On 10/06/2013 07:01 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/06/2013 04:06 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
fakeroot
I don't understand this.
With f20/rawhide as of yesterday, fakeroot in f20 and rawhide were
identical, because fakeroot was built before f20 was branched:
./development/rawhide/source/SRPMS/f/fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc20.src.rpm
./development/rawhide/x86_64/os/Packages/f/fakeroot-libs-1.18.4-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
./development/rawhide/x86_64/os/Packages/f/fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
./development/rawhide/i386/os/Packages/f/fakeroot-libs-1.18.4-1.fc20.i686.rpm
./development/rawhide/i386/os/Packages/f/fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc20.i686.rpm
./development/20/source/SRPMS/f/fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc20.src.rpm
./development/20/x86_64/os/Packages/f/fakeroot-libs-1.18.4-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
./development/20/x86_64/os/Packages/f/fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
./development/20/i386/os/Packages/f/fakeroot-libs-1.18.4-1.fc20.i686.rpm
./development/20/i386/os/Packages/f/fakeroot-1.18.4-1.fc20.i686.rpm
I now see ... the version in f19 was greater than that in f20+rawhide,
for whatever reasons.
Actually, I wonder why AutoQA did not complain.
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
