On 01/03/10 00:06, Kevin Kofler wrote:
(Sorry, I reordered the replies a bit so I can reply to them without
referring back and forth.)
It's also called political licence
Frank Murphy wrote:
On 02/27/2010 04:30 PM, Mail Lists wrote:
an
1:
I do want updates. Kernel updates, for
On Friday 26 February 2010 16:22:37 Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Maybe some package rating included in PackageKit would be nice - for
stable packages it's indicator that this package is worth to install, for
testing package it would mean it's working (but again - who's going
On 3/1/2010 10:44 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
One problem of updates-testing is - it takes so much time to be pushed and
then mirrored. More rawhide approach should be used here. Users who are really
interested in testing usually downloads from Koji directly.
It is not so simple. When I am
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Config-Any/F-13
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv26990
Modified Files:
perl-Config-Any.spec sources
Log Message:
* Mon Mar 01 2010 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.19-1
- update by Fedora::App::MaintainerTools 0.004
-
Le Dim 28 février 2010 17:24, Adam Williamson a écrit :
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 11:43 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
There are things only packagers can fix. Everything else should be
handled by tools so packagers can focus on the parts where they add real
value. If a process change puts more
James Antill wrote:
Mike didn't say that, Mike said that if a user was intentionally not
updating to Fedora 12 due to the newer KDE ... you've just removed that
choice from them. And for no real gain, as anyone who wanted to the KDE
update could easily move to Fedora 12 to get it.
That
Frank Murphy wrote:
It's also called political licence
No, it's not really the same thing. ;-)
I didn't try to distort your viewpoint, just highlight the contradictions.
But this time I'm replying in order. :-)
If you mean these points from Mail Lists then yes.
Yes, that's what I mean.
Alexander Boström wrote:
It could install a file in /etc/foo.d that causes something that
loads /etc/foo.d/* to break.
That's not automatic breakage, you'd still have to install the package (or
get it installed through one of the already discussed mechanisms: Obsoletes,
Provides collision,
On 01/03/10 11:17, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Frank Murphy wrote:
It's also called political licence
No, it's not really the same thing. ;-)
I didn't try to distort your viewpoint, just highlight the contradictions.
But this time I'm replying in order. :-)
If you mean these points from Mail
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 11:47 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jon Masters wrote:
One thing I would suggest being considered in an alternative proposal is
a compromise policy for specific stacks or non-critical path packages.
For example, if the standard policy affecting me as a GNOME user is that
Compose started at Mon Mar 1 08:15:14 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires libboost_serialization-mt.so.5
tl;dr version: Empower, rather than restrict, maintainers. Encourage
them to test by increasing test accuracy, coverage, unique
configurations, and visibility.
I don't think FESCo wishes to destroy the freedom of package
maintainers. I also don't think package maintainers want to release
broken
Hello,
I'd like to ask on your opinion on dual lived modules in
our distro. I knew that Mandriva has the main perl package
and also provide rpms of sub-packages, which are easier to
update. They are using patch that allows them override the
core modules. Also debian has perl core and sub-packages
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 15:49 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
On 02/28/2010 03:39 PM, Henrique Junior wrote:
As Chen Lei said, the fact that JOGL needs this code may mean that it
will be blocked forever for packaging, but I do not particularly see a
big problem.
For more details, please, read
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:57:06PM +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
see bug footer - This is autogenerated bugzilla, I'm sorry if the problem is
already fixed or reported. Additionally I apologize if that directory
ownership
was requested earlier by some bugzilla (some directories were
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
problem (e.g. a policy discouraging direct stable pushes for some specific
types of
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:48:15PM +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Aaron Faanes dafr...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree to almost everything you wrote.
snip
- Allow maintainers to see number of downloads by users who have
opted-in to share that data. If not number,
Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to writes:
A couple of problems. Which packages are downloaded from mirrors is not
currently available to Fedora. [...]
Would it be crazy to reorganize the mirror system in such a way that
normally download http requests come to fedoraproject.org, but are
redirected
Whilst cleaning up some recently adopted orphans, I discovered that
perl-Nmap-Parser has been tagged with the wrong license since August
2008. Upstream changed the license from GPLv2+ to MIT sometime back in
2007 and I've just corrected it in rawhide (and will do on all
branches too in the near
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 02:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Jackson wrote:
By my count, that's three misrepresentations in one paragraph. I
certainly hope they were not deliberate.
I'm not deliberately misrepresenting anything or anyone, I just stated my
perception of the facts. It may
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
problem
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:57:11PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:48:15PM +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Aaron Faanes dafr...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree to
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Iain Arnell wrote:
Whilst cleaning up some recently adopted orphans, I discovered that
perl-Nmap-Parser has been tagged with the wrong license since August
2008. Upstream changed the license from GPLv2+ to MIT sometime back in
2007 and I've just corrected it in rawhide
On 03/01/2010 11:48 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Iain Arnell wrote:
Whilst cleaning up some recently adopted orphans, I discovered that
perl-Nmap-Parser has been tagged with the wrong license since August
2008. Upstream changed the license from GPLv2+ to MIT sometime back in
On 02/26/2010 08:55 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
That would be a ridiculous decision. It would be much better to disable
that feature only for those update submitters who really have been
dilettantish enough to use it inappropriately more than once.
Yeah, that's a good
On 03/01/2010 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
If you think this isn't the right way
to provide a safety net for package maintainers - what is?
With the understanding that you're not specifically asking me that
question, I'd say that I'd prefer to first try to automate checks for
the most frequent
This is off topic, but important to open software developers supporters
Brazil may be punished because government supports free software...
IIPA is willing to put Brazil in the black list of copyrights because
Federal State governments support free software. According to IIPA, by
supporting
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto wrote:
This is off topic, but important to open software developers supporters
Yes - this is definitely off-topic. Please do not continue this thread.
Thank You.
-sv
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 03/01/2010 05:52 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 02/26/2010 08:55 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
That would be a ridiculous decision. It would be much better to disable
that feature only for those update submitters who really have been
dilettantish enough to use it
On 03/01/2010 11:57 AM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 03/01/2010 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
If you think this isn't the right way
to provide a safety net for package maintainers - what is?
With the understanding that you're not specifically asking me that
question, I'd say that I'd prefer
Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com writes:
[...] You weren't elected FESCo Monitor; the guy who comes and
tells the mailing list whenever FESCo is discussing something you
think is scary. [...]
One need not be elected to do that. Anyone reading the public
fesco irc logs may do the same without
Compose started at Mon Mar 1 09:15:14 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
anaconda-13.32-1.fc13.i686 requires python-urlgrabber = 0:3.9.1-5
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686
On 03/01/2010 12:52 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com writes:
[...] You weren't elected FESCo Monitor; the guy who comes and
tells the mailing list whenever FESCo is discussing something you
think is scary. [...]
One need not be elected to do that. Anyone reading
On 03/01/2010 12:48 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
I'd also like a policy in place to help us avoid situations like the
recent dnssec unpleasantness.
Sure. I'm just not at all convinced that if those packages had sit in
testing for $ARBITRARY_PERIOD_OF_TIME that they would have been tested
and fixed.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Please rev perl-RRD-Simple to latest release
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569568
Summary: Please rev perl-RRD-Simple to latest release
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Will Woods wrote:
* Has ABI/API change (and is a Critical Path package)
This should be handled by the current rpmguard test:
https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/wiki/rpmguard
since changing the ABI/API should generally change the soname/version,
thus changing the package
Thankyou for starting all this hard work with the certainty that it *will*
be blamed by some people.
As an end User I extremely like that Fedora does not ban newer packages from
Stable releases.
At the same time I can see how direct pushes can sometimes create unforseen
bugs.
I however do not
For anyone who wants to attempt this, there is a very basic and
seemingly abandonded popcon for rpm written in perl for opensuse at:
http://gitorious.org/opensuse/popcorn
(although gitorious.org seems down right now from here).
I agree with Mike that you would really need to figure out a
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:59:40 -0500 (EST)
Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com wrote:
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
A quicker way of seeing if a bug report was alread made, and more
quickly being able to report bugs then spending 15-30 with bugzilla
would help me in reporting more
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 13:01 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 03/01/2010 12:48 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
I'd also like a policy in place to help us avoid situations like the
recent dnssec unpleasantness.
Sure. I'm just not at all convinced that if those packages had sit in
testing for
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:30:18PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Will Woods wrote:
So I think it would be shortsighted for FESCo to refuse to even discuss
a policy about what manual testing is currently required, since any plan
for improving the quality of the
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:11:20 -0600 (CST)
Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 03/01/2010 12:48 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
I'd also like a policy in place to help us avoid situations like
the recent dnssec unpleasantness.
Sure. I'm just
Currently I am following F13 and I have been noticing a lot of packages
disappearing from updates-testing before showing up in the branched release
(but similar things happen with normal updates, just less often).
When things disappear from updates-testing it isn't immediately obvious
if this is
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:45:12 +0100
Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:17:43 -0800, Adam wrote:
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 20:18 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Three times Could. Let's talk about it when you know something
definite, please, but before it
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:30:18PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Will Woods wrote:
So I think it would be shortsighted for FESCo to refuse to even discuss
a policy about what manual testing is currently required, since any plan
for
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 13:16:09 -0500,
Will Woods wwo...@redhat.com wrote:
That's an interesting test case, actually. I'm not sure we currently
check packages against the corresponding versions *other* releases.
You'd want to also check obsoltess.
Packages that are dropped without be
Hi all!
My username on my private pc is josephine, my username on my
workstation is josephine.tannhauser, but my fas-username is tannhauser.
how can I use fedora-cvs on these machines? It seems that fedora-cvs
want to use the local username. How can I change this behavior with
editing a
On 03/01/2010 11:05 AM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
Hi all!
My username on my private pc is josephine, my username on my
workstation is josephine.tannhauser, but my fas-username is tannhauser.
how can I use fedora-cvs on these machines? It seems that fedora-cvs
want to use the local
Tom spot Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) said:
* Causes broken deps
* Breaks clean upgrade path between releases
* Has ABI/API change (and is a Critical Path package)
Actually, I'd say that any ABI change should block a stable push until it's
fixed, period - critical path or not.
If someone
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said:
For most bugfixes, the user doesn't notice at all. When a user gets a
bugfix on something they've hit, they think oh, that's nice, Fedora fixed
it, but they don't really care whether it cam Monday or
On 03/01/2010 11:46 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
One thing to consider: while from a psychological standpoint, a regression
is indeed perceived as much worse than an unfixed bug, from a technical /
practical standpoint it's actually the smaller issue: you can rollback to
the version of the package
mån 2010-03-01 klockan 20:13 +0100 skrev Till Maas:
But I wonder, how do you access CVS without this?
You shouldn't need it. What happens if you don't have it?
CVS records the root location in the checked out copy, so you only need
to supply a CVS root when doing cvs checkout and even then
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 09:09:08PM +0100, Alexander Boström wrote:
mån 2010-03-01 klockan 20:13 +0100 skrev Till Maas:
But I wonder, how do you access CVS without this?
You shouldn't need it. What happens if you don't have it?
It still seems to work. :-)
CVS records the root location
James Antill wrote:
The current state of play is (taking a random kde example):
kdeutils F11 GA 4.2.2-4.fc11
kdeutils F11 Updates 4.4.0-1.fc11
kdeutils F12 GA 4.3.2-1.fc12
kdeutils F12 Updates 4.4.0-1.fc12
...so if someone tries to update from F11 (with updates) using an F12 GA
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 20:00UTC (3pm EST) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
Followups:
None.
New Business:
#343 cloture rule/procedure for fesco meetings
#344 Policy proposal: contributing to Fedora should be FUN
Fedora
Kevin Kofler wrote:
1. upgrades which disrupt, regress or break things. Those can only be
pushed to Rawhide, if at all.
Such as KDE 4.4, just to pick a recent example. I had to log out and log in
again before I could start Kmail again. That can be quite disruptive if I have
long-running
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 12:06 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
But for rolling back an update, yum requires that the old package is
still available. We only keep the very latest version in the updates,
so unless your previous version was from the initial release, you're out
of luck. My last
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, James Antill wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 12:06 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
But for rolling back an update, yum requires that the old package is
still available. We only keep the very latest version in the updates,
so unless your previous version was from the initial
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Seth Vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
Given that we don't provide an easily accessible user-friendly rollback
mechanism, I don't know that that's actually applicable to the general case,
though.
yum history undo works pretty well. Not
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Data-JavaScript:
14a2e422d2a22d34749e762614b4736f Data-JavaScript-1.13.tgz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:29:21 +0100
Thomas Spura spur...@students.uni-mainz.de wrote:
Is it allowed to create a file ~/.mpd.conf, when building in koji and
deleting afterwards?
I need to write down a password into that file, for running a
testsuite. If that file does not exist, I can't run
Björn Persson wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
1. upgrades which disrupt, regress or break things. Those can only be
pushed to Rawhide, if at all.
Such as KDE 4.4, just to pick a recent example. I had to log out and log in
again before I could start Kmail again. That can be quite disruptive if I
On 02/26/2010 08:00 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 01:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Bill Nottingham wrote:
While the ethos as defined on the wiki mentions staying close to upstream
and getting the latest software, there's nothing that says that it's done
via updates. I would
On 02/26/2010 08:52 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Jackson wrote:
By my count, that's three misrepresentations in one paragraph. I
certainly hope they were not deliberate.
I'm not deliberately misrepresenting anything or anyone, I just stated my
perception of the facts. It may well be that
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 16:51 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
To be pedantic, Fedora is what it is. What the leadership has to say
doesn't really matter in terms of what Fedora *is*, only in terms of
what Fedora is *supposed to be*. In order to know what Fedora really
is, a person would need to
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 10:16 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 2/27/2010 5:05 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Orion Poplawski wrote:
There is plenty of room for something in between your vision of Fedora
and CentOS.
But that room is filled by other distros, such as Ubuntu. Why do we
Am Montag, den 01.03.2010, 22:40 +0100 schrieb Hans Ulrich Niedermann:
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:29:21 +0100
Thomas Spura spur...@students.uni-mainz.de wrote:
Is it allowed to create a file ~/.mpd.conf, when building in koji and
deleting afterwards?
I need to write down a password into
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 09:44 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
One problem of updates-testing is - it takes so much time to be pushed and
then mirrored. More rawhide approach should be used here. Users who are
really
interested in testing usually downloads from Koji directly.
We do pushes
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 01:27 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
It seems like extra work for packagers, but in the end it kinda takes the
pressure off: you only *have* to ship the important fixes to /updates,
/backports is optional,
That's already a bad thing, users can no
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 08:07 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
So yeah, I agree it's not a perfect system - detailed suggestions for
improving it would be welcome, I'm sure.
Alternatives:
* Abandon it (I don't think this would change anything wrt. to QA in Fedora)
Um. Hard to put this
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 12:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
It doesn't take a mind reader to realize that an upstream BUGFIX release,
well, FIXES BUGS! ;-)
They also often shovel in entirely non-related changes on the basis that
they're perfectly obvious and trivial and simple changes that Can't
Split off from the stable pushes in Bodhi thread just because I'd like
to see it not get lost.
On 02/27/2010 11:35 AM, Mail Lists wrote:
On 02/27/2010 11:27 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 10:57 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Yeah, it's not perfect: there are cases where we
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 12:42 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Currently I am following F13 and I have been noticing a lot of packages
disappearing from updates-testing before showing up in the branched release
(but similar things happen with normal updates, just less often).
When things
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 11:57 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 03/01/2010 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
If you think this isn't the right way
to provide a safety net for package maintainers - what is?
With the understanding that you're not specifically asking me that
question, I'd say that
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 18:33 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Right now, the only proposal for doing so is to restrict what can be
released
without spending some time in testing.
The issues that at least I have been trying to point out:
* Is testing an adequate safety net?
* Is karma an
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567120
--- Comment #5 from Jose Pedro Oliveira j...@di.uminho.pt 2010-03-01 17:47:38
EST ---
Spot,
Could you build perl-Set-Scalar
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 00:58 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
1. upgrades which disrupt, regress or break things. Those can only be pushed
to Rawhide, if at all. (Sometimes it might be better to not push a change
even to Rawhide.)
2. upgrades which do none of the above. Those are what adds value to
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 16:16 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
in exchange for an arseload of diskspace.
just in the interest of complete disclosure. :)
Would that be 'an arseload of diskspace in /var, which everyone always
forgets to make big enough'?
:)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community
Doug Ledford wrote:
One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
simplistic for real use cases. Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there
should be:
Fixes my problem
Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
problem supposedly fixed by this update
On Monday, 01 March 2010 at 23:34, Doug Ledford wrote:
[...]
One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
simplistic for real use cases.
There's nothing to argue. It's rather obvious. :)
Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there should be:
Fixes my problem
Works for me
On Feb 26, 2010, at 11:11 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:36:31 -0600
BJ Dierkes wdier...@5dollarwhitebox.org wrote:
Hello all,
I maintain Multi-Master Replication Manager for MySQL in both Fedora
and EPEL. With changes from 2.0.11 - 2.1.0 there was an
incompatible
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 14:27 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
* Replace it by a free text comment system
Well, right now you have the choice of looking at the numbers or just
ignoring them and reading the text (whether to auto-push a release with
a given positive karma is a decision made by
On 03/01/2010 05:01 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 16:51 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
To be pedantic, Fedora is what it is. What the leadership has to say
doesn't really matter in terms of what Fedora *is*, only in terms of
what Fedora is *supposed to be*. In order to know what
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le lundi 01 mars 2010 à 14:46 -0500, Seth Vidal a écrit :
Given that we don't provide an easily accessible user-friendly rollback
mechanism, I don't know that that's actually applicable to the general case,
though.
yum history undo works pretty
On 10-03-01 15:06:21, Josh Stone wrote:
On 03/01/2010 11:46 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
...
yum history undo works pretty well. Not flawless, to be sure - but
it's not bad for the simple-ish cases.
...
But for rolling back an update, yum requires that the old package is
still available. We
Matthias Clasen wrote:
GNOME has bug-fix releases (e.g. 2.28.1, 2.28.2, etc) and we do package
those as updates for Fedora releases.
I know, but my question was, are there still any 2.28.x bugfix releases
after 2.30.0 gets released? (With KDE, there aren't, so it's either
upgrading or no more
Björn Persson wrote:
Such as KDE 4.4, just to pick a recent example. I had to log out and log
in again before I could start Kmail again.
That's normal and not considered disruptive.
That can be quite disruptive if I have long-running processes that
shouldn't be interrupted.
You should not
Jesse Keating wrote:
And without using some sort of repository for users to test things and
provide feedback, how do you propose we distinguish between the two sets
of updates there?
Hey, this is a strawman! I'm not saying updates-testing should go away. I'm
just saying there are valid
Jesse Keating wrote:
Ubuntu is not the first to pick up technology in their releases either.
They generally wait for Fedora to ship with it first and work out all
the kinks, then they snap it run with it. So I really don't buy the
but then we'd be Ubuntu argument, at all.
It's true that
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 17:34 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
simplistic for real use cases. Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there
should be:
Fixes my problem
Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Class-Method-Modifiers:
8f504d4a95b2994835fbe72a3790864e Class-Method-Modifiers-1.05.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Branch perl-Hash-Case for EPEL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569295
Summary: Branch perl-Hash-Case for EPEL
Product: Fedora
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569295
Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Release perl-Hash-Merge for EPEL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569300
Summary: Release perl-Hash-Merge for EPEL
Product: Fedora
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Branch perl-Config-IniHash for EPEL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569301
Summary: Branch perl-Config-IniHash for EPEL
Product: Fedora
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Class-Method-Modifiers/F-13
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv23983
Modified Files:
perl-Class-Method-Modifiers.spec sources
Log Message:
* Mon Mar 01 2010 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 1.05-1
- update by
Author: corsepiu
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Perl-MinimumVersion/F-13
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv30658
Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-Perl-MinimumVersion.spec sources
Log Message:
* Mon Mar 01 2010 Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org - 1.24-1
-
Author: corsepiu
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Perl-MinimumVersion/F-12
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv30948
Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-Perl-MinimumVersion.spec sources
Log Message:
* Mon Mar 01 2010 Ralf Corsépius corse...@fedoraproject.org - 1.24-1
-
Author: eseyman
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Data-JavaScript/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv18462/devel
Modified Files:
.cvsignore sources
Added Files:
import.log perl-Data-JavaScript.spec
Log Message:
Initial import.
--- NEW FILE import.log ---
Author: eseyman
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Data-JavaScript/F-12
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv20552/F-12
Modified Files:
.cvsignore sources
Added Files:
import.log perl-Data-JavaScript.spec
Log Message:
Initial import.
--- NEW FILE import.log ---
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
