410.
On 10/09/2011 11:39 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> Or as intended, because the older reports became less readable due to
> updates containing N>1 packages. Also see
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-October/103410.html
> which sums it up.
Says someone else doesn't like the
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 10:35:43 -0400, GM (Genes) wrote:
>
> The email now says things like:
>
> The following Fedora 15 Security updates need testing:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-13785
>
> instead of
>
> rpm-4.9.1.2-1.fc15 critical path security update
>
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 17:43:40 +,
Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 05/12/10 17:35, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 17:34:33 +,
> >Frank Murphy wrote:
> >> Are packages from updates-testing meant to be signed?
> >> Whether from FN, FN-1.
> >
> > Yes.
>
> How does one wo
On 05/12/10 17:35, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 17:34:33 +,
>Frank Murphy wrote:
>> Are packages from updates-testing meant to be signed?
>> Whether from FN, FN-1.
>
> Yes.
How does one work in an unsigned pks, when using fedora-easy-karma
or would unsigned be ignored
On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 17:34:33 +,
Frank Murphy wrote:
> Are packages from updates-testing meant to be signed?
> Whether from FN, FN-1.
Yes.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
13 matches
Mail list logo
