On 29.10.2015 18:48, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:44:55 +0100
Sandro Mani wrote:
On 25.09.2015 23:46, Sandro Mani wrote:
On 25.09.2015 22:44, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:40:16 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
Well, then adding the i686 build to the mash x86_64 mu
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 11:48:25AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:44:55 +0100
> Sandro Mani wrote:
>
> > On 25.09.2015 23:46, Sandro Mani wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 25.09.2015 22:44, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:40:16 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> > >
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:44:55 +0100
Sandro Mani wrote:
> On 25.09.2015 23:46, Sandro Mani wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 25.09.2015 22:44, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:40:16 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, then adding the i686 build to the mash x86_64 multilib
> >> compos
On 25.09.2015 23:46, Sandro Mani wrote:
On 25.09.2015 22:44, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:40:16 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
Well, then adding the i686 build to the mash x86_64 multilib compose
whitelist
cannot be avoided -- as it's needed to really fix #1068620.
Okay than
On 25.09.2015 22:44, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:40:16 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
You could ask releng to add apitrace-libs to the multilib whitelist:
https://pagure.io/mash/new_issue
However, I have to wonder, why wouldn't the library have a -devel
package? Is there
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 19:40:16 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> >> You could ask releng to add apitrace-libs to the multilib whitelist:
> >>
> >> https://pagure.io/mash/new_issue
> >>
> >> However, I have to wonder, why wouldn't the library have a -devel
> >> package? Is there no way to link against
On 25.09.2015 17:44, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 13:13:20 +0200, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 13:03 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
Is there any other option short of introducing a dummy -devel
package?
You could ask releng to add apitrace-libs to the multilib white
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 12:02 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> Got bug #1266181 filed about apitrace.i686 missing in the x86_64
>> repos.
>> The reporter probably meant apitrace-libs.i686, which in the past was
>> indeed installable on x86_64. Any ideas what the reas
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 13:13:20 +0200, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 13:03 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> > Is there any other option short of introducing a dummy -devel
> > package?
>
> You could ask releng to add apitrace-libs to the multilib whitelist:
>
> https://pagure.io/mash
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 13:03 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Is there any other option short of introducing a dummy -devel
> package?
You could ask releng to add apitrace-libs to the multilib whitelist:
https://pagure.io/mash/new_issue
However, I have to wonder, why wouldn't the library have a -d
On 25.09.2015 12:19, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 12:02 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
Hello
Got bug #1266181 filed about apitrace.i686 missing in the x86_64
repos.
The reporter probably meant apitrace-libs.i686, which in the past was
indeed installable on x86_64. Any ideas what the
On Fri, 2015-09-25 at 12:02 +0200, Sandro Mani wrote:
> Hello
>
> Got bug #1266181 filed about apitrace.i686 missing in the x86_64
> repos.
> The reporter probably meant apitrace-libs.i686, which in the past was
> indeed installable on x86_64. Any ideas what the reasons can be that
> the package
Hello
Got bug #1266181 filed about apitrace.i686 missing in the x86_64 repos.
The reporter probably meant apitrace-libs.i686, which in the past was
indeed installable on x86_64. Any ideas what the reasons can be that the
package disappeared? Suppose something about the "mash" step, but that's
13 matches
Mail list logo
