On 10/30/2010 03:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 12:31 +0530, Saurabh Sharma wrote:
>
>>
>> Erased the 'samba-common' and installed samba, everything worked.
>> Probably it was a QA package that was pushed for testing and then
>> called back.
> It may be more to do with the
2010/10/30 Adam Williamson
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 14:53 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:41:50PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > > 2010/10/29 Dave Jones :
> > > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 09:06:42AM +0300, cornel panceac wrote:
> > > > > here
> > > > > http://fedo
2010/10/30 Adam Williamson
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 12:07 +0300, cornel panceac wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > yes, that was it:
> >
> > yum-3.2.28-4.fc13
> >
> > however, yum could have figured that putting a fc14 package over a
> > fc13 one is happening for one and only one reason
>
> Trying to ma
On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 01:00 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 10/30/2010 12:05 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> >
> >> I just installed an F12 VM, updated it, then updated it from
> >> updates-testing, rebooted, and +1'ed all the critpath updates (since it
> >> works fine). We need at least one other
On 10/30/2010 12:05 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>> I just installed an F12 VM, updated it, then updated it from
>> updates-testing, rebooted, and +1'ed all the critpath updates (since it
>> works fine). We need at least one other person to do this to push all
>> those critpath updates through, tho
On 10/30/2010 11:09 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 19:26 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
>> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>>> PS The guidelines don't go far enough. Replying to a digest even if
>>> you change the Subject line is still going to annoy a lot of people
>>> because it
On 10/29/2010 11:52 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 15:45 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>>> Even though it is not as bad as it appears, it is still obvious that we
>>> lack the testing resources to properly enforce our current critical path
>>> policies for older stable releas
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 15:45 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Even though it is not as bad as it appears, it is still obvious that we
> > lack the testing resources to properly enforce our current critical path
> > policies for older stable releases.
>
> Especially since four of the fixes are sec
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 22:39 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > I don't think this is true -- at least not for if you use the
> > mime-style digest. It's trivial in most clients to reply to
> > individual messages from the mime-style digest and have proper
> > threading, subject, etc.
>
> I w
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> I wasn't aware of that. I think the last time I received a digest
> must be over 10 years ago. Does "most clients" include Evolution,
> Thunderbird and Kmail (which I'm guessing are probably the top three
> on these lists)?
AFAIK, it does.
>> (We changed the users lis
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 19:26 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > PS The guidelines don't go far enough. Replying to a digest even if
> > you change the Subject line is still going to annoy a lot of people
> > because it breaks list threading. Digests are an obsolete artefac
--
Marcos G. Vaz
Tecnologia da Informação
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> PS The guidelines don't go far enough. Replying to a digest even if
> you change the Subject line is still going to annoy a lot of people
> because it breaks list threading. Digests are an obsolete artefact
> that really only works for people who just read list traffic
On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 00:24 +0200, xcieja wrote:
> I have just joined the Fedora`s community
Welcome. For a fruitful and agreeable experience, the first thing is to
read this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
particularly the part about not replying to digests.
poc
PS The gu
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 18:30 -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 03:10:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 20:44 +, upda...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> > > The following Fedora 12 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved:
>
> [snip 59 critpath update
On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 00:21 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > I'd like to just ditch the whole section and replace it with something
> > vaguer. Maybe realistic minimums for the default desktop, and a note
> > that the requirements will vary widely depending on what you're doing
> > with the sys
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 03:10:37PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 20:44 +, upda...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> > The following Fedora 12 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved:
[snip 59 critpath updates]
> Okay, this obviously sucks, and I'm really worried we cann
Carraturo: Reqeust to join
>(Fedora QA)
>10. Re: [Fedora QA] #148: Alexjan Carraturo: Reqeust to join
>(Fedora QA)
>11. F-14 Branched report: 20101029 changes (Branched Report)
>12. Re: selinux and file system check (Bruno Wolff III)
>13. [Test-Announc
2010/10/30 Adam Williamson :
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 14:53 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:41:50PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> > 2010/10/29 Dave Jones :
>> > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 09:06:42AM +0300, cornel panceac wrote:
>> > > > here
>> > > > http://fedorapro
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 20:44 +, upda...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> The following Fedora 12 Critical Path updates have yet to be approved:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tzdata-2010n-1.fc12
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/selinux-policy-3.6.32-125.fc12
> https:/
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 14:53 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:41:50PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > 2010/10/29 Dave Jones :
> > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 09:06:42AM +0300, cornel panceac wrote:
> > > > here
> > > > http://fedoraproject.org/
> > > > i see a section
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 10:09 +0100, José Matos wrote:
> On Thursday 28 October 2010 23:24:12 upda...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> > ===
> > = hdf5-1.8.5.patch1-4.fc14 (FEDORA-2010-16889)
> > A general purpose library and file
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 12:07 +0300, cornel panceac wrote:
>
>
> 2010/10/29 cornel panceac
>
>
> 2010/10/29 cornel panceac
>
>
>
> 2010/10/29 Stephen John Smoogen
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 a
On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 12:31 +0530, Saurabh Sharma wrote:
>
> Erased the 'samba-common' and installed samba, everything worked.
> Probably it was a QA package that was pushed for testing and then
> called back.
It may be more to do with the problem with packages getting pushed to
-stable
The following Fedora 12 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bzip2-1.0.6-1.fc12
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glpi-0.72.4-3.svn11497.fc12
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tomcat6-6.0.26-3.fc12
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/update
The following Fedora 13 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glpi-0.72.4-3.svn11497.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/banshee-1.6.1-4.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-libwww-perl-5.837-2.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.
The following Fedora 14 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mailman-2.1.13-6.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/moodle-1.9.10-1.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/cvs-1.11.23-11.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mono
On 10/28/2010 11:36 AM, cornel panceac wrote:
> here
> http://fedoraproject.org/
> i see a section called "Download requirements"
>
> shouldn't it be "Install requirements" instead?
>
> otoh, the new look is great!
> ( although it looks not so great on chromium :) )
>
> --
> When one door is clo
Quoting Dave Jones :
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:41:50PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > 2010/10/29 Dave Jones :
> > > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 09:06:42AM +0300, cornel panceac wrote:
> > > > here
> > > > http://fedoraproject.org/
> > > > i see a section called "Download requirements"
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 08:41:50PM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> 2010/10/29 Dave Jones :
> > On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 09:06:42AM +0300, cornel panceac wrote:
> > > here
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/
> > > i see a section called "Download requirements"
> > >
> > > shouldn't it be "I
2010/10/29 Dave Jones :
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 09:06:42AM +0300, cornel panceac wrote:
> > here
> > http://fedoraproject.org/
> > i see a section called "Download requirements"
> >
> > shouldn't it be "Install requirements" instead?
>
> Also the '400MHz pentium pro' part reads oddly, given
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 09:06:42AM +0300, cornel panceac wrote:
> here
> http://fedoraproject.org/
> i see a section called "Download requirements"
>
> shouldn't it be "Install requirements" instead?
Also the '400MHz pentium pro' part reads oddly, given the
fastest pentium pro was 200MHz.
T
On 10/29/10 1:35 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 13:26:53 -0430,
>Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> On 10/29/10 12:06 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 09:14:19 -0430,
>>>Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Trying to download TC1 right now but it's snail
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 13:26:53 -0430,
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On 10/29/10 12:06 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 09:14:19 -0430,
> > Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> >>Trying to download TC1 right now but it's snail-slow. Has anyone put up
> >>a torrent yet or do I hav
On 10/29/10 12:06 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 09:14:19 -0430,
>Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> Trying to download TC1 right now but it's snail-slow. Has anyone put up
>> a torrent yet or do I have to bide my time till the official release? I
>> was hoping to do the updat
On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 22:46 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-10-29 at 09:26 +0530, Sawrub wrote:
> > On 10/29/2010 01:11 AM, James Laska wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 16:35 -0300, iarly selbir wrote:
> > > > AFAIK, this group isn't used by the real QA members, instead we have
> >
here
http://fedoraproject.org/
i see a section called "Download requirements"
shouldn't it be "Install requirements" instead?
otoh, the new look is great!
( although it looks not so great on chromium :) )
--
When one door is closed, another is open.
(Robert Nesta Marley)
--
test mailing list
t
On 10/28/10 8:27 PM, Steven Haigh wrote:
> On 29/10/10 14:23, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 22:11 +0200, Fabian A. Scherschel wrote:
>>> LOL. Booting Fedora in an Apple Store? I wanna see that! :D
>>
>> Macs aren't only sold in Apple stores.
>
> Still, whats the point of only bei
On 10/28/10 6:33 AM, Jan Wildeboer wrote:
> All,
>
> the new Macbook Air and Fedora - has anyone tried it already? From the
> specs I see the usual problems:
>
> - Nvidia GeForce 320M
Chip should work, the concern is how it works either in EFI mode
(booting native EFI) or through "bootcamp" (a
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 09:14:19 -0430,
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Trying to download TC1 right now but it's snail-slow. Has anyone put up
> a torrent yet or do I have to bide my time till the official release? I
> was hoping to do the update this weekend.
I think you would do better to jus
The 389 team is pleased to announce the availability for testing of
Alpha 3 of version 1.2.7. This release contains some new features as
well as many bug fixes. On those platforms which have OpenLDAP built
with Mozilla NSS crypto support (Fedora 14 and later), the packages are
built with OpenLDAP
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 17:35:54 +0300,
cornel panceac wrote:
> > not yet, if possible i'll create a bug tomorrow. the behaviour is like
> this: i boot rescue environment, maybe yum update the system to be rescued,
> then reboot on the then reboot. ""Superblock etc" then immediately "file
> syst
Compose started at Fri Oct 29 13:15:04 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
qtgpsc-0.2.3-6.fc12.x86_64 requires libgps.so.18()(64bit)
Broken deps for i386
--
qtgpsc-0.2.
#148: Alexjan Carraturo: Reqeust to join
--+-
Reporter: axjslack | Owner: jlaska
Type: proventester request | Status: closed
Priority: major| Miles
#148: Alexjan Carraturo: Reqeust to join
--+-
Reporter: axjslack | Owner: jlaska
Type: proventester request | Status: assigned
Priority: major| M
#148: Alexjan Carraturo: Reqeust to join
--+-
Reporter: axjslack | Owner: jlaska
Type: proventester request | Status: assigned
Priority: major| M
#148: Alexjan Carraturo: Reqeust to join
--+-
Reporter: axjslack | Owner: jlaska
Type: proventester request | Status: assigned
Priority: major| M
#148: Alexjan Carraturo: Reqeust to join
-+--
Reporter: axjslack | Owner:
Type: proventester request | Status: new
Priority: major| Milestone:
2010/10/29 Daniel J Walsh
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 10/29/2010 02:48 AM, cornel panceac wrote:
> > why is the selinux relabel required when the "Superblock last mount/write
> is
> > in the future" error is fixed?
> >
> >
> No clue. Who says it is? Do you have a bu
Michael Schwendt (mschwe...@gmail.com) said:
> What's going on? What repo are "stable" updates going to currently?
> They are piling up broken dependencies, because they disappear
> from updates-testing, don't appear in development/14, and don't
> enter updates either. Not limited to "nss" but e.g
Trying to download TC1 right now but it's snail-slow. Has anyone put up
a torrent yet or do I have to bide my time till the official release? I
was hoping to do the update this weekend.
poc
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/29/2010 02:48 AM, cornel panceac wrote:
> why is the selinux relabel required when the "Superblock last mount/write is
> in the future" error is fixed?
>
>
No clue. Who says it is? Do you have a bugzilla reference?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---
On Thursday, October 28, 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-28 at 22:49 -0400, Claude Jones wrote:
> > I've had TC1 up and running for a couple of weeks , now; will
> > I be good to just leave things as they are and have it morph
> > into F14 when the official release occurs?
>
> Yes.
On Thursday 28 October 2010 23:24:12 upda...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
> ===
> = hdf5-1.8.5.patch1-4.fc14 (FEDORA-2010-16889)
> A general purpose library and file format for storing scientific data
> ---
2010/10/29 cornel panceac
>
>
> 2010/10/29 cornel panceac
>
>
>>
>> 2010/10/29 Stephen John Smoogen
>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:20, cornel panceac
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Doubtful. What is the version of yum on the system and what is it on the
>>> DVD
>>>
>>> rpm -qa | grep yum
>>>
>>>
>
2010/10/29 cornel panceac
>
>
> 2010/10/29 Stephen John Smoogen
>
>> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:20, cornel panceac wrote:
>>
>>
>> Doubtful. What is the version of yum on the system and what is it on the
>> DVD
>>
>> rpm -qa | grep yum
>>
>>
>> yum-3.2.28-3.fc14
>
on the dvd, and i'll try to di
2010/10/29 Stephen John Smoogen
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:20, cornel panceac wrote:
>
>
> Doubtful. What is the version of yum on the system and what is it on the
> DVD
>
> rpm -qa | grep yum
>
>
> yum-3.2.28-3.fc14
--
When one door is closed, another is open.
(Robert Nesta Marley)
--
test
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 01:20, cornel panceac wrote:
> after upgrading with x86 dvd (f14 rc1) from f13 to f14, i had several issues
> but the worst is that yum is no longer working. the error is:
>
> "no module named yum"
>
> after reading the yum.baseurl.org/wiki/Faq page, i've checked the rpms a
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 8:41 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
> conditions for joining the group. If you confirm, via the same ticket
> and via this list, that you have satisfied the requirements, then the
> mentor will sponsor your request once an application to join the
That was a type and I left a wor
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Sawrub wrote:
> Ok thats too is fine, so how can i join/ be a member of proven testers.
> Filing a ticket as mentioned http://tinyurl.com/2czpxok does not seem to
> work [please change if not applicable ].
> Besides all please approve my request for the proven tes
after upgrading with x86 dvd (f14 rc1) from f13 to f14, i had several issues
but the worst is that yum is no longer working. the error is:
"no module named yum"
after reading the yum.baseurl.org/wiki/Faq page, i've checked the rpms and
found that yum itself was not upgraded to f14 version. is thi
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Saurabh Sharma wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Sawrub wrote:
>
>> On 10/28/2010 11:31 PM, "Jóhann B. Gušmundsson" wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/28/2010 05:23 PM, Sawrub wrote:
>>>
The installation was done using Fedora 14 Beta, will check the yum
62 matches
Mail list logo
