On Mon, 2009-11-09 at 11:58 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> Hey folks,
> I put together this list for things I'd like to work on for f13. It's a
> list of packages with a file-requires that falls outside of *bin/* and
> /etc/* and then the provider(s) for those files.
>
> http://skvidal.fedorapeopl
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 08:22 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 09:03 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> >
> > It took me a little while to find your tag request:
> >
> > https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2448
> >
> > I've
Hi Peter,
On Thu, 2009-10-15 at 08:51 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I presume that the reason that tagging requests aren't being done is
> due to the upcoming beta but is there a reason that non core or
> critical path packages can't be tagged in. I have a number of Moblin
> packages
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 bureaucr
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 shoul
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 20:38 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Wit the Fedora 12 Alpha release coming up shortly, now would be a good
> time to review the release notes. Make sure the major features are
> covered, import bugs and workarounds noted etc
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_
On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 23:15 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Unlike some people around on this list, these tools' upstreams know how
> to use the autotools (I am active contributor to all of them):
> Use pregenerated files, do not run the autotools while building.
The last time this came up here,
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 20:30 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 00:56 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> > I'll make sure one of the Desktop-y guys updates this (presumably
> > Matthias).
> >
>
> I've updated it recently and bumped it to 75%. It would seem
> disingenuous to bump
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:58 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> All this really does is create a pseudo rawhide for each release,
> blurring the lines even more around why we even do releases. With a 6
> month cycle, do we really want to take on all this extra headaches and
> hassles just so that you c
On Sun, 2009-07-26 at 20:59 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin said the following on 07/24/2009 05:55 AM Pacific Time:
> > On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 21:09 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> >
> >> http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-rel
On Fri, 2009-07-24 at 10:13 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin (mar...@redhat.com) said:
> > > http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng-tasks.html
> > > http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng.ics
> >
> > In
Hi John,
(Cc-ing fedora-devel-list, surprised to see the schedule hasn't been
posted there)
On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 21:09 -0700, John Poelstra wrote:
> http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng-tasks.html
> http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-12/f-12-releng.ics
In the F
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 07:14 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > libguestfs is a case in point - the Debian maintainer builds it from
> > git using some unknown version of autoconf, and I build it on RHEL and
>
> This is a rare exception.
No, it's a rare exception for project to keep autotools gener
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 21:13 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> It just fits into your blind spot so nicely -- because you are firmly
> convinced that there is never any downside, you completely ignore everytime
> someone brings up an obvious one.
Have a look at http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 22:17 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Why is it bad to patch configure.ac and rerun the autotools stuff?
I used to avoid re-running autotools in rpm builds because I worried
that a future autotools update would subtly screw up the build - e.g.
disabling a previously enabl
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 00:38 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Run "make V=1" if you want the verbose output you're used to.
>
> This will be REQUIRED in Fedora for packages using this feature
Yes, it's a good idea for packages to do this, as it makes the koji logs
much more useful. We do this for
Hi Jim,
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 23:49 +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 12:50 +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote:
> >> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 09:02 +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote:
> >> > &g
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 12:50 +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote:
> Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 09:02 +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote:
> > > Owen Taylor wrote:
> > > > I was rather surprised to see:
> > > >
> > > > https://admin.fedora
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 09:02 +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote:
> Owen Taylor wrote:
> > I was rather surprised to see:
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-6661
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F10/FEDORA-2009-6076
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FED
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 14:05 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> But is this the type of upgrade that makes sense in general? It seems to
> me that we should be very conservative in upgrading build tools,
> especially in "maintenance mode" distributions like F9 and F10.
Agreed, and if there was a truly co
20 matches
Mail list logo
