Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi writes:
On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
Since javadoc subpackages put files in /usr/share/javadoc they must
require package that provides this directory.
In my opinion all javadocs should be crosslinked
Hello,
I've submitted a while ago a review-request on a package [0] that is
taken from bitbucket.org. Unfortunately there was no reviewer yet, and I
suspect that is because unlike github [1] we have no rules on how to
handle bitbucket. Have other packagers experienced something similar in
other
I'm all with you Ville.
But this requires someone jumping in to do work and there is noone. We have to
live in reality - noone is showing any interest into working on this :(.
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team
- Original Message -
From: Ville Skyttä ville.sky...@iki.fi
To:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 18:35 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
Just to mention: there are probably many packages where the equivalent
of %check can't be run without access to a source tree, so Taskotron
can't usefully
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com writes:
On Tue, 2014-02-25 at 18:35 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
Just to mention: there are probably many packages where the equivalent
of %check can't be run without access to a source tree, so Taskotron
can't usefully replace %check. I maintain a
Seems like bitbucket uses unversioned tar ball, not the best approch
https://bitbucket.org/yarosla/httpress/get/tip.tar.gz
I would make my own tarball from the git checkout and document in the
spec how to make it
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control
Tim
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 02:04:54PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 16:38 -0500, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
With the best of intentions, we'd gone from a reluctant exception to the
'no choice' design to a dropdown which included two very different
complex choices:
On 26.02.2014 10:16, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
Hello,
I've submitted a while ago a review-request on a package [0] that is
taken from bitbucket.org. Unfortunately there was no reviewer yet, and I
suspect that is because unlike github [1] we have no rules on how to
handle bitbucket. Have
Bitbucket has downloads support.
Also you can get the tarball from the tags.
What's the problem?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
На 26.02.2014 12:11, Tim Lauridsen написа:
Seems like bitbucket uses unversioned tar ball, not the best approch
https://bitbucket.org/yarosla/httpress/get/tip.tar.gz
I would make my own tarball from the git checkout and document in the
spec how to make it
For example:
On 02/23/2014 06:29 PM, Mauricio Tavares wrote:
Could anyone point me to info on creating a local repo? I want to learn the
entire process of creating a package but
think it might be wiser to have a controlled environment
Do you really need it local?
If no - then:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.comwrote:
Bitbucket has downloads support.
Also you can get the tarball from the tags.
What's the problem?
The problem with this project is that there is no release tags, so you cant
get a specific version, just download
На 26.02.2014 13:00, Tim Lauridsen написа:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:21 AM, Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.comwrote:
Bitbucket has downloads support.
Also you can get the tarball from the tags.
What's the problem?
The problem with this project is that there is no release tags, so you
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
Because unit tests are designed to be run as part of the build
process. It's not impossible to run them *after* the build, but good
luck making it work reliably across all packages without manual work.
The
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 01:29:54PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Okay, here's some diff's to the current python-django14 package that will
make it parallel installable. Once you have the parallel installable
package you may also have to modify a few things in the dependent packages
to make
On Wed 26 Feb 2014 01:41:36 PM CET Colin Walters wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
Because unit tests are designed to be run as part of the build
process. It's not impossible to run them *after* the build, but good
luck making it work
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
I didn't name them. I used standard names for different testing
levels
as defined by software engineering bodies. Quoting from SWEBOK:
Yes, I think they're wrong. Well, suboptimal is a better word.
2014-02-24 18:44 GMT+01:00 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
tl;dr: FESCo needs to know what is going to need extra time to deliver
Fedora.next in the Fedora 21 cycle.
[snip]
* Websites Team: What sort of redesign work will we need to go
Alexander Todorov atodo...@redhat.com wrote:
How about making %check a packaging requirement in all cases - run tests or
add a comment explaining why not, how to run them (e.g. make test) or why
there are no tests for this package.
Does %check install the package and run the tests as root?
- Original Message -
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Yeah, agreed here. Everyone wants the latest shiniest thing, even if that
thing isn't ready. I really don't want to wade through tons of bug reports
for btrfs just because it has a
On Feb 26, 2014 7:00 PM, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem with this project is that there is no release tags, so you
cant get a specific version, just download the current master
this is not very usefull for a fedora package.
You can ask them to tag it from now on. I
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 13:11 +, Colin Walters wrote:
Ah, but if one makes integration tests very fast and easy to run as
I have, then there's less need for quick and dirty.
Which is sort of the crux of my argument against %check. Hey, we found
this hammer, it smells kind of funny and it's
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:18:12AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
- Original Message -
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Yeah, agreed here. Everyone wants the latest shiniest thing, even if that
thing isn't ready. I really don't
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
- Original Message -
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Yeah, agreed here. Everyone wants the latest shiniest thing, even if that
thing isn't ready. I really don't
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 11:00 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote:
I don't think this would be a good idea to avoid such tests in %check.
If you do that you have to later fetch the source code again, build it
again and finally you can run the tests.
No you don't. There's no reason the final rpms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041304
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041304
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-PDL-2.7.0-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-PDL-2.7.0-3.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
Just save the built tree as another build-time
artifact.
We do this already with glib2:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/glib2.git/commit/?id=25351c50
And that's the general idea - assemble a tree containing -test
2014-02-26 14:11 GMT+01:00 Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org:
During making glib changes you should run glib unit tests to have some
basic level of assurance you didn't introduce regressions or unwanted
changes.
The *very first* test I run is does the OS still boot? That's called
smoketest
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:19 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.comwrote:
I'm all with you Ville.
But this requires someone jumping in to do work and there is noone. We
have to live in reality - noone is showing any interest into working on
this :(.
I am willing to help with an effort
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:00 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
Actually we are strongly considering getting rid of javadocs
completely[1] mostly due to Java 8 problems. We might be able to leave
them be perhaps, but it's just a lot of work with uncertain
benefits/users
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 16:58 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
2014-02-26 14:11 GMT+01:00 Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org:
The *very first* test I run is does the OS still boot?
That's called smoketest for me, and it only takes a few
minutes.
That seems to be
2014-02-26 17:46 GMT+01:00 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com:
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 16:58 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: That seems to be
optimizing for bugs that break the boot, when bugs
that occur in less-frequently used parts of the system are far more
common; a lot of software is not
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
Actually we are strongly considering getting rid of javadocs
completely[1] mostly due to Java 8 problems.
If for whatever reason those problems won't be fixed, I suppose one
approach to them is passing the
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 17:50 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Are you saying that the boot path should have tests,
Yes, that is what was being said.
and the less-frequently used parts of the system should be verified
by seeing whether any human users notice breakage?
No, that was neither said
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2014-02-26)
===
Meeting started by nirik at 18:00:06 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-02-26/fesco.2014-02-26-18.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
On Feb 26, 2014, at 8:13 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
Ext4 has its btrfs conversion tool. Changing from ext4 to XFS, for arguably
negligible benefits for Workstations, will make it more difficult for Fedora
users to transition to btrfs.
It's an unlikely path because a.) by
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 10:24 -0500, David Cantrell wrote:
Yep, a lot of fun - three different file systems for free different
products.
And we are back to the question how much these products could differ - with
limited resources we have right now - at least short term. Who can answer it
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 12:18 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
I agree switching from ext4 to XFS is likely not worthwhile.
Whether Server WG goes with ext4 or XFS on LVM, it's worthwhile for
Workstation WG to mimic it merely due to simplicity because then we
don't need separate installers or
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 11:17 +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
Don't try to be smart to everyone, it does not work. IMHO all you
need is to support one or a very few scenarios (complete scenarios
without customization) and a way how to switch from installer
to manual partitioning by
Chris Murphy wrote:
by default we put ext4 on LVM
The tool works in this use-case unless something has broken it recently.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 11:42 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
The elephant in the room here seems to be LVM backing, I don't see
anyone discussing that. Do desktop and server want to keep LVM backing
by default if they don't go with btrfs? Do desktop and server have
*differing* perspectives there?
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 12:18 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
I agree switching from ext4 to XFS is likely not worthwhile.
Whether Server WG goes with ext4 or XFS on LVM, it's worthwhile for
Workstation WG to mimic it
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:58:43PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
2014-02-26 14:11 GMT+01:00 Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org:
During making glib changes you should run glib unit tests to have some
basic level of assurance you didn't introduce regressions or unwanted
changes.
The *very
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 01:56:22PM +, David Howells wrote:
Alexander Todorov atodo...@redhat.com wrote:
How about making %check a packaging requirement in all cases - run tests or
add a comment explaining why not, how to run them (e.g. make test) or why
there are no tests for this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070165
Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In
2014-02-26 22:53 GMT+01:00 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:58:43PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
2014-02-26 14:11 GMT+01:00 Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org:
During making glib changes you should run glib unit tests to have some
basic level of assurance
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2014-02-27 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2014-02-27 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PST
2014-02-27 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EST
2014-02-27
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:12:50PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
2014-02-26 22:53 GMT+01:00 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com:
But bugs which break the boot prevent you from testing everything else.
Only if I would reboot boot my primary workstation into the new untested
software, which
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 14:26:41 +0100
Robert Mayr robyd...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
...snip...
For example spins, there was
a long discussion on them, but we don't have any decision yet of how
they should look like. I guess we will not provide them any more
through spins.fpo, but that's a point
Hello! My name is James Wilson Harshaw IV. I have been using Fedora for
a few years now, but recently really wanted to get more involved.
I have a pretty good amount of knowledge in C, C++, PHP, Perl, Golang,
and Java. I hope to use this knowledge to benefit the project.
A little about me: I
On Feb 26, 2014 10:18 AM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
- Original Message -
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Yeah, agreed here. Everyone wants the latest shiniest thing, even if
that
thing isn't ready. I really don't
The Board has reviewed the PRDs for the Cloud, Server, and Workstation
products and approves. While there are some reservations in certain
areas, the overall goals of each product seem to be well thought out
and an benefit to Fedora going forward. Thank you for taking the time
to work through
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I fully agree with you testers giving +1 is not even close to proper
validation, but what alternative to get proper validation do you propose
as an improvement? Dropping autokarma would replace broken validation
with *no* validation; that's not an improvement.
The
On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 05:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
I really don't know why you make these suggestions. I mean, you must
know no-one is going to reply Why, Kevin! What a brilliant idea! We'll
do so immediately!, so what's the point?
Why not? That's the only
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 21:53 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 04:58:43PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
2014-02-26 14:11 GMT+01:00 Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org:
During making glib changes you should run glib unit tests to have some
basic level of assurance you
On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 21:56 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
For the sorts of tests you are talking about it's much better to test
the final RPM installed in a full OS environment. That is what (I
hope) Taskotron is trying to do.
Well, that's *one* of the things it does, yes (as AutoQA did
On Feb 26, 2014 5:16 AM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote:
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:09 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
sochotni...@redhat.com wrote:
I didn't name them. I used standard names for different testing levels
as defined by software engineering bodies. Quoting from SWEBOK:
Yes, I
Kevin, I think you are talking about releasing models...
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
Are you saying that the boot path should have tests, and the
less-frequently used parts of the system should be verified by seeing
whether any human users notice breakage?
No. First, it's more that in order to run
On Feb 26, 2014, at 5:33 PM, Josef Bacik jo...@toxicpanda.com wrote:
Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora
yet. Optional is fine but not default.
OK good, that's definitive. Thanks Josef.
So my thought is Workstation WG choices: parity with
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067003
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1067003
--- Comment #2 from Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com ---
This package looks like a replacement for perl-Time-modules. See
http://search.cpan.org/~muir/Time-modules/ and
http://search.cpan.org/~muir/Time-ParseDate/
If this is so, you have to
perl-PDL has broken dependencies in the epel-7 tree:
On ppc64:
perl-PDL-2.7.0-2.el7.1.ppc64 requires perl(PDL::Slatec)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
commit d89d274f5b20764f001fab0df02c6615ab4cb742
Author: David Dick dd...@cpan.org
Date: Wed Feb 26 20:35:32 2014 +1100
Initial import (#1068842).
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Time-Out.spec | 51 +++
sources|1 +
3
Summary of changes:
d89d274... Initial import (#1068842). (*)
(*) 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-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Time-Out:
02501f7c839c49d3693ed1217e0682e4 Time-Out-0.11.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Summary of changes:
d89d274... Initial import (#1068842). (*)
(*) 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-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070157
Bug ID: 1070157
Summary: perl-IO-Socket-IP-0.29 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-IO-Socket-IP
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070158
Bug ID: 1070158
Summary: perl-Log-Contextual-0.006003 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Log-Contextual
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070163
Bug ID: 1070163
Summary: perl-SOAP-Lite-1.11 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-SOAP-Lite
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070165
Bug ID: 1070165
Summary: perl-WWW-Curl-4.17 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-WWW-Curl
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-IO-Socket-IP:
6026bb1b4ac5c3a9481616335cc4c1e7 IO-Socket-IP-0.29.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 8b1293e6e156bd5c6e9dda77e7befa63cb5d9edc
Author: Petr Šabata con...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Feb 26 12:54:22 2014 +0100
0.29 bump
.gitignore |1 +
perl-IO-Socket-IP.spec |5 -
sources|2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1041304
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ASSIGNED
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070157
Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070158
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066021
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
perl-Language-Expr has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-Language-Expr-0.19-4.fc19.noarch requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2)
On i386:
perl-Language-Expr-0.19-4.fc19.noarch requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.2)
On armhfp:
perl-Catalyst-Controller-HTML-FormFu has broken dependencies in the rawhide
tree:
On x86_64:
perl-Catalyst-Controller-HTML-FormFu-0.09004-4.fc20.noarch requires
perl(HTML::FormFu::MultiForm)
On i386:
perl-Catalyst-Controller-HTML-FormFu-0.09004-4.fc20.noarch requires
mojomojo has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
mojomojo-1.10-1.fc20.noarch requires
perl(HTML::FormFu::Element::reCAPTCHA)
On i386:
mojomojo-1.10-1.fc20.noarch requires
perl(HTML::FormFu::Element::reCAPTCHA)
On armhfp:
mojomojo-1.10-1.fc20.noarch
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859607
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820663
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066021
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Fixed In Version|perl-qpid_proton-0.6-3.fc20
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Log-Contextual:
fcd41b3569816f5157433c0b308eea50 Log-Contextual-0.006003.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 40faa068346034a5393327a9572674e20ab3a15c
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Feb 26 15:00:08 2014 +0100
0.006003 bump
.gitignore |1 +
.rpmlint |2 ++
perl-Log-Contextual.spec | 34 +-
sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070158
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In
Summary of changes:
2601f81... Initial import (perl-File-Slurp-Tiny-0.003-2) (*)
496a85c... Enhance %description (#1064995) (*)
(*) 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
Summary of changes:
2601f81... Initial import (perl-File-Slurp-Tiny-0.003-2) (*)
496a85c... Enhance %description (#1064995) (*)
(*) 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
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Module-Extract-Namespaces:
4d4b6c1e4dde63e8ac334fdec15aba99 Module-Extract-Namespaces-1.02.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 65ad59d0b256f6cab1bcad3e8ac0197049b5102f
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Wed Feb 26 14:24:07 2014 +
Drop redundant Group tag (#1069797)
perl-Module-Extract-Namespaces.spec |6 --
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git
commit 960a226ccc445145c9bb11e30930a96f13733dfc
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Wed Feb 26 14:21:58 2014 +
Initial import (perl-Module-Extract-Namespaces-1.02-2)
This module extracts package declarations from Perl code without running the
code.
It does
Summary of changes:
960a226... Initial import (perl-Module-Extract-Namespaces-1.02-2) (*)
65ad59d... Drop redundant Group tag (#1069797) (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Summary of changes:
2601f81... Initial import (perl-File-Slurp-Tiny-0.003-2) (*)
496a85c... Enhance %description (#1064995) (*)
(*) 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
Summary of changes:
960a226... Initial import (perl-Module-Extract-Namespaces-1.02-2) (*)
65ad59d... Drop redundant Group tag (#1069797) (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
commit e54b28acbd257b5b606282d17090d55193667ed8
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Feb 26 15:31:11 2014 +0100
Skip PDL::Slatec reverse dependencies if Slatec is disabled
...all-modules-using-PDL-Slatec-if-Slatec-is.patch | 87
perl-PDL.spec
Summary of changes:
960a226... Initial import (perl-Module-Extract-Namespaces-1.02-2) (*)
65ad59d... Drop redundant Group tag (#1069797) (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Summary of changes:
2601f81... Initial import (perl-File-Slurp-Tiny-0.003-2) (*)
496a85c... Enhance %description (#1064995) (*)
(*) 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
The lightweight tag 'perl-File-Slurp-Tiny-0.003-3.el5' was created pointing to:
496a85c... Enhance %description (#1064995)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
The lightweight tag 'perl-File-Slurp-Tiny-0.003-3.el7' was created pointing to:
496a85c... Enhance %description (#1064995)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
