Jameson wrote, at 10/11/2009 06:37 AM +9:00:
I'm having trouble getting the new version of libprojectM packaged,
and hope someone can shed some light on this for me.
Would you upload the srpm you are trying somewhere?
When I enter the
commands to build it manually, it builds fine, but when
On 10/10/2009 11:07 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Just upgraded my F11 workstation, which included an upgrade to
thunderbird-3.0-2.7.b4.fc11.x86_64
Without any prompting or warning, my email layout -- a key interface
into my open source development workflow -- was changed to use
something called "
Just upgraded my F11 workstation, which included an upgrade to
thunderbird-3.0-2.7.b4.fc11.x86_64
Without any prompting or warning, my email layout -- a key interface
into my open source development workflow -- was changed to use something
called "smart folders".
Also annoying, though of l
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 10:17:16AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Well, that's only valid if we actually do anything to ensure multilib
> compilation actually *works*, right now all we enforce is that the
> packages don't conflict (which isn't the same thing at all).
It's also valid if we want
Henrik /KaarPoSoft, Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:20:44 +0200:
> However, to compile blueZync, development packages for thunderbird and
> sunbird are needed
> (i.e. header files, idl files etc).
>
> As far as I can see, not such -devel packages are available for Fedora
> 11 or 12.
When you install xulrunne
I'm having trouble getting the new version of libprojectM packaged,
and hope someone can shed some light on this for me. When I enter the
commands to build it manually, it builds fine, but when trying to
package it, it comes out with commands like:
cd /home/ipfreely/rpmbuild/BUILD/libprojectM-1.2
Original Message
Subject: Development packages for Thunderbird/Sunbird
From: Henrik /KaarPoSoft
To: fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
Date: 09.10.2009 18:20
I would like blueZync to work on Fedora too
(currently developing on Debian and Ubuntu).
Me too. I did start a packaging
Am Samstag, den 10.10.2009, 21:41 +0200 schrieb Chitlesh GOORAH:
> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > I am starting the AWOL procedure [1] for Claudio Tomasoni, because he
> > didn't respond to a bug I opened 5 months ago [2]. Chitlesh even tried
> > to contact him for mor
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> I am starting the AWOL procedure [1] for Claudio Tomasoni, because he
> didn't respond to a bug I opened 5 months ago [2]. Chitlesh even tried
> to contact him for more than 7 months [3]. We should prepare for taking
> over Claudio's packag
Michael Schwendt wrote, at 10/11/2009 01:09 AM +9:00:
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:32:40 +0200, Patrice wrote:
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 05:21:37PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Timestamp differences do NOT cause file conflicts.
Indeed, obviously this has changed. Changes like this should be
announ
On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 10:17 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I guess the point is that if we actually intend to support 'you can
> cross-compile with any -devel package from another arch that's included
gah, I know I don't really mean cross-compile, it's been pointed out to
me before that it's the
On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 18:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:47:59 -0700, Adam wrote:
>
> > Of course, that turns the larger question into 'why do we put i686
> > -devel packages in the x86-64 repo, not just the lib packages',
>
> Because not all files in -devel packages co
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:32:40 +0200, Patrice wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 05:21:37PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > >
> > > Timestamp differences do NOT cause file conflicts.
> >
> > Indeed, obviously this has changed. Changes like this should be
> > announced somewhere,
What is the s
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 07:47:59 -0700, Adam wrote:
> Of course, that turns the larger question into 'why do we put i686
> -devel packages in the x86-64 repo, not just the lib packages',
Because not all files in -devel packages cover multiple target
platforms. Example: You could not build for i686 wi
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 05:21:37PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >
> > Timestamp differences do NOT cause file conflicts.
>
> Indeed, obviously this has changed. Changes like this should be
> announced somewhere, I guess Kevin and me are not the only one packagers
> who still believe they ha
Am Samstag, den 10.10.2009, 11:30 +0300 schrieb Panu Matilainen:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >
> > If the contents of the file is the same and they only their timestamps
> > differ, you can touch them reversely after install as in
> > http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/e
On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 15:02 +, Scott Tsai wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:57:51 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > It would be nice to have more comprehensive 3D tests.
>
> I think it's worth packaging the "piglit" OopenGL test suite:
> http://cgit.freedesktop.org/piglit
> and using it in gr
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 07:57:51 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It would be nice to have more comprehensive 3D tests.
I think it's worth packaging the "piglit" OopenGL test suite:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/piglit
and using it in graphics test days.
According tho this blog post by Eric Anholt and
On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 22:25 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2009, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2009-10-09 at 16:41 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> >>> It's not to be considered a bug, AFAIK. We don't stipulate that
> >>> development packages be installable side-by-side in t
Maybe off topic but, how to correct color schemes for Epson Printers?
Default is horrible (excess of red, wrong gamma/brightness, etc). I
guess someone must have dealt with that.
Best regards
CdAB
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-de
Compose started at Sat Oct 10 06:15:04 UTC 2009
Broken deps for i386
--
konversation-1.2-1.fc12.i686 requires kdelibs4 >= 0:4.3.2
sugar-toolkit-0.86.0-1.fc12.i686 requires python-json
Broken deps for x86_64
On 10/10/2009 01:48 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Freitag, den 09.10.2009, 18:56 -0400 schrieb Neal Becker:
What if the generated docbook documents are different due to different
"id"s? Do we need to separate the docs into a noarch subpac
On Sat, 10 Oct 2009, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Freitag, den 09.10.2009, 18:56 -0400 schrieb Neal Becker:
Just received:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528237
yum install libotf-devel.i586 libotf-devel.x86_64
yields:
Transaction Check Error:
file /usr/bin/libotf-config from i
23 matches
Mail list logo
