Yes, I think it's still in embryonic stage. It's not easy to replace KDM ;)
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-November/192481.html
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On 12/08/13 12:05, Christopher Meng wrote:
> Target to f21:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SDDMinsteadOfKDM
Thanks I thought the target was F20 since it was in all the previous test
releases. I guess this is a good explanation
SDDM is now lacking some functionality compared
Target to f21:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SDDMinsteadOfKDM
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
I've just now realized that with TC5 sddm has been dropped in favor of kdm.
What was the reason for switching back?
--
Getting tired of non-Fedora discussions and self-serving posts
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listin
On 07/12/13 08:45 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2013-04-23 04:43 (GMT-0500) Kamil Paral composed:
Trying to yum upgrade 19 is stuck on a mirror with no useful
throughput. What
kind of workaround for this is available? Nothing jumps at me in the
yum man
page. How do I specify to use a particular mir
On 2013-04-23 04:43 (GMT-0500) Kamil Paral composed:
Trying to yum upgrade 19 is stuck on a mirror with no useful throughput. What
kind of workaround for this is available? Nothing jumps at me in the yum man
page. How do I specify to use a particular mirror know to work?
If the speed is below
On 2013-12-07 01:54, Bruno Medeiros wrote:
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings.
systemd-208-9.fc20 was pushed into the base fedora 20 repos last
night
(as it fixed a blocker bug for the upcoming release).
However, it was not signed properly, so Fedora 20 prerelease u
The following Fedora 20 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
50
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19198/quassel-0.9.1-1.fc20
43
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19934/openstack-glance-2013.2-2.fc20
38
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDOR
I tried updating today. Yum is working.
But I get weird warning about the groups.
yum update -y
updates-testing/20/x86_64/metalink | 7.2 kB
00:00
Warning: group core does not exist.
Warning: group multimedia does not exist.
Warning: group input-methods does not exist.
Warning:
Compose started at Sat Dec 7 07:15:02 UTC 2013
Broken deps for armhfp
--
[avro]
avro-mapred-1.7.5-1.fc20.noarch requires hadoop-mapreduce
avro-mapred-1.7.5-1.fc20.noarch requires hadoop-client
[blueman]
blueman-1.23-7
On 12/07/2013 12:01 PM, Joachim Backes wrote:
> On 12/07/2013 11:55 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 19:37:08 +0100, Simon G. wrote:
>>
>>> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039052
>>> and
>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/yum-3.4.3-120.fc20?_csrf_token=88
On 12/07/2013 11:55 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 19:37:08 +0100, Simon G. wrote:
>
>> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039052
>> and
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/yum-3.4.3-120.fc20?_csrf_token=88c0eb78b5fd4d9eb03e957cc9042ad6c25c3f7c
>>
>
> The e
On Fri, 6 Dec 2013 19:37:08 +0100, Simon G. wrote:
> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039052
> and
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/yum-3.4.3-120.fc20?_csrf_token=88c0eb78b5fd4d9eb03e957cc9042ad6c25c3f7c
>
The explanation of what exactly was broken with the -119.fc20 yu
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> systemd-208-9.fc20 was pushed into the base fedora 20 repos last night
> (as it fixed a blocker bug for the upcoming release).
>
> However, it was not signed properly, so Fedora 20 prerelease users
> will see an error about the p
On Sat, 2013-12-07 at 08:07 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 12/06/2013 11:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hi, folks. I've been doing some polish testing on F20 in the last few
> > days, and thought it'd make sense to write up my tests as test cases.
> > Here's the first:
> >
> > Though
On Sat, 2013-12-07 at 03:18 +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > What would make sense would be to write a separate test for smb4k. Or,
> > heck, a whole set of test cases! We've been wanting to have more test
> > cases for more applications for a long time. But it wouldn't make sense
> > as a 'desktop
On 12/06/2013 11:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hi, folks. I've been doing some polish testing on F20 in the last few
days, and thought it'd make sense to write up my tests as test cases.
Here's the first:
Thoughts, queries, corrections, improvements etc? Thanks!
As long as you dont start putt
17 matches
Mail list logo