Having just signed the new FPCA, I'm wondering if there is any
boilerplate for specifically licensing spec files. Is there a quick
and easy way to state, for example: "this spec file is licensed under
the same terms as the package itself"?
And as most of the spec files I deal with are generated by
Compose started at Thu May 5 08:15:03 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
beldi-0.9.25-3.fc15.x86_64 requires libhal-storage.so.1()(64bit)
beldi-0.9.25-3.fc15.x86_64 requires libhal.so.1()(64bit)
beldi-0.9.25-3.fc15.x8
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=646832
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Just a quick FYI:
If you haven't already gotten Fedora 15's latest glibc-headers package,
you may want to wait for 2.13.90-11. Here's why:
glibc-headers-2.13.90-10.x86_64 no longer includes any of
the /usr/include/rpc/*.h files.
Contrast with glibc-headers-2.13.90-9.x86_64, where there are 18:
On 2 May 2011 22:13, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 17:54 +0100, Aaron Gray wrote:
>> Hope no one minds me writing to the devel list but I got no reply on user
>> list.
>>
>> I have got inconsistent eth devices between what Fedora Gnome Desktop
>> is telling me and what ifconfig is t
Aaron Gray (aaronngray.li...@gmail.com) said:
> On 2 May 2011 22:13, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 17:54 +0100, Aaron Gray wrote:
> >> Hope no one minds me writing to the devel list but I got no reply on user
> >> list.
> >>
> >> I have got inconsistent eth devices between what F
Hi all,
My name is Will Benton, and I work on grid and cloud stuff at Red Hat.
I've been here since Fall 2008, but I've been a Red Hat user since the
RHL era (Picasso was the first RHL release I used every day). My
pre-Red Hat experience mainly consists of work on compilers, static
program an
Hi All,
A heads up that change freeze for the Fedora 15 is Monday May 9th. after this
point only accepted blocker bugs will be pulled in. Please limit your changes
to try and avoid unintended breakages.
thanks
Dennis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
On 5/4/11 1:31 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Dmitry Butskoy writes:
>
>> Genes MailLists wrote:
>> > On 05/04/2011 11:43 AM, Honza Horak wrote:
>> >
>> >If I recall correctly - the old sendmail way was /etc/aliases - the
>> > new sendmail way is /etc/mail/aliases .. as far as I know that has the
On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:39:21 +0200
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Reported as http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702366
> and http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702354
Well, here's NEWS:
> * The RPC implementation in libc is obsoleted. Old programs keep working
> but new programs cannot be linked with the routines i
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> The question is: what is TI-RPC and where one finds it?
> Is it even packaged in Fedora?
It's the libtirpc package.
--
Jerry James
http://www.jamezone.org/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/
On 5 May 2011 16:03, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Aaron Gray (aaronngray.li...@gmail.com) said:
>> On 2 May 2011 22:13, Dan Williams wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 17:54 +0100, Aaron Gray wrote:
>> >> Hope no one minds me writing to the devel list but I got no reply on user
>> >> list.
>> >>
>> >
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 18:45 +0100, Aaron Gray wrote:
> On 5 May 2011 16:03, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Aaron Gray (aaronngray.li...@gmail.com) said:
> >> On 2 May 2011 22:13, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> > On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 17:54 +0100, Aaron Gray wrote:
> >> >> Hope no one minds me writing to th
On 5 May 2011 19:07, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 18:45 +0100, Aaron Gray wrote:
>> On 5 May 2011 16:03, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> > Aaron Gray (aaronngray.li...@gmail.com) said:
>> >> On 2 May 2011 22:13, Dan Williams wrote:
>> >> > On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 17:54 +0100, Aaron Gray w
Dan Williams (d...@redhat.com) said:
> On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 18:45 +0100, Aaron Gray wrote:
...
> > >> $ ifconfig
> > >> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:26:18:E4:99:77
...
> > >> eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:24:01:ED:05:35
...
> > $ cat ifcfg-eth0
> > # nVidia Corporation MCP6
On 5 May 2011 19:27, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Dan Williams (d...@redhat.com) said:
>> On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 18:45 +0100, Aaron Gray wrote:
> ...
>> > >> $ ifconfig
>> > >> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:26:18:E4:99:77
> ...
>> > >> eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:24:01:ED:05:35
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702150
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=497173&action=edit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=497176&action=edit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=497179&action=edit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=497
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 10:48 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> A heads up that change freeze for the Fedora 15 is Monday May 9th. after
> this
> point only accepted blocker bugs will be pulled in. Please limit your
> changes
> to try and avoid unintended breakages.
Accepted blocker
# F15 Blocker Review meeting #4
# Date: 2011-05-06
# Time: 17:00 UTC [1] (13:00 EDT, 10:00 PDT, 10:00 MST)
# Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
The *last* scheduled F15 Final blocker review meeting will be this
Friday at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-bugzappers. We'll review proposed and
acc
Compose started at Thu May 5 13:16:14 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
cpm-0.23-0.3.beta.fc12.x86_64 requires libdotconf-1.0.so.0()(64bit)
db4o-7.4-2.fc13.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.GetOptions) = 0:2.0.0.0
dh-make-0.
Very late reply... sorry it took me rather longer
finally to finish the new packaging draft than I had hoped.
> Wouldn't it be more clear if cabal2spec generated the %files and
> %packages sections rather than using a really complicated macro? As a
> reviewer, I feel like there is no way to tell w
04.05.2011, 23:02, "Adam Jackson" :
> On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 11:36 +0900, Misha Shnurapet wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> We're absolutely never doing this by default. 0 means "never sync with
> vertical retrace even if the app asks to".
>
> The other values for t
On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 10:52 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:39:21 +0200
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>
> > Reported as http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702366
> > and http://bugzilla.redhat.com/702354
>
> Well, here's NEWS:
>
> > * The RPC implementation in libc is obsoleted. Old progra
23 matches
Mail list logo
