On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 17:56 -0300, James Bowes wrote:
> gitg -- GTK+ graphical interface for the git revision control system
This one seem to already have found a new owner: nacho.
Pierre
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 2011-11-01 at 17:56 -0300, James Bowes wrote:
> python-vobject -- A python library for manipulating vCard and
> vCalendar files
I have taken this one.
Pierre
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 11/02/2011 07:54 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> * #683 - Zif as default PackageKit backend for desktop users -
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ZifByDefaultForDesktop
>> (sgallagh, 17:03:32)
>> * AGREED: ZifByDefaultForDesktop is refused as a Feature for Fedora 17
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> For f15 through rawhide and epel 6 there is a new update coming for fedpkg
> (part of fedora-packager).
>
> This build is a pretty major rewrite to make use of a shared pyrpkg backend.
> Coming along for the ride is a new build of GitPython
Hi,
Fedora-Live-KDE CD's released officially are limited by size 700M
so there not much space for various KDE applications.
Such space becomes even smaller at every Fedora release because of
other non-KDE packages.
There was digikam and kipi-plugins on Fedora 15 LiveCD but no space
for them Fedora
As per the Fedora 16 schedule [1], Fedora 16 Final Release Candidate 4
(RC4) is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for
download links (including delta ISOs) and testing instructions.
Serverbeach1 is still available as a mirror (but with approximately a 1
hour lag behind dl),
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> * #683 - Zif as default PackageKit backend for desktop users -
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ZifByDefaultForDesktop
> (sgallagh, 17:03:32)
> * AGREED: ZifByDefaultForDesktop is refused as a Feature for Fedora 17
> (sgallagh, 17:07:32)
IMHO refusing this was a
For f15 through rawhide and epel 6 there is a new update coming for fedpkg
(part of fedora-packager).
This build is a pretty major rewrite to make use of a shared pyrpkg backend.
Coming along for the ride is a new build of GitPython which brings some more
deps, python-gitdb, python-async, and
Hi:
I'm orphaning the following packages; I've not given them the proper
care and affection that they need.
eg -- Git for mere mortals
giggle -- A Gtk frontend to git
gitg -- GTK+ graphical interface for the git revision control system
ipython -- An enhanced interactive Python shell
mod_wsgi -- A
On Tue, 01 Nov 2011 19:50:38 +0100
Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 01.11.2011, 19:36 +0100 schrieb Sven Lankes:
> > On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:15:20PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
> > > Does anyone know how to contact Gary T. Giesen?
> > > I've sent him an email (also CCed on this one) a
Am Dienstag, den 01.11.2011, 19:36 +0100 schrieb Sven Lankes:
> On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:15:20PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
>
> > I'm following the procedure at:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
No really. You should have done this in the bug reports
Hi Kevin,
On Tuesday 01 November 2011 18:23:25 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> IMHO, that would be unhelpful, unneccessary and unsupportable.
thank you for expressing your concerns.
> You already mention that there are patches which need to be applied for the
> package to build/work at all.
For the vast
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:15:20PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote:
> I'm following the procedure at:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
> Does anyone know how to contact Gary T. Giesen?
> I've sent him an email (also CCed on this one) a few months ago
> requesti
On 11/01/2011 10:22 PM, Ondrej Vasik wrote:
> Hi,
> for better automation of our static analysis tools we would like to have
> some defined way how to get "as close to vanilla as possible" build from
> Fedora srpms
If you want this change, you should file a request with FESCo
https://fedorahosted
Ondrej Vasik wrote:
> Is it possible to establish some common rule for Vanilla builds in
> Packaging Guidelines?
IMHO, that would be unhelpful, unneccessary and unsupportable.
You already mention that there are patches which need to be applied for the
package to build/work at all. It's not alway
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 05:51:10PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> Last three months I cannot reach Adam Miller (aka maxamillion), neither
> by emails nor by bugzilla ticket (#733030), whereas it seems that during
> this period he appears sometimes here.
>
> Could anybody contact him?
>
Apologie
Hi,
for better automation of our static analysis tools we would like to have
some defined way how to get "as close to vanilla as possible" build from
Fedora srpms. Based on our statistics ~15% of packages are affected -
you can't simply build them without Fedora patches.
This can also be used for
Hey, folks. Quick heads up: I'm planning an emergency blocker review
meeting in #fedora-bugzappers in 6 minutes (top of the hour). Some bugs
were newly proposed as blockers overnight and several are likely to be
contentious, so we should have a proper meeting to review them and
decide on a course o
See below; everything still applies, except:
Meeting is Wednesday, November 2, 2011, at 21:00 UTC (17:00 EDT, 14:00 PDT).
I'm just, you know, making sure y'all are paying attention. AdamW is the
winner today! :D
-Robyn
On 11/01/2011 05:02 AM, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> Join us on irc.freenode.ne
On Tue, 1 Nov 2011 13:38:34 +
Rawhide Report wrote:
> Compose started at Tue Nov 1 08:15:35 UTC 2011
The compose actually ran and synced, but repodiff seems to have failed,
so no report or broken deps spams. ;(
Looking at the issue to get it fixed for tomorrow.
kevin
signature.asc
Des
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=750039
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-01
11:42:10 EDT ---
perl-Catalyst-Runtime-5.90006-1.fc16,perl-Class-Load-0.12-
I installed F16 RC2 Live, and tried to install qtparted.
It won't install because the most recent qtparted RPM is from F15 and
requires libparted.so.0, and F16 has libparted.so.1 pulled in by F16's
parted.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750566
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedo
Summary of changes:
5bdb530... update to 5.90006 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/m
commit 5bdb5301294fa3fcb34b426818bb9e6d2c29d4ac
Author: Iain Arnell
Date: Sun Oct 30 11:17:52 2011 +0100
update to 5.90006
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Catalyst-Runtime.spec | 26 +-
sources|2 +-
3 files changed, 11 insertion
> [...] One note, I don't like macros that span multiple scriptlets.
> Having a macro for each scriptlet (or forgoing a macro if the resulting code
> is simple enough) seems to be about the right level of indirection.
>
It does not look pretty I agree, but my motivation is to make things
simple
On 11/01/2011 01:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> So, assuming I'm not grossly misanalysing the data, it seems that we
> could drop the proventester requirement from critical path updates with
> a negligable change in the quality of the updates. Thoughts?
Agreed flag it as tried and tested stats do
On Tue, Nov 01, 2011 at 05:51:10PM +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> Last three months I cannot reach Adam Miller (aka maxamillion), neither
> by emails nor by bugzilla ticket (#733030), whereas it seems that during
> this period he appears sometimes here.
>
> Could anybody contact him?
I had a ch
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> It's a common complaint that it's too difficult to get updates to
> critpath packages through the update system at the moment. We've been
> looking into trying to make that easier without just dropping the
> critpath requirements, and one th
It's a common complaint that it's too difficult to get updates to
critpath packages through the update system at the moment. We've been
looking into trying to make that easier without just dropping the
critpath requirements, and one thing we looked at was whether the
requirement for positive ka
Last three months I cannot reach Adam Miller (aka maxamillion), neither
by emails nor by bugzilla ticket (#733030), whereas it seems that during
this period he appears sometimes here.
Could anybody contact him?
Regards,
Dmitry Butskoy
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/DmitryButskoy
--
devel
Compose started at Tue Nov 1 08:15:35 UTC 2011
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Join us on irc.freenode.net in #fedora-meeting for this important
meeting, Tuesday, November 1, 2011, at 21:00 UTC (17:00 EDT, 14:00 PDT).
"Before each public release Development, QA, and Release Engineering
meet to determine if the release criteria are met for a particular
release. This meeting
Compose started at Tue Nov 1 08:15:35 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
PackageKit-zif-0.6.19-3.fc16.x86_64 requires zif >= 0:0.2.5
bibletime-2.8.1-1.fc16.x86_64 requires libclucene.so.0()(64bit)
cluster-snmp-0.18.7-
On 10/31/2011 09:49 PM, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote:
> On 16:48 Mon 31 Oct , Andrew Haley wrote:
>>
>>> Am 31.10.2011 17:00, schrieb Deepak Bhole:
>>>
It looks like a known bug in the 6 compiler related to interface
inheritance and covariant return types. I think this is the commit
On 10/31/2011 06:02 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> One of my packages (xemacs) failed the final build in the f17-gmp
> build target [1], and was marked FTBFS [2]. I see that the f17-gmp
> builds are now being merged into Rawhide. As I pointed out on that
> bug, the xemacs build failure was due to build
35 matches
Mail list logo
