Hi,
Epson distributes two drivers for its printers, espcr, and espcr2. espcr
is happily packaged in Fedora, however, newer printers seem to become
supported in espcr2.
The problem with espcr2 is that it is missing source code for an
internal library -- escprlib. escprlib is distributed as
On 07/10/2013 07:53 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jul, 2013 at 04:35:58 GMT, Alex G. wrote:
We shouldn't be surprised that update descriptions are crap. They are
just an annoyance for a lot of us, especially since we've put all that
information in a bunch of other places.
Where else
On 07/03/2013 03:23 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 07/03/2013 09:59 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
On 07/03/2013 07:42 AM, Alex G. wrote:
On 07/02/2013 08:28 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
Not d/l speed related. I just want to share. I update a very fast 8
core
server, with a conventional disk drive
On 07/01/2013 01:25 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On 2013-07-01 1:28, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Since this topic comes up every few months, and no one's pointed
out the obvious answer yet, I'll say it:
* Instead of making up more rules, make the tooling better so
we don't have to repeat update
On 07/01/2013 02:43 PM, Johannes Lips wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Since this topic comes up every few months, and no one's pointed
out the obvious answer yet, I'll say it:
* Instead of making up more rules, make the tooling better so
we don't have to repeat update descriptions in
On 07/02/2013 08:28 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
Not d/l speed related. I just want to share. I update a very fast 8 core
server, with a conventional disk drive. Took 2-3 hours, not including d/l.
I update my laptop which has an ssd (and MORE packages). Took 10-15 minutes.
I think this might
On 07/03/2013 12:15 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On 2013-07-02 21:42, Alex G. wrote:
On 07/02/2013 08:28 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
Not d/l speed related. I just want to share. I update a very fast 8
core
server, with a conventional disk drive. Took 2-3 hours, not
including d/l.
I update my
Hi,
I am working on a review
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=924310), and I found the
use some unowned dirs. This would be OK, but it's not an isolated
problem. It turns out a few packages already in Fedora use unowned dirs.
$ yum provides /usr/share/mate/*
On 05/09/2013 09:46 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Hello,
I'm looking for a packager to swap a review of
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=960771 with.
Me! Me! Me!! :P
I'll take it in exchange for
(fx2lafw) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922246
Alex
--
devel mailing list
On 05/09/2013 02:06 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi Wolfgang,
They were already asigned but the reviewer told me that he has any
time to review them, so i reset them to sero.
It would be very nice if someone has the time and motivation to review
them.
The usual way to deal with this is to ask
On 05/05/2013 02:45 AM, Alex G. wrote:
Hi,
Billy Mays here with a special ml offer:
I have 4 packages I'd like to get in before the Release of F19. For each of
these
slots, I'm offering to review a package of your choosing.
But wait, there's more! Choose your slot within 72 hours, and I
There's only one slot left! Only one! Oh n! Grab it before it's gone!
(fx2lafw)https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922246
Alex (under mentorship from ghost of Billy Mays)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 05/06/2013 02:49 PM, Eugene Pivnev wrote:
Thanks.
Ok.
06.05.2013 23:44, Sandro Mani:
On 06.05.2013 21:33, Eugene Pivnev wrote:
2 (two) trivial qt-based applicaions for sale:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957333 - QuiteRSS - RSS/Atom
aggregator
On 05/06/2013 10:17 PM, Alex G. wrote:
And I'll take QuiteRSS in exchange for:
(fx2lafw)https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922246
OOPS. I see it's already taken.
Alex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hi,
I have 4 packages I'd like to get in before the Release of F19. For each of
these
slots, I'm offering to review a package of your choosing.
But wait, there's more! Choose your slot within 72 hours, and I will add, free
of
charge, a smiley face to the review of your package.
Supplies are
On 05/05/2013 12:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2013-05-05 at 02:45 -0500, Alex G. wrote:
Hi,
I have 4 packages I'd like to get in before the Release of F19. For each of
these
slots, I'm offering to review a package of your choosing.
But wait, there's more! Choose your slot within
On 04/20/2013 10:39 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On 19/04/13 09:44 PM, Alex G. wrote:
I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the discussion is
circular.
Sorry, not within this thread - but any discussion vaguely in this area
inevitably winds up with someone suggesting that RPM
On 04/15/2013 05:30 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
Is there any guidance as when to trim %changelog down to size? Some
packages have thousands of lines of spec file dating back over 15
years which seem kinda redundant now we're using git.
I've always seen the %changelog as a relic from times when
On 04/19/2013 09:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On 19/04/13 06:16 PM, Alex G. wrote:
On 04/15/2013 05:30 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
Is there any guidance as when to trim %changelog down to size? Some
packages have thousands of lines of spec file dating back over 15
years which seem kinda
19 matches
Mail list logo
