Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com wrote:
If I gave you some 2.1.4 revisor packages to test on Fedora 9 (I'm not sure
they work but there have been no major changes), are you able to test them?
Yes. My only 'compat' concern is with
Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Martin Langhoff
martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you planning on updating the F-9 or F-11 packages with it?
Hi Jeroen,
- is there a revision coming on the F-9 or F10 branches?
I'm planning a release for F-10.
- can you check
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:46 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com wrote:
If I gave you some 2.1.4 revisor packages to test on Fedora 9 (I'm not sure
they work but there have been no major changes), are you able to test them?
Yes. My only 'compat' concern is with anaconda. If they expect
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Martin Langhoff
martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you planning on updating the F-9 or F-11 packages with it?
Hi Jeroen,
- is there a revision coming on the F-9 or F10 branches?
- can you check whether the F-9 package (2.1.1-7) matches what's in
git? From
Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com wrote:
Can you maybe send me a log file with both Revisor as well as YUM set to
debuglevel 9?
Hi Jeroen,
last week you mentioned the logs made sense... any news on this track?
Did this evolve into
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com wrote:
Can you maybe send me a log file with both Revisor as well as YUM set to
debuglevel 9?
Hi Jeroen,
last week you mentioned the logs made sense... any news on this track?
Did this evolve into a different thread
Martin Langhoff wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com wrote:
Since your first mail, I've tried to reproduce this. I have no problems
producing installation media with both openssl.i386 and openssl.i686 in the
RPM payload (Packages/ directory) - with
Hi Jeroen,
we have revisor on F-9 ignoring the requested arch and building the
spin based on the host arch only - is this a known issue? The
revisor-made spin we have doesn't work on i586 :-/
more details below...
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Martin Langhoff
martin.langh...@gmail.com
Martin Langhoff wrote:
Hi Jeroen,
we have revisor on F-9 ignoring the requested arch and building the
spin based on the host arch only - is this a known issue? The
revisor-made spin we have doesn't work on i586 :-/
more details below...
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Martin Langhoff
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com wrote:
Since your first mail, I've tried to reproduce this. I have no problems
producing installation media with both openssl.i386 and openssl.i686 in the
RPM payload (Packages/ directory) - with either respin mode or
[ resend - now to the appropriate Fedora list - apologies ]
Hi everyone,
the olpc XS spin is hitting a problem installing on i586s (and that
includes our own XO). The problem seems to be well known -- anaconda
composes based on the arch of the build host rather than on the arch
requested, as
11 matches
Mail list logo
