On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 16:53 +0200, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
Starting with F11 kmemleak is part of the kernel. It is quite annoying
when every couple of minutes kmemleak starts to scan for memeleak within
the kernel. I do not see any point in doing this on desktop machines, so
is there a chance
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 22:24 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:06:56PM -0700, Jesse W wrote:
What would be a good next step for me to take to help get descriptions
added to these updates (and make sure this happens less often in the
future) ?
It should fall
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:56:55 + (UTC), Jesse wrote:
And, what can I do to help get descriptions added for the 4 updates
I mentioned?
If you can't get the submitter of the updates to add descriptions, in the
future it may need a separate team of community volunteers who get an
Edit
LinuxDonald wrote:
I think it?s better when openal-soft will come with f12.
The Packager have enough time to rebuild there packages.
But when the packager want to rebuild there packages i will make an
package for f11.
How many packages are affected? I suspect there are probably too many to
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 04:56:55AM +, Jesse Weinstein wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones rjones at redhat.com writes:
It should fall back to taking the description from the changelog (in
fact, I think it already does that right now).
Where would I find the changelog? It's not visibly connected
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Correct, such a step will add a significant bureaucratic burdons to
maintainers.
As maintainers hate bureaucrazy and prefer investing time on dealing
with technical issues (such as bug fixes), this will likely introduce a
further reduction of the quality of Fedora.
On 08/13/2009 10:41 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Correct, such a step will add a significant bureaucratic burdons to
maintainers.
As maintainers hate bureaucrazy and prefer investing time on dealing
with technical issues (such as bug fixes), this will likely introduce a
(08/04/09 16:21), Mamoru Tasaka-san wrote:
Perhaps it is better that you would contact Petersen-san
petersen_AT_redhat.com
Thanks for your suggestion.
I understood 'sponsor' role can give the permission.
Regards,
Mamoru
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 11:17 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly
pushing around package maintainers and force them to waste time to
fullfill your solely burecratic demands.
I just think they will keep doing the same...
What else ?
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:41:26 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Correct, such a step will add a significant bureaucratic burdons to
maintainers.
As maintainers hate bureaucrazy and prefer investing time on dealing
with technical issues (such as bug fixes), this will likely
With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly
pushing around package maintainers and force them to waste time to
fullfill your solely burecratic demands.
I just think they will keep doing the same...
What else ? Filling bug report for every changelog not correctly
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 11:58 +0200, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote:
With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly
pushing around package maintainers and force them to waste time to
fullfill your solely burecratic demands.
I just think they will keep doing the same...
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 11:17 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly
pushing around package maintainers and force them to waste time to
fullfill your solely burecratic demands.
This is hardly being demanding, rude, bullying or
On 08/13/2009 03:42 PM, Pierre-Yves wrote:
People who wants to write an extensive changelog will and people who
don't want won't.
Quality doesn't come from letting everybody do whatever they want.
Btw IMHO changelog on the spec reflects change that happened to the
packaging (change in the
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 16:12 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/13/2009 03:42 PM, Pierre-Yves wrote:
People who wants to write an extensive changelog will and people who
don't want won't.
Quality doesn't come from letting everybody do whatever they want.
Then I'm curious about:
1- How do
On 08/13/2009 04:24 PM, Pierre-Yves wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 16:12 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/13/2009 03:42 PM, Pierre-Yves wrote:
People who wants to write an extensive changelog will and people who
don't want won't.
Quality doesn't come from letting everybody do whatever they
On 12/08/09 21:05, David L wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:47 PM, David L wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 09:23:00AM -0700, David L wrote:
I recently took a f11 live USB stick and used it to install
f11 on a second USB
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Now I agree that extending RPM to add metadata to mark the upstream
changelog file or URL would be an excellent idea. It's a one-off
change to specfiles and means that we don't need to write the same
thing in every update - a win all round.
Suggestions:
On 08/13/2009 04:42 PM, psmith wrote:
jeez when i brought up the idea of fedora using hybrid iso's a few
months back i was basically lambasted by most on this list, now all of a
sudden it's a new F12 feature? wtf???
This is a users list. There isn't much of a use suggesting development
Compose started at Thu Aug 13 06:15:05 UTC 2009
Updated Packages:
anaconda-12.14-1.fc12
-
* Wed Aug 12 2009 David Cantrell dcantr...@redhat.com - 12.14-1
- Correctly inform the user once about obsolete parm/conf file options on
s390 (maier)
- Handle activation of DASDs in
Michael Schwendt wrote:
Some package maintainers include upstream's summary of the changes in the
source code in their package %changelogs. I consider that as much too
detailed [and irrelevant to the majority of RPM package users]. Those few
who really have interest in reviewing low-level
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Now I agree that extending RPM to add metadata to mark the upstream
changelog file or URL would be an excellent idea. It's a one-off
change to specfiles and means that we don't need to write the same
thing in every update - a win all round.
What we really need is a
2009/8/13 Rahul Sundaram sunda...@fedoraproject.org:
There is a difference between the changelog and the bodhi update
information. The latter also covers software changes.
The people on this mailing list know what a ChangeLog is, and how to
read one. These people (real people, not geeks) do not
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 04:53:54PM +0200, Fabian Deutsch wrote:
Hello.
Starting with F11 kmemleak is part of the kernel
huh? It's never been on in F11. In fact, the code isn't even present as
an option there. (It's a post 2.6.30 feature)
In rawhide, it was switched on for about a week a
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Whether a changelog entry tells
- Update to upstream release 1.2.3
- Update due to http://ustreamurl/releasenote-1.2.3
- Upstream update:
.. long verbose list of details
is entirely irrelevant to both, you and to Aunt Tilly (she won't read
them at all and even if
Pierre-Yves wrote:
What else ? Filling bug report for every changelog not correctly
formed ? That's not an option.
IMHO the updates should just be intercepted by someone before they get
pushed and the push request canceled/blocked until you fix the description.
Kevin Kofler
--
黄剑 wrote:
help me, please i am confused by this for days. Thing is this, i am
a non-devel user of fedora 11,
Then you're on the wrong list, try fedora-list or fedora-test-list.
But to answer your actual question: don't use rpm -i (or -ivh) to downgrade
fedora-release, use rpm -Uvh
Richard Hughes wrote:
The people on this mailing list know what a ChangeLog is, and how to
read one. These people (real people, not geeks) do not know what a
ChangeLog is: http://www.packagekit.org/pk-profiles.html
Like somebody else said in the discussion, just because we are
amateurs
I've noticed that F12 will require a CPU with i686 architecture, and
that my Athlon 1.2GHz won't qualify. I accept that F11 is the last
Fedora release that I'll be able to use. My concern is that many
present Fedora users will be unpleasantly surprised that a new
installation doesn't work,
I've noticed that F12 will require a CPU with i686 architecture, and
that my Athlon 1.2GHz won't qualify. I accept that F11 is the last
Fedora release that I'll be able to use. My concern is that many
present Fedora users will be unpleasantly surprised that a new
installation doesn't work,
Tony Nelson wrote:
I've noticed that F12 will require a CPU with i686 architecture, and
that my Athlon 1.2GHz won't qualify. I accept that F11 is the last
Fedora release that I'll be able to use. My concern is that many
present Fedora users will be unpleasantly surprised that a new
thanks very very much, my fedora is restored now. You are so nice.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 22:03, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
黄剑 wrote:
help me, please i am confused by this for days. Thing is this, i am
a non-devel user of fedora 11,
Then you're on the wrong list, try
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:12:35PM +0100, psmith wrote:
jeez when i brought up the idea of fedora using hybrid iso's a few
months back i was basically lambasted by most on this list, now all of a
sudden it's a new F12 feature? wtf???
I am not sure, what the right word is, but there seem
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:51:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
AIUI, the package changelog only really needs to contain what you changed in
the specfile,
Tell that all the package maintainers, who do it differently.
Overall, however, what updates need is feedback from actual testers before
they are
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:53:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly
pushing around package maintainers and force them to waste time to
fullfill your solely burecratic demands.
You're free to leave.
Won't speak for
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 12:12 +0100, psmith wrote:
jeez when i brought up the idea of fedora using hybrid iso's a few
months back i was basically lambasted by most on this list, now all of
a sudden it's a new F12 feature? wtf???
Didn't you know? That's how Fedora works. First everyone tells you
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 17:56 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
For me it isn't. I won't spend extra time on writing special summaries
for a test-update, if nobody contributes any testing.
FWIW you almost certainly _are_ getting some testing. There are
definitely users on -test-list who run with
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 11:17 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
No, as ususal, you are demonstrating your lack of competence and
understanding:
And you're displaying your usual grasp of diplomacy...
Whether a changelog entry tells
- Update to upstream release 1.2.3
- Update due to
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 17:59 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:53:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly
pushing around package maintainers and force them to waste time to
fullfill your
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 09:32:24PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/13/2009 09:29 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:53:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly
pushing around package maintainers and
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 17:59 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:53:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly
pushing around package maintainers and force them to waste time
On 08/13/2009 10:25 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 09:32:24PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/13/2009 09:29 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:53:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 17:59 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:53:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly
pushing around package maintainers and force
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:51:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
AIUI, the package changelog only really needs to contain what
you changed in
the specfile,
Tell that all the package maintainers, who do it differently.
I think he
For several releases, Docs has maintained a module called homepage, which
provides /usr/share/doc/HTML/index_(lang).html. The original idea was to
have something to display when the computer is offline. As far as we can
tell, the only browser still using this is lynx, presumably the others
Quoting Bill Nottingham:
Given the loud feedback, I've updated the proposal at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F12X86Support
The revised proposal:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
- Optimize for Atom
I do not understand then, that there exist i686
Joachim wrote:
Quoting Bill Nottingham:
Given the loud feedback, I've updated the proposal at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F12X86Support
The revised proposal:
- Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
- Optimize for Atom
I do not understand then, that there
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 13:22 -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
Maybe an updates-testing report (like the daily Rawhide Report
which I scan even though I don't run Rawhide yet) could do some
good?
There is one, but it doesn't go to -devel-list. It goes to -test-list.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
2009/8/13 Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com:
If you can create such architectural default let me know, and I'll use it.
... but none ever arrived ...
Comment #4 ... 2009-08-05 04:36:24 EDT
I will investigate how to create an architectural defaults on my
local system for inclusion into the Fedora
Joachim (joachim.frie...@googlemail.com) said:
Moreover, it is even pulled in by basic packages like gnome-games (!).
Well, you know, if you want to play sudoku, you *need* a linear algebra
package.
(See earlier threads about numpy dependencies in pygtk.)
Bill
--
fedora-devel-list mailing
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Mathieu Bridon
(bochecha)boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Being a group of volunteers doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for more quality.
Ah..but project wide..is this place to have a quality enhancement
discussion currently? Let me try to put this into perspective.
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 14:37 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Joachim (joachim.frie...@googlemail.com) said:
Moreover, it is even pulled in by basic packages like gnome-games (!).
Well, you know, if you want to play sudoku, you *need* a linear algebra
package.
(See earlier threads about
Hi,
I've just built this and seems like some of the runtime deps were
raised, so far I've noticed gstreamer-python-0.10.16, you should bump
the dep in spec as well.
Martin
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 18:30 +, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
Author: jcollie
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/pitivi/F-11
In
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 10:44:35 -0800,
Jeff Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote:
Ah..but project wide..is this place to have a quality enhancement
discussion currently? Let me try to put this into perspective. This
post started about 4 updates. How many updates have we pushed? What is
our
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 14:37:54 -0400,
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Joachim (joachim.frie...@googlemail.com) said:
Moreover, it is even pulled in by basic packages like gnome-games (!).
Well, you know, if you want to play sudoku, you *need* a linear algebra
package.
?
I've been working recently on bringing Fedora up to snuff as a platform to
build Haskell software on:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Haskell#Haskell_Platform_support
In my ideal world, it would be possible to install all of the necessities
for decent Haskell development via a single short
On 13/08/09 12:27, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/13/2009 04:42 PM, psmith wrote:
jeez when i brought up the idea of fedora using hybrid iso's a few
months back i was basically lambasted by most on this list, now all of a
sudden it's a new F12 feature? wtf???
This is a users
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Martin Souradamartin.sour...@gmail.com wrote:
I've just built this and seems like some of the runtime deps were
raised, so far I've noticed gstreamer-python-0.10.16, you should bump
the dep in spec as well.
Thanks for the heads up... Looks like
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/13/2009 09:15 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Consider Fedora's _actual_ userbase (which, as recent discussions seem
to have established, is not Aunt Tilly but reasonably clueful
enthusiasts). They would certainly be able to read update
Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Ah..but project wide..is this place to have a quality enhancement
discussion currently? Let me try to put this into perspective. This
post started about 4 updates. How many updates have we pushed? What is
our defect rate? Like 1% or something? What's are defect rate
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at writes:
Folks, what I want to know is WHAT CHANGED in the new upstream
version and/or WHY it's getting pushed as an update.
Is a link to upstream's release notes sufficient? If not, why not?
(For the packages I deal with, the upstream notes frequently run
Tom Lane wrote:
Is a link to upstream's release notes sufficient? If not, why not?
If the upstream release notes are reasonably complete and written in a style
the target userbase of the package will understand (i.e. it's OK for MySQL
to talk about a transaction rollback, but if e.g. Amarok
On Thursday 13 August 2009 05:53:37 pm John Poelstra wrote:
Can you update the feature page to reflect the reduced scope of the
feature and its completion percentage? All I see since FESCo met was
the change to the detailed description related to the permissions.
That *is* the reduction in
On 08/13/2009 06:55 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 09:32:24PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/13/2009 09:29 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:53:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 05:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I strongly think Fedora would be better without Rahul and Kevin, two
persons I have learned to be doing a good job on certain subjects, but
to be a miscast on certain jobs and failure of the system in Fedora.
I strongly feel that
Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de said:
On 08/13/2009 06:55 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Two wrongs does not make a right. Everyone needs to stop the back and
forth
on this now.
And censorship doesn't make it better.
Asking people to try to be polite or to take a break when
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 09:15:04 -0700, Adam wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-13 at 17:56 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
For me it isn't. I won't spend extra time on writing special summaries
for a test-update, if nobody contributes any testing.
FWIW you almost certainly _are_ getting some testing.
perl-DBIx-Class-Schema-Loader has broken dependencies in the development tree:
On ppc:
perl-DBIx-Class-Schema-Loader-0.04006-4.fc12.noarch requires
perl(DBIX::Class)
On x86_64:
perl-DBIx-Class-Schema-Loader-0.04006-4.fc12.noarch requires
perl(DBIX::Class)
On i386:
Hello,
our new split of upstream perl package into perl-core and many
other perl-Some-Module was criticised at p5p
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.perl.perl5.porters/72031
I'm not sure who decided the split and why we did this, but someone
should answer reasonably which means better
Package perl-Business-Hours in Fedora 7 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Business-Hours
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Business-Hours in Fedora 3 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Business-Hours
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Business-Hours in Fedora 4 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Business-Hours
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Business-Hours in Fedora 5 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Business-Hours
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Business-Hours in Fedora 8 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Business-Hours
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Business-Hours in Fedora 6 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Business-Hours
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Business-Hours in Fedora 9 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Business-Hours
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Want in Fedora 7 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Want
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Want in Fedora 3 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Want
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Want in Fedora 4 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Want
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Want in Fedora 8 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Want
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Want in Fedora 5 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Want
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Want in Fedora 6 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Want
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Params-Util in Fedora 4 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Params-Util
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Params-Util in Fedora 3 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Params-Util
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Params-Util in Fedora 7 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Params-Util
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Params-Util in Fedora 8 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Params-Util
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Test-Inline in Fedora 7 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Test-Inline
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Params-Util in Fedora 5 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Params-Util
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Test-Inline in Fedora 3 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Test-Inline
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Params-Util in Fedora 6 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Params-Util
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Test-Inline in Fedora 4 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Test-Inline
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Test-Inline in Fedora 6 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Test-Inline
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Test-Inline in Fedora 5 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Test-Inline
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Package perl-Test-Inline in Fedora 8 is now owned by laxathom
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/perl-Test-Inline
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
94 matches
Mail list logo
