Andre Robatino fedoraproject.org> writes:
> But if the user just wants to revoke their karma by changing their +/-1 to a 0
> (say they realize they're not able to test properly, which happened to me),
> that's still not possible (see https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/296 ). So
> it's necessa
Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
>
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 22:47 +, Ben Boeckel wrote:
>
> > What about to counteract "misplaced" karma? Example:
> >
> > - Bug exists in version X.Y
> > - Update filed for X.Y+1
> > - User reports that bug still exists with -1 karma
> > - Maintai
Compose started at Tue Apr 19 13:15:52 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
collectd-mysql-4.10.2-2.fc15.x86_64 requires
libmysqlclient.so.16()(64bit)
collectd-mysql-4.10.2-2.fc15.x86_64 requires
libmysqlclient.so.16(libmysqlc
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 22:47 +, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> What about to counteract "misplaced" karma? Example:
>
> - Bug exists in version X.Y
> - Update filed for X.Y+1
> - User reports that bug still exists with -1 karma
> - Maintainer replies with +1 karma that bug is not expected to be
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> We've always had the rule of thumb that packagers should not vote for
> their own updates. It is assumed that the packagers test their own updates
> and don't need to be explicit about their confidence in the update with
> karma points in bodhi.
>
> One goal of the updat
Package perl-Module-Signature in Fedora 13 was orphaned by scop
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/perl-Module-Signature
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedorap
Package perl-Module-Signature in Fedora 14 was orphaned by scop
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/perl-Module-Signature
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedorap
Package perl-Module-Signature in Fedora 15 was orphaned by scop
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/perl-Module-Signature
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedorap
Package perl-Module-Signature in Fedora devel was orphaned by scop
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/perl-Module-Signature
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedo
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 17:07 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> On 04/19/2011 11:34 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > FWIW, I'm in this mess too, but I was lazy and decided to just hack up
> > the spec to build the version I need locally rather than do anything to
> > 'properly' fix up the packages.
>
>
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 13:59 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 4/19/11 12:35 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 16:44 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> As part of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dist_Git_Branch_Proposal I
> >> have prepared an update to fedora-packager (th
On 04/19/2011 03:35 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> However this
> is a big pain to maintain, not least because whenever a new
> incompatible version comes along we have to apply for a new Unison
> package to be added to Fedora(!)
Right, it's a shame there's no --protocol= flag.
I'd assume, being
On 4/19/11 12:35 PM, Severin Gehwolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 16:44 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> As part of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dist_Git_Branch_Proposal I
>> have prepared an update to fedora-packager (the package that holds
>> fedpkg); 0.5.9.0-1. This update contains co
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 17:30UTC (1:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
= Followups =
#topic #515 Investigate a "features" repo for s
On 04/19/2011 01:33 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:40:22 -0700, AW wrote:
> We've always had the rule of thumb that packagers should not vote for
> their own updates. It is assumed that the packagers test their own updates
> and don't need to be explicit about their confidence
Hi,
On Mon, 2011-04-18 at 16:44 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> As part of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Dist_Git_Branch_Proposal I
> have prepared an update to fedora-packager (the package that holds
> fedpkg); 0.5.9.0-1. This update contains code to handle repositories
> that are in the old n
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:40:22 -0700, AW wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:30 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:37:25 -0700
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > >
> > > > Some packagers have been observed circumvent
Hi list,
I will try to update python-twisted stack to 11.0.0 over easter, rawhide
only. This should leave plenty of time to deal with fallout, if any.
Cheers,
Julian
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
commit b7202fa520dd07814309c5db7aa49c45cb29062d
Author: Ville Skyttä
Date: Tue Apr 19 21:56:41 2011 +0300
Appease rpmbuild >= 4.9.
perl-Module-Signature.spec |8 ++--
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Module-Signature.spec b/perl-Module-Signatu
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 10:40:22 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:30 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:37:25 -0700
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > >
> > > > Some packagers have been observe
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 18:30 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:37:25 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> > > Some packagers have been observed circumventing the system by
> > > configuring a karma threshold of 1, s
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 08:37:25 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > Some packagers have been observed circumventing the system by
> > configuring a karma threshold of 1, so their own +1 vote or the
> > first one from an arbitrary tester mak
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:30 +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 08:01 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > Are you sure? I requested a push of the packages to stable (some were in
> > > testing for a week, others were security updates) and the message was
> > > that i
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Some packagers have been observed circumventing the system by configuring
> a karma threshold of 1, so their own +1 vote or the first one from an
> arbitrary
> tester make it possible to mark the update stable.
Not...really. The update
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 08:35 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Since I don't know any OCaml and this package probably needs to
> > combine 3 versions and label multiple binaries, I shouldn't
> > volunteer to build this as my first package. But I'd be happy to do
> > some manual builds and share
The clock is ticking. The days are counting down. The release of
Fedora 15, codenamed "Lovelock," is scheduled for release in late
May. Fedora is the leading edge, free and open source operating
system that continues to deliver innovative features to users
worldwide, with a new release every si
On Tue, 2011-04-19 at 11:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:30:44 +0300, AT wrote:
>
> > > AutoQA is still in testing phase, there is no enforcement yet.
> >
> > Maybe the bodhi messages confused me. When I logon to a.f.o/updates it
> > prominently displays:
> >
> >
Compose started at Tue Apr 19 08:15:03 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
1:NetworkManager-openvpn-0.8.998-1.git20110405.fc15.x86_64 requires
NetworkManager >= 1:0.8.998
1:NetworkManager-pptp-0.8.998-1.fc15.x86_64 requires Ne
Thanks,
Peter
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Sergio Pascual wrote:
> Hi
>
> I will take it. Here is mine
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=654583
>
> Regards
>
> 2011/4/19 Peter Robinson :
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Anyone wish to swap a review. It should be a fairly simple Sugar Activity.
On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:30:44 +0300, AT wrote:
> > AutoQA is still in testing phase, there is no enforcement yet.
>
> Maybe the bodhi messages confused me. When I logon to a.f.o/updates it
> prominently displays:
>
> Bodhi is now enforcing the Package Update Acceptance
>
Hi
I will take it. Here is mine
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=654583
Regards
2011/4/19 Peter Robinson :
> Hi All,
>
> Anyone wish to swap a review. It should be a fairly simple Sugar Activity.
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=697697
>
> Peter
> --
> devel mailing list
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:44:03AM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote:
> This is probably part of the problem, I have been trying to push all 5
> packages that are now in testing with bodhi rejecting due to autoqa.
> Even packages that do have a positive autoqa tag on them like
> fail2ban-0.8.4-27.fc13.
Acc
Axel Thimm wrote:
> Maybe the bodhi messages confused me. When I logon to a.f.o/updates it
> prominently displays:
>
> Bodhi is now enforcing the Package Update Acceptance
> Criteria across all Fedora releases.
The criteria which are being enforced do not include A
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 21:19 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
> On 04/16/2011 01:52 PM, Axel Thimm wrote:
> Others have already commented on this, but I wanted to re-state that
> AutoQA is only in an informative mode right now. Any bodhi comments made
> by AutoQA have no karma and are not used for anything o
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 08:01 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Are you sure? I requested a push of the packages to stable (some were in
> > testing for a week, others were security updates) and the message was
> > that it doesn't pass AutoQA, so it converted to request to push only
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 08:18:23PM -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> Hi, Rich,
>
> I see that you got tagged as owner on the unison packages. Are you
> planning to package any updates, or did you just inherit it by
> default because of its OCaml nature?
Pretty much I inherited it.
> I was going to
36 matches
Mail list logo
