On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 08:25 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:22:55 -0800, AW (Adam) wrote:
>
> > Anyone else noticed this? Anything which needs interactive auth via PK
> > doesn't seem to work: when I run virt-manager it doesn't ask me for the
> > root password and then succ
On Fri, 2011-11-11 at 15:01 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > So I put through a new xorg-x11-drv-evdev build which bumped it again to
> > catch the fix from upstream. If you wind up with:
> >
> > xorg-x11-drv-evdev-2.6.99-2.2009git745fca03a.fc17
> >
> > and your cursor doesn't move, don't pa
On Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:22:55 -0800, AW (Adam) wrote:
> Anyone else noticed this? Anything which needs interactive auth via PK
> doesn't seem to work: when I run virt-manager it doesn't ask me for the
> root password and then successfully list out the local VMs, it just
> immediately displays an er
On Fri, 11 Nov 2011 02:24:27 +0100, C (Casper) wrote:
> Hello,
> I have three approved packages :
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749320
> [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741129
> [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726080
>
> I followed the link :
>
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 06:20:14PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 16:14 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > I'm currently rebuilding the X stack for F17, and we'll be tracking git
> > snapshots of the X server and drivers until xserver 1.12 comes out. I
> > don't know yet how man
Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
> I'm playing with comps to install software. I'm mostly in an x86-64
> environment, but for compatibility I need some i386 packages...
> but those seem to be invisible and I find no syntax that make them
> visible... And there seems to be no error messages either at
> c
Simo Sorce wrote:
> No, if the branches are identical then by all means keep them aligned.
> But once they diverge, do not try anymore, at that point merges will
> just mess up the history with no gain whatsoever.
But if the branches didn't actually diverge, but got different history for
some rea
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I'm a little leary of rebase... Everytime I've tried to use it in any
> project I've managed to get my checkout in a state where I had to make
> a fresh clone, do a manual diff between my old working tree and new one,
> and then delete the old clone. I know that other peop
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Take the current state of gnome-power-manager. Master is at:
>
> commit dfd0f074a7d41d355da28180eae1bda5dc2bba66
> Author: Richard Hughes
> Date: Mon Sep 26 16:58:28 2011 +0100
>
> New upstream version.
>
> f16 is at:
>
> commit b0b31219d2cfdffa815659a8aad78509b65c41
On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 12:59 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> > Given that neither Anaconda nor parted/qtparted worked, is there an
> > alternative workflow for dual-boot installing with pre-existing OS?
> > I finished the install by going back into Windows, and shrinki
Anyone else noticed this? Anything which needs interactive auth via PK
doesn't seem to work: when I run virt-manager it doesn't ask me for the
root password and then successfully list out the local VMs, it just
immediately displays an error because it's not authorized to connect to
libvirt. Can't i
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 16:14 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> I'm currently rebuilding the X stack for F17, and we'll be tracking git
> snapshots of the X server and drivers until xserver 1.12 comes out. I
> don't know yet how many of the drivers will ftbfs now, so --skip-broken
> might be your friend
Hello,
I have three approved packages :
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749320
[2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=741129
[3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=726080
I followed the link :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/NewPackageProcess
At
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:34:35 +0100
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
>> Why is gnome-scan-0.6.2-7.fc15 offered in Fedora 16 when it has been
>> retired months ago and is affected by serious crashers? The reports in
>> bugzilla are without a reply fro
Hello everybody,
I'm looking for the review swap. There is BZ
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744339
Review Request: dieharder - Random number generator tester and timer
Is anybody willing to review it in exchange that I will review your package?
Thanks a lot
Jirka
--
devel mailin
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011 18:34:35 +0100
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Why is gnome-scan-0.6.2-7.fc15 offered in Fedora 16 when it has been
> retired months ago and is affected by serious crashers? The reports in
> bugzilla are without a reply from the assignee:
>
> http://bugz.fedoraproject.org/gnome-sc
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:49 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:37:38PM +, phantomjinx wrote:
> >
> >
> > I would recommend rebasing branches against master up until they are
> > pushed, if
> > required to be shared. Doing so retains a linear history on the branch and
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:37:38PM +, phantomjinx wrote:
>
>
> I would recommend rebasing branches against master up until they are pushed,
> if
> required to be shared. Doing so retains a linear history on the branch and can
> mean the branch commits can end up being fast forwarded onto mas
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:38:16 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi
wrote: > -- Although others have pointed out how to use git log and git >
cherry-pick to achieve that... I find it faster to use git merge and just >
remove the empty conflicts markers if I encounter this situatio
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 12:38 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:59:50AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:55 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:02:45AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Mic
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 12:38:16 -0800,
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> -- Although others have pointed out how to use git log and git
> cherry-pick to achieve that... I find it faster to use git merge and just
> remove the empty conflicts markers if I encounter this situation. Using git
> log and th
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> My problem came in the case where someone has already *not* done this -
> they've updated f16 separately from, and more than, master, and I wanted
> to get them back in sync.
If you want to keep merging as long as possible, and you are in
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:59:50AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:55 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:02:45AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> > > > I'm sorry but the reason is that peop
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 08:55 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:02:45AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> > > I'm sorry but the reason is that people don't know git workflows.
> >
> > I guess it depends on what is the m
I wrote:
> [ concerning failure to rebuild postgresql in rawhide ]
> The actual failure seems to be due to some change in Python error
> traceback behavior.
After more thorough investigation, it seems to be a gcc optimization bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752905
which makes the
dear,
I have a problem with llvm 2.9 build fail
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=3505349&name=build.log
but if i rebuild llvm from src.rpm build success
I have some other D library to add but until i have this problem i can't
do more
Thanks for any help
kind regards
--
devel
> "JK" == Jesse Keating writes:
JK> I don't believe you can delete a branch remotely, I think releng has
JK> to do it on the server. Yes, you could still ask releng to delete a
JK> branch, then you could re-create it with the same name and have the
JK> same net effect, however we don't let d
On Nov 10, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 11/10/2011 10:15 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:52 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
>>>
>>> Someone might correct me, but rebasing introduces problems for
>>> co-maintainers, if upstream (maintainer) decides to rebase some
>>> branc
On 11/10/2011 10:15 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:52 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
>>
>> Someone might correct me, but rebasing introduces problems for
>> co-maintainers, if upstream (maintainer) decides to rebase some
>> branch.
>>
>> See http://man.he.net/man1/git-rebase
>
> Ou
On Nov 10, 2011, at 1:52 AM, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
>
> Someone might correct me, but rebasing introduces problems for
> co-maintainers, if upstream (maintainer) decides to rebase some branch.
>
> See http://man.he.net/man1/git-rebase
Our repo setup does not allow non-fastforward changes, so ther
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=751751
Fedora Update System 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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691913
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
On 2011-11-09 18:48, Adam Williamson wrote:
> thanks both of you; I hadn't really thought about the consequences of
> merging vs. cherry-picking, I think I'd just cargo-culted from somewhere
> the idea of using git merge instead of manually re-doing changes without
> considering cherry-picking inst
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=752033
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
On 2011-11-10 8:35, Tom Lane wrote:
> (And why is glibc ignoring the convention to use %{?dist} in
> Release:?)
There is a bug open for this. Note that dist tags are still optional.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676755
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://ad
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:02:45AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> > I'm sorry but the reason is that people don't know git workflows.
>
> I guess it depends on what is the maintainer preferred workflow.
>
> I personally hate git merge, espe
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 03:19:07PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 10.11.2011 13:57, Scott Schmit napsal(a):
>
> Yes, but the purpose of URL encoding is to reach resources that are
> named using reserved characters. So, for the filename you showed above,
> the correct URL would be:
>
Honza Horak writes:
> On 11/09/2011 11:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> That was the first thing I thought of, but the failure originally
>> occurred yesterday in koji, and I still can't reproduce it today in
>> mock.
> I don't know what has changed from yesterday (instead that I've upgraded
> to F16),
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 16:14 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> I'm currently rebuilding the X stack for F17, and we'll be tracking git
> snapshots of the X server and drivers until xserver 1.12 comes out. I
> don't know yet how many of the drivers will ftbfs now, so --skip-broken
> might be your friend
Am 09.11.2011 11:23, schrieb Ric Wheeler:
Such a blocking would be just wrong ... as long as the packages *work*
there is no reason to do that.
I am all for encouraging maintainers to port there stuff but this is a
bit too much.
>>> What other form of encouragement can you s
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:46 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 10/11/11 13:38, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 19:07 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, in case of such a fast-forward then rebasing gives the same result
> >> as merging.
> >
> > No, you are dead wrong here. Merging doe
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide
> builds have got behind their F16 builds.
>
> I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no
> readily apparently reason in this case.
http://
Dne 10.11.2011 13:57, Scott Schmit napsal(a):
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:26:11AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 9.11.2011 17:02, Paul Wouters napsal(a):
On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Alex Dalitz wrote:
The %3d characters in the filenames are because the Ruby setter methods are named
"=" - this is a comm
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 13:27 +0100, Michael J Gruber wrote:
> I'm sorry but the reason is that people don't know git workflows.
I guess it depends on what is the maintainer preferred workflow.
I personally hate git merge, especially for stuff so simple as fedora
trees. It gives no advantages I can
On 11/09/2011 11:54 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jesse Keating writes:
>> On Nov 9, 2011, at 9:18 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> postgresql is currently failing to rebuild in rawhide:
>>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3499379
>>> This seems quite repeatable, in koji, but the package builds
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide
> builds have got behind their F16 builds.
>
> I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no
> readily apparently reason in this case.
I ran i
On 10/11/11 13:38, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 19:07 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>
>> Yes, in case of such a fast-forward then rebasing gives the same result
>> as merging.
>
> No, you are dead wrong here. Merging does *join* the history of 2
> branches in git, and the top commit has
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 19:07 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 11:43 +0100, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:52 +0100, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek:
> > > > Isn't it better to use 'git rebas
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:52 +0100, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek:
> > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, S
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 11:26:11AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 9.11.2011 17:02, Paul Wouters napsal(a):
> > On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Alex Dalitz wrote:
> >> The %3d characters in the filenames are because the Ruby setter methods
> >> are named "=" - this is a common pattern across all Ruby
> >> co
Adam Williamson venit, vidit, dixit 10.11.2011 02:46:
> I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide
> builds have got behind their F16 builds.
>
> I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no
> readily apparently reason in this case.
>
> Take
On Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 05:46:57PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm currently going through and bumping several packages whose Rawhide
> builds have got behind their F16 builds.
>
> I've come across several packages where git merge hit 'conflicts' for no
> readily apparently reason in this case
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 10:42 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Nils Philippsen writes:
> > On Fri, 2011-11-04 at 13:12 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I plan to provide the 1.2.x libpng shared library (and only the library,
> >> not its devel support files) in a libpng-compat subpackage for the time
> >> being.
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 11:43 +0100, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:52 +0100, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek:
> > > Isn't it better to use 'git rebase'? E.g. on master use 'git rebase
> > > f16'. As I understand it
On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:52 +0100, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek:
> > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, S
Dne 9.11.2011 17:02, Paul Wouters napsal(a):
> On Wed, 9 Nov 2011, Alex Dalitz wrote:
>
> (CC:ed Fedora-devel, we're trying to figure out the ruby bug with %3d ri-doc
> names)
>
>>> I tried using yours and i had to make some xoes for it to build.
>>> It used "ruby-gems" instead of "rubygems". The
Am Donnerstag, den 10.11.2011, 10:36 +0100 schrieb Vratislav Podzimek:
> On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 17:46 -0800, Adam
On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 18:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-11-10 at 10:29 +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 21:20 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-11-09 at 17:46 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > I'm currently going through and bumping several packa
58 matches
Mail list logo
