> this thread is from this week ! on epel-devel Mailing list
>
> Requesting missing devel packages: How to request one be put in RHEL 8
> CRB
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/epel-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/BHWKB477QSU6QBMPVR4SWMHODB7UIDLB/
This is unrelated to this
On Tue, 2021-06-29 at 18:19 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 18:06, Sérgio Basto a écrit
> :
> >
> > On Tue, 2021-06-29 at 17:56 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> > > Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 17:06, Andrew Bauer a
> > > écrit
> > > :
> > > >
> > > > commit
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 4:19 PM Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
>
> Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 18:06, Sérgio Basto a écrit :
> > Only epel 8 is missing but we could ask for it .
> No we can't (at least not easily).
Well, technically, the asking is easy :-)
> As the lame package is in RHEL but
> only the
] Update to latest fixes/31 Don't require lame binary on el8
Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 18:06, Sérgio Basto a écrit :
>
> On Tue, 2021-06-29 at 17:56 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> > Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 17:06, Andrew Bauer a écrit
> > :
> > >
> > > commit 10ea
Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 18:06, Sérgio Basto a écrit :
>
> On Tue, 2021-06-29 at 17:56 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> > Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 17:06, Andrew Bauer a écrit
> > :
> > >
> > > commit 10eafa1c47f7500a320ff2b1382f491a2cbd9f64
> > > Author: Andrew Bauer
> > > Date: Tue Jun 29
On Tue, 2021-06-29 at 17:56 +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 17:06, Andrew Bauer a écrit
> :
> >
> > commit 10eafa1c47f7500a320ff2b1382f491a2cbd9f64
> > Author: Andrew Bauer
> > Date: Tue Jun 29 10:04:53 2021 -0500
> >
> > Update to latest fixes/31
> > Don't
Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 17:56, Nicolas Chauvet a écrit :
>
> Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 17:06, Andrew Bauer a écrit :
> >
> > commit 10eafa1c47f7500a320ff2b1382f491a2cbd9f64
> > Author: Andrew Bauer
> > Date: Tue Jun 29 10:04:53 2021 -0500
> >
> > Update to latest fixes/31
> > Don't
Le mar. 29 juin 2021 à 17:06, Andrew Bauer a écrit :
>
> commit 10eafa1c47f7500a320ff2b1382f491a2cbd9f64
> Author: Andrew Bauer
> Date: Tue Jun 29 10:04:53 2021 -0500
>
> Update to latest fixes/31
> Don't require lame binary on el8
Thanks for forwarding the patches into branches.
Btw
On Tue, 2021-03-02 at 02:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler via rpmfusion-
developers wrote:
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > no, no, no :D , the text says "allows people to use standard tools
> to
>
> > visualize" (the patches) , sending a 28K file or even more (as you
>
> > suggest) in email just allow people
Le lun. 1 mars 2021 à 17:41, Sérgio Basto a écrit :
>
> On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 03:36 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 2:05 AM Sérgio Basto
> > wrote:
> >
> > > [1]
> > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_applying_patches
...
> Also if you can
On Mon, 2021-03-01 at 03:36 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 2:05 AM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
>
> > [1]
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_applying_patches
>
> Thank you for confirming that the current practice
> (patches in dist-git) is an
On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 2:05 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> [1]
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_applying_patches
Thank you for confirming that the current practice
(patches in dist-git) is an approved one (in fact even
the default one), and while one MAY choose to do
On Sun, 2021-02-28 at 13:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler via rpmfusion-
developers wrote:
> Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Maybe we should change the guidelines. This is common sense . Why
> you
> > want receive a patch with 28k , you going to read it ? or just to
> > fulfill the guideline .
>
> Then maybe the
The way the specfile pulls in the latest git commit as a patch against the
release tarball is new to me. I interpretated that workflow to mean those
before me thought it was important to document all the commits that were made.
That's why I did not add the patch as a rfpkg source and instead
Le dim. 28 févr. 2021 à 08:08, Gary Buhrmaster
a écrit :
>
> On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 4:14 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
>
> > Maybe we should change the guidelines.
>
> I suspect your formal proposal will generate some
> interesting discussion.
I think it will be even more relevant to compress (gz,
On Sun, Feb 28, 2021 at 4:14 AM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Maybe we should change the guidelines.
I suspect your formal proposal will generate some
interesting discussion.
___
rpmfusion-developers mailing list -- rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
To
On Sat, 2021-02-27 at 23:30 +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:49 PM Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
>
> > IMHO, Please use `rfpkg new-sources v31.0..b6ddf202a4.patch` to
> > avoid
> > at least send 28K bytes of text in email
>
> I'll point out that having the patch files included
On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:49 PM Sérgio Basto wrote:
> IMHO, Please use `rfpkg new-sources v31.0..b6ddf202a4.patch` to avoid
> at least send 28K bytes of text in email
I'll point out that having the patch files included
this way (and in the emails) has been standard
procedure for quite some
--- Begin Message ---
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> IMHO, Please use `rfpkg new-sources v31.0..b6ddf202a4.patch` to avoid
> at least send 28K bytes of text in email, btw sometimes it breaks my
> gnome evolution
IMHO, patches normally do not belong in the lookaside cache. They are text
files, can be
26, 2021 5:39 PM
To: rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
; mythtv-ow...@rpmfusion.org
; rpmfusion-comm...@lists.rpmfusion.org
Subject: Re: [mythtv] Update to latest fixes/31.
On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 21:49 +0100, Andrew Bauer wrote:
> commit a754140ac1e6b1c4100a29b2bc7437a0339c49b0
>
On Fri, 2021-02-26 at 21:49 +0100, Andrew Bauer wrote:
> commit a754140ac1e6b1c4100a29b2bc7437a0339c49b0
> Author: Andrew Bauer
> Date: Fri Feb 26 14:48:19 2021 -0600
>
> Update to latest fixes/31.
>
> mythtv.spec |13 +-
> sources | 3 +-
>
21 matches
Mail list logo
