On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 16:51 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
2014-06-03 22:46 GMT+02:00 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com:
On Sun, 2014-04-20 at 18:56 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik wrote, on behalf of Matthias Clasen:
The Software Collections repositories will be enabled by
On Wed, 2014-06-04 at 21:15 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Adam Williamson writes:
Sam, this was clearly a half-baked thought Lennart threw out in passing.
It wasn't a formal proposal.
I don't think there was any danger of anyone possibly considering that.
It's bad enough that
On 20/03/14 20:05, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 20.03.14 12:20, Stephen John Smoogen (smo...@gmail.com) wrote:
I doubt there are many people even using them anymore, firewalls are
more comprehensive and a lot more powerful, and while every admin knows
firewalls, I figure only very few
Isaac Cortés González wrote:
But it is licensed under an Apache license, we can download the source and
build it ourselves.
Yes, please contact the Replicant folks for how to rebuild the Android SDK
from source. (Last I checked, they didn't document the procedure either, but
they should know
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Isaac Cortés González wrote:
But it is licensed under an Apache license, we can download the source and
build it ourselves.
Yes, please contact the Replicant folks for how to rebuild the Android SDK
from source. (Last
Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
The ripping things out of tarballs policy seems really weird to me.
It means, for example, that I can't compare the hash of the openssl
tarball to upstream's.
Is it really necessary? I understand that Fedora can't ship anything
infringes on a patent, but I had the
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 4:00 AM, Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu wrote:
Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
The ripping things out of tarballs policy seems really weird to me.
It means, for example, that I can't compare the hash of the openssl
tarball to upstream's.
Is it really necessary? I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104721
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104721
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105023
Bug ID: 1105023
Summary: perl-IO-Event-0.813-1.fc21 FTBFS: t/forked2.t fails
under heavy load
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-IO-Event
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105161
Bug ID: 1105161
Summary: perl-Date-Manip-6.45 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Date-Manip
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105167
Bug ID: 1105167
Summary: perl-Filter-1.50 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Filter
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: ppi...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105167
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105167
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-Filter-1.50-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Filter-1.50-1.fc19
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105167
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
perl-Filter-1.50-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-Filter-1.50-1.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1094440
Tomas Hoger tho...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|high|medium
16 matches
Mail list logo
