Compose started at Thu Sep 10 21:34:54 UTC 2009
Broken deps for i386
--
anerley-0.0.20-3.fc12.i686 requires libmissioncontrol-client.so.0
anerley-devel-0.0.20-3.fc12.i686 requires pkgconfig(libmissioncontrol)
1:anjuta-
2009/9/11 Rawhide Report :
>
> New package emacs-common-pmd
> An interface to PMD for Emacs
> New package gfs-philostratos-fonts
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
Is this truncated?
--
Mat
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
> Is this truncated?
Looks like it. I got a tonne of updates (including the 2.6.31 kernel).
Wish they'd just set out the rawhide report like the updates testing
one (i.e. list of new/updated/broken packages at the top. And full
details undernea
On Fri, 11 Sep 2009 18:51:48 +1000, Eric wrote:
> Wish they'd just set out the rawhide report like the updates testing
> one (i.e. list of new/updated/broken packages at the top. And full
> details underneath)
If you feel motivated enough, modify repodiff from yum-utils. That's
the tool that crea
Hiyas,
why are the new packages now hidden below the broken dependencies? Iirc
there was even a discussion about changing the format more than a year
ago and back then it was decided to keep it as it is.
Regards
Till
pgppRRas3nT4G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
fedora-devel-list mailing lis
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> Hiyas,
>
> why are the new packages now hidden below the broken dependencies? Iirc
> there was even a discussion about changing the format more than a year
> ago and back then it was decided to keep it as it is.
This was discussed a couple of
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:37:59AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> This was discussed a couple of days ago against another rawhide
> report. I would check out the list archives for the reasoning.
I fail to find it. :-( The last report in the old format was 20090902
and I did not find any discussio
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 10:37:59AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
>> This was discussed a couple of days ago against another rawhide
>> report. I would check out the list archives for the reasoning.
>
> I fail to find it. :-( The last report in
fr., 11.09.2009 kl. 18.51 +1000, skrev Eric Springer:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
> > Is this truncated?
>
>
> Looks like it. I got a tonne of updates (including the 2.6.31 kernel).
>
Which made X hang/burn cpu like mad for me to the point that I had to go
back to the pr
