Sorry, hit the Shortcut for sending mail :-/
Sérgio Basto wrote on 30.03.2012 00:59:
> On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 14:09 -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>> > # repoquery --archlist=i386,i686 --provides kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-PAE
>> > VirtualBox-OSE-kmod =
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 14:09 -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > # repoquery --archlist=i386,i686 --provides kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-PAE
> > VirtualBox-OSE-kmod = 4.1.8-1.fc16.16
> > kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-PAE = 4.1.8-1.fc16.16
> > kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-PAE(x
* Karel Volný [29/03/2012 10:56] :
>
> yep, considering my own response times, one week seems pretty
> short - but is it a problem to reopen the bug in that case?
No, you can reopen the bug without any problems.
In fact, the EXPIRED resolution was created to make it easier to search
for bugs tha
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> # repoquery --archlist=i386,i686 --provides kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-PAE
> VirtualBox-OSE-kmod = 4.1.8-1.fc16.16
> kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-PAE = 4.1.8-1.fc16.16
> kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-PAE(x86-32) = 4.1.8-1.fc16.16
>
> Why would the non-PAE package provi
Ok, still strange...
# repoquery --archlist=i386,i686 --provides kmod-VirtualBox-OSE
VirtualBox-OSE-kmod = 4.1.10-1.fc16.1
kmod-VirtualBox-OSE = 4.1.10-1.fc16.1
kmod-VirtualBox-OSE(x86-32) = 4.1.10-1.fc16.1
kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-PAE = 4.1.10-1.fc16.1
kmod-VirtualBox-OSE-smp = 4.1.10-1.fc16.1
kmod-Vi
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>> 2012/3/29 Sérgio Basto :
>>> On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 12:45 -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote:
2012/3/29 Sérgio Basto :
> Hi,
> other question about kmod , when I install VirtualBox-OSE
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> 2012/3/29 Sérgio Basto :
>> On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 12:45 -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>>> 2012/3/29 Sérgio Basto :
>>> > Hi,
>>> > other question about kmod , when I install VirtualBox-OSE , shouldn't
>>> > Requires: kmod-VirtualBox-OSE ?
>>>
>>> On
2012/3/29 Sérgio Basto :
> On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 12:45 -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>> 2012/3/29 Sérgio Basto :
>> > Hi,
>> > other question about kmod , when I install VirtualBox-OSE , shouldn't
>> > Requires: kmod-VirtualBox-OSE ?
>>
>> On PAE kernels, this would unnecessarily require the non-PAE ke
On Thu, 2012-03-29 at 12:45 -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> 2012/3/29 Sérgio Basto :
> > Hi,
> > other question about kmod , when I install VirtualBox-OSE , shouldn't
> > Requires: kmod-VirtualBox-OSE ?
>
> On PAE kernels, this would unnecessarily require the non-PAE kernel
> and non-PAE kmod.
We al
2012/3/29 Sérgio Basto :
> Hi,
> other question about kmod , when I install VirtualBox-OSE , shouldn't
> Requires: kmod-VirtualBox-OSE ?
On PAE kernels, this would unnecessarily require the non-PAE kernel
and non-PAE kmod.
- Ken
On 03/29/2012 08:06 PM, James R. Leu wrote:
I have a patch that enables building the usbip kernel modules and userland
tools as part of the staging-kmod RPM (the userland tools get put in a
seperate RPM). I'm new to this list, is there a RTFM link that gives
details about submitting patches?
Not
2012/3/29 James R. Leu :
> I have a patch that enables building the usbip kernel modules and userland
> tools as part of the staging-kmod RPM (the userland tools get put in a
> seperate RPM). I'm new to this list, is there a RTFM link that gives
> details about submitting patches?
Yep, there is a
I have a patch that enables building the usbip kernel modules and userland
tools as part of the staging-kmod RPM (the userland tools get put in a
seperate RPM). I'm new to this list, is there a RTFM link that gives
details about submitting patches?
--
James R. Leu
j...@mindspring.com
pgp7Q7TJ5v
Hi,
other question about kmod , when I install VirtualBox-OSE , shouldn't
Requires: kmod-VirtualBox-OSE ?
Thanks,
--
Sérgio M. B.
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2200
Alec Leamas changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||33
--- Comment #13 from Alec Leamas 2012
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2200
Richard changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks|3 |4
--- Comment #12 from Richard 2012-03-29 16
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2200
--- Comment #11 from Alec Leamas 2012-03-29 16:07:16
CEST ---
New links:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17870887/get-flash-videos-6/get-flash-videos.spec
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17870887/get-flash-videos-6/get-flash-videos-1.24-3.20120329git8abc6c6.fc
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2200
--- Comment #10 from Richard 2012-03-29 15:42:46 CEST ---
+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
?: Question or clairification needed
N: not applicable
MUST:
[+] rpmlint output: shown in comment.
[+] follows package nami
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2200
--- Comment #9 from Richard 2012-03-29 15:34:46 CEST ---
Nah, don't worry about it. I may find something else like...
The source doesn't appear to contain any license file. The homepage says it's
ASL 2.0 like the spec, but usually the archives
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2200
--- Comment #8 from Alec Leamas 2012-03-29 15:30:10
CEST ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> What do you think?
Perfectly OK with me. Should I fix a new link, or just wait for more comments?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/u
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2200
--- Comment #7 from Richard 2012-03-29 15:26:39 CEST ---
Ok, I'm not a license expert, but lib/FlashVideo/Site/Zshare.pm says it's
GPLv3+ licensed.
Perhaps the best way to handle this is to put comments above the license field?
# For a breakd
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2200
--- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas 2012-03-29 15:14:13
CEST ---
Not so much much more sites as better support for existing sites. Since this is
not official API:s, things break now and then. See e. g. README.fedora
--
Configure bugmail: https://
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2200
--- Comment #5 from Richard 2012-03-29 15:10:52 CEST ---
Is there a reason to prefer a git checkout over the released 1.24 version? I
assume it may support more sites than the current release?
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.o
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017
--- Comment #20 from Richard 2012-03-29 14:43:36 CEST ---
I'll check it out, but did you try the fork from comment 17? I gave it a try
and I much preferred it to the original.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2200
--- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas 2012-03-29 12:27:20
CEST ---
The dependencies perl-Data-AMF and perl-Crypt-Blowfish_PP are now in stable
repository for f16 and f17; for f15 they are in updates-testing and will remain
there until f15 EOL.
--
C
Hi,
...
> Thx for taking care of this.
+1
> Also a week delay seems short to me. Some might be in vacation
> and might miss the announcement. I would like to see another
> reminder before closing the bug.
yep, considering my own response times, one week seems pretty
short - but is it a problem
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2017
--- Comment #19 from Mattia Meneguzzo 2012-03-29 09:25:29
CEST ---
A new version of the package.
Spec URL: http://db.tt/hQ27NI6g
SRPM URL: http://db.tt/B9FBP2RZ
(RPM package for Fedora 16: http://db.tt/6EqUgCje )
Outputs of rpmlint: the sam
27 matches
Mail list logo
