Dne 11.4.2011 17:33, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
O rly? Are you *sure*?
Well, as much as I could be sure that reading of XML file with libxml is
risc-free process (yes, I think it is). OTOH, your decision is not
cost-free either ... users of F13 have over the year old
On 04/10/2011 07:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 18:19:26 -0700,
Christopher Aillon cail...@redhat.com wrote:
I just realized today for the first time that our nightlies are based on
stable, not testing. I think that's something we need to address. It's
probably
On 04/10/2011 06:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 18:19:26 -0700,
Christopher Ailloncail...@redhat.com wrote:
I just realized today for the first time that our nightlies are based on
stable, not testing. I think that's something we need to address. It's
probably
On 04/11/2011 12:13 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
On 04/10/2011 07:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 18:19:26 -0700,
Christopher Ailloncail...@redhat.com wrote:
I just realized today for the first time that our nightlies are based on
stable, not testing. I think that's
On 04/09/2011 05:31 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 05:32:04AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Will Woods wrote:
In fact, there's plenty of approvers available, but you're not engaging
with them. They might not
On 04/11/2011 01:21 AM, Christopher Aillon wrote:
On 04/11/2011 12:13 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
On 04/10/2011 07:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 18:19:26 -0700,
Christopher Ailloncail...@redhat.com wrote:
I just realized today for the first time that our nightlies are
Dne 10.4.2011 23:07, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
(What I'd like to be able to do in this kind of case is have Bodhi
explain, hey, this package is critpath because $THIS_OTHER_PACKAGE
depends on it, and if $THIS_OTHER_PACKAGE is working okay, then this
package has fulfilled its critpath
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 01:43:14PM +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
I have posted some updates to mobile-broadband-provider-info. These are
just data files for NetworkManager, they need frequent updates, and the
biggest disaster which can happen in case of their brokenness (which is
quite low,
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 00:18:24 -0700,
Christopher Aillon cail...@redhat.com wrote:
But not having a set of nightlies based on testing is a problem, and I
think we really really need to fix that. I see no reason we need to
pick one or the other, let's do both!
That's probably an issue
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 18:19 -0700, Christopher Aillon wrote:
I just realized today for the first time that our nightlies are based on
stable, not testing. I think that's something we need to address. It's
probably still useful to have nightlies based on stable, but I think
it's rather
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 23:21 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
I had a closer look at the raid setup on my f15-box and as the raid was
up as expected and poking at the raid with mdadm didn't turn up any
issues, I've given it positive karma which has made it Critpath
approved.
Thanks for that.
On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 13:43 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
Dne 10.4.2011 23:07, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
(What I'd like to be able to do in this kind of case is have Bodhi
explain, hey, this package is critpath because $THIS_OTHER_PACKAGE
depends on it, and if $THIS_OTHER_PACKAGE is working
Adam Williamson wrote:
O rly? Are you *sure*? Sure it's not at all possible there could be a
bug somewhere in NM which causes it to crash because it misparses an odd
character in one of the files, for instance? It's just a
configuration / data file, it can't possibly break anything! is one of
On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 15:41:25 +0900
TASAKA Mamoru mtas...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Tomasz Torcz wrote, at 04/09/2011 07:57 PM +9:00:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 05:32:04AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Will Woods wrote:
In fact, there's plenty of approvers available, but you're not
engaging with
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
- Anything goes, up to the maintainer.
This gave us major updates in stable releases,
That's a feature. :-)
things that weren't tested very well or widely,
Yet they worked…
lots of smaller updates for minor things leading to churn, etc.
Very few updates were genuinely
On Monday 11 April 2011 13:58:21 Tomasz Torcz wrote:
So people with cellphone as only internet connectivity option will
be unable unable to download fixed packages?
Nope. They just have to enter their connection settings manually. Instructions
were provided by their ISP, probably along with
Tomasz Torcz wrote, at 04/09/2011 07:57 PM +9:00:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 05:32:04AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Will Woods wrote:
In fact, there's plenty of approvers available, but you're not engaging
with them. They might not know how to test libtiff, or what needs
testing, so other stuff
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 21:28 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 20:43:05 -0400,
Will Woods wwo...@redhat.com wrote:
The only thing broken here is the expectation that testing doesn't
require your assistance, or isn't your problem.
Except this affects more than Tom.
Doug Ledford wrote:
Now I'm seeing new bugs trickle in about mdadm in the live image, and I
have no clue if there is something I need to fix because I haven't
gotten my update pushed to stable yet so these people are running
against a known broken mdadm. The fixed mdadm makes changes
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:45:56PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
And here we are, about to go down the same road again. I have an update
in updates-testing, it's getting no love, and the package that's in the
release is *known broken*. It has not been updated for systemd to begin
with. Nor
The bug I'm looking at right now is specifically against the live image, so no
I can't test that with something in updates testing. It needs to make it to the
base before it gets on the live media to see if it solves the problem there.
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 10, 2011, at 1:13 PM, Björn
On 10 April 2011 20:01, Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote:
The bug I'm looking at right now is specifically against the live image, so
no I can't test that with something in updates testing. It needs to make it
to the base before it gets on the live media to see if it solves the problem
Am Samstag, den 09.04.2011, 05:32 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Will Woods wrote:
The solution is simple: ASK FOR HELP.
The solution is simple: The red tape on update pushing needs to be repealed.
As someone who is still suffering from the KDE 4.6.1 update and who has
not received notable
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 12:45 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
And here we are, about to go down the same road again. I have an update
in updates-testing, it's getting no love, and the package that's in the
release is *known broken*. It has not been updated for systemd to begin
with. Nor for tmpfs
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 15:01 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
The bug I'm looking at right now is specifically against the live
image, so no I can't test that with something in updates testing. It
needs to make it to the base before it gets on the live media to see
if it solves the problem there.
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 20:34 +0100, Piscium wrote:
On 10 April 2011 20:01, Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com wrote:
The bug I'm looking at right now is specifically against the live image, so
no I can't test that with something in updates testing. It needs to make it
to the base before it
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 1:27 AM, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote:
For the past several days I've been getting daily nagmails about the
fact that libtiff hasn't been pushed into f13 (example attached).
Because it's a critpath package, I as the lowly maintainer do not have
privileges to push it
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 21:47 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
I would generally agree with the brokenness of critical path. I
maintain the libraries that provide support for certain fruit based
iDevices and for some reason they're classed as crit path where as
clutter which is one of the core
Christoph Wickert wrote:
As someone who is still suffering from the KDE 4.6.1 update and who has
not received notable support from your or the KDE SIG I object to
lowering the test requirements for updates.
Uh, we're doing what we can about the Akonadi issues. The thing is, we
cannot
Am Sonntag, den 10.04.2011, 23:12 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler:
Christoph Wickert wrote:
As someone who is still suffering from the KDE 4.6.1 update and who has
not received notable support from your or the KDE SIG I object to
lowering the test requirements for updates.
Uh, we're doing
Christoph Wickert wrote:
But I can and I haven't seen any instructions what I should do. I am
willing to try broken update again in order to provide more info, but I
can only provide the info I am asked for.
Well, one thing worth testing is trying to figure out what part of kdepim or
Akonadi
That's good to know since I'm now out of contact after tonight. Can someone
close out the erroneous mdadm bug if it's caused by something else then please?
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 10, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 20:34 +0100, Piscium
One of the changes in the updated mdadm package is to ghost /var/run/mdadm and
to create it in the mdmonitor init script and also to set the SELinux state on
the new dir. So while things booted ok for you, monitoring of arrays is DOA in
the version prior to the update.
Sent from my iPhone
On
Comment inline below:
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 10, 2011, at 4:34 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 12:45 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
And here we are, about to go down the same road again. I have an update
in updates-testing, it's getting no love, and
On 04/10/2011 01:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 12:45 -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
And here we are, about to go down the same road again. I have an update
in updates-testing, it's getting no love, and the package that's in the
release is *known broken*. It has not been
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 18:19:26 -0700,
Christopher Aillon cail...@redhat.com wrote:
I just realized today for the first time that our nightlies are based on
stable, not testing. I think that's something we need to address. It's
probably still useful to have nightlies based on stable,
On 04/10/2011 01:23 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:45:56PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
And here we are, about to go down the same road again. I have an update
in updates-testing, it's getting no love, and the package that's in the
release is *known broken*. It has not
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 05:32:04AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Will Woods wrote:
In fact, there's plenty of approvers available, but you're not engaging
with them. They might not know how to test libtiff, or what needs
testing, so other stuff gets tested first.
The fact is, this is a
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Related to this, fesco wanted to look at some changes for security
updates for stable releases:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/581
Hopefully something like this would help the above case.
While I welcome those changes, I don't understand why we need to make the
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 05:32:04AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Will Woods wrote:
In fact, there's plenty of approvers available, but you're not engaging
with them. They might not know how to test libtiff, or what needs
On Sat, 2011-04-09 at 13:31 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 12:57 PM, Tomasz Torcz to...@pipebreaker.pl wrote:
On Sat, Apr 09, 2011 at 05:32:04AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Will Woods wrote:
In fact, there's plenty of approvers available, but you're not engaging
with them.
For the past several days I've been getting daily nagmails about the
fact that libtiff hasn't been pushed into f13 (example attached).
Because it's a critpath package, I as the lowly maintainer do not have
privileges to push it stable, not even after two weeks. Those who do
have privileges to
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 20:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I will refrain from ranting, and just point out that something is
pretty darn broken about this process. Why are the nagmails going
to someone with no power to fix the problem? Shouldn't somebody
with approval power be paying more than zero
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 20:43 -0400, Will Woods wrote:
The only thing broken here is the expectation that testing doesn't
require your assistance, or isn't your problem.
Well, F13 does tend to get pretty backed up; few people are running it
any more. I boot a virt instance of it and do a
On Fri, Apr 08, 2011 at 20:43:05 -0400,
Will Woods wwo...@redhat.com wrote:
The only thing broken here is the expectation that testing doesn't
require your assistance, or isn't your problem.
Except this affects more than Tom. Some people aren't getting updates because
of the
Will Woods wrote:
In fact, there's plenty of approvers available, but you're not engaging
with them. They might not know how to test libtiff, or what needs
testing, so other stuff gets tested first.
The fact is, this is a SECURITY UPDATE and as such it should go out even
without testing. It's
Related to this, fesco wanted to look at some changes for security
updates for stable releases:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/581
Hopefully something like this would help the above case.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
47 matches
Mail list logo
