On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 12:17 +0530, Amita Sharma wrote:
> On 09/17/2014 12:06 PM, Joerg Lechner wrote:
> > Hi,
> > the links currently still point to TC7 ISOs not to RC1.
> which link?
> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/stage/21_Alpha_RC1/ - this is rc1
The /current symlink in /stage still poi
On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 15:50 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> For reference:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-September/010657.html
>
> I'm uncertain what this means for F20->F21 testing scope. For sure,
> fedup upgrade from Fedora 20 to Fedora 21, just like any other
> release.
On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 07:30 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Not strictly a "test" question but.
>
> I rebuilt NetworkManager-0.9.10.0-6.git20140704 from F21 for F20 and
> installed it. After 2 days I have not seen
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059597. It normally
> crops up withi
On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 08:42 -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > > If I knew why someone thought 21_Alpha_TC6 was better than F21a-TC1 and
> > > 21-Alpha-TC3 I could do better. I never put underscores or whitespace in
> > > filenames or directory names. Names of downloads that do either get
> > > trashed
> > , the best idea would be to add something like .composeinfo file
> > inside the directory, which would contain all the metadata in a
> > ini-style or json-style syntax.
>
> can it please at least be the same syntax as *either* buildstamp *or*
> treeinfo ? I'm sure there's a good reason why we
Broken deps for i386
--
[PyQuante]
PyQuante-libint-1.6.4-11.fc22.1.i686 requires libint(x86-32) =
0:1.1.6-2.fc21
[Sprog]
Sprog-0.14-27.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.0)
[audtty]
audtty-0.1.12-9.fc20.i686
On Ter, 2014-09-16 at 07:30 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> Not strictly a "test" question but.
>
> I rebuilt NetworkManager-0.9.10.0-6.git20140704 from F21 for F20 and
> installed it. After 2 days I have not seen
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1059597. It normally crops up
> w
Compose started at Wed Sep 17 07:15:03 UTC 2014
Broken deps for armhfp
--
[APLpy]
APLpy-0.9.8-5.fc21.noarch requires pywcs
[PyKDE]
PyKDE-3.16.6-14.fc20.armv7hl requires sip-api(10) >= 0:10.0
[PyQuante]
PyQuante-libint-
Join us on irc.freenode.net in #fedora-meeting-2 for this important
meeting, wherein we shall determine the readiness of the Fedora 21 Alpha.
Thursday, September 18, 2014 17:00 UTC (1 PM EDT, 10 AM PDT, 19:00 CEST)
"Before each public release Development, QA and Release Engineering meet
to determ
Hi,
Sometime back, after consulting the FPC on their mailing list, I decided
to build freediams from the freemedforms spec also, since they are to be
built from the same source. With the latest freemedforms project
release, I've finally gotten down to this. Freediams has now been
retired and freem
On 09/17/14 15:23, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-09-16 at 07:30 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> Not strictly a "test" question but.
>>
>> I rebuilt NetworkManager-0.9.10.0-6.git20140704 from F21 for F20 and
>> installed it. After 2 days I have not seen
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_b
On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 11:57 +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> F20 have NetworkManager-0.9.9.0-44.git20131003.fc20 and F21 have
> NetworkManager-0.9.10.0-6.git20140704.fc21
Why are we still shipping git snapshots for such a critical system
component? If these versions are good enough for other distros,
On 09/16/2014 05:54 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Tue, 16 Sep 2014 16:57:53 -0400
Gene Czarcinski wrote:
>In TC7 kickstart is broken. Anybody know (has run) a kickstart
>install with one of the TC versions of F21?
>
>Gene
we use kickstarts to install the cloud images, TC6, TC7 and RC1 all
wo
Trying to rum "yum update" fails actually:
-
Loaded plugins: langpacks
adobe-linux-x86_64 | 951 B
00:00
fedora/21/x86_64/metalink | 24 kB
00:00
fedora-c
On 09/17/2014 06:50 PM, Joachim Backes wrote:
> Trying to rum "yum update" fails actually:
>
> -
>
> Loaded plugins: langpacks
> adobe-linux-x86_64 | 951 B
> 00:00
> fedora/21/x86_64/meta
Have I missed some sort of announcement concerning the distribution
packaging changes starting with Fedora 21?
Where is the equivalent of this
http://mirror.web-ster.com/fedora/releases/20/Fedora/x86_64/iso/Fedora-20-x86_64-DVD.iso
for Fedora 21. All of the current isos under TCx and RC1 are f
same problem , i update today 5 am ( chile hour ) and all work fine
later this i try to install a foo package and f21 fail for the same reason.
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Joachim Backes <
joachim.bac...@rhrk.uni-kl.de> wrote:
> On 09/17/2014 06:50 PM, Joachim Backes wrote:
> > Trying to rum
On Sep 17, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> Have I missed some sort of announcement concerning the distribution packaging
> changes starting with Fedora 21?
>
> Where is the equivalent of this
> http://mirror.web-ster.com/fedora/releases/20/Fedora/x86_64/iso/Fedora-20-x86_64-DVD.is
On 09/17/2014 03:39 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sep 17, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
Have I missed some sort of announcement concerning the distribution packaging
changes starting with Fedora 21?
Where is the equivalent of this
http://mirror.web-ster.com/fedora/releases/20/Fedor
On 09/17/2014 10:39 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Sep 17, 2014, at 10:55 AM, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
Have I missed some sort of announcement concerning the distribution packaging
changes starting with Fedora 21?
Where is the equivalent of this
http://mirror.web-ster.com/fedora/releases/20/Fedo
On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 12:55 -0400, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> Have I missed some sort of announcement concerning the distribution
> packaging changes starting with Fedora 21?
Well...it's https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next , basically. As
part of those changes, it was decided not to release
On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 18:50 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
> Trying to rum "yum update" fails actually:
You can safely uninstall 'fedora-repos-anaconda'. It's not actually
going to be any use for installed systems, it exists solely for anaconda
purposes. I think installed systems may be getting it b
And once again, F20 doesn't upgrade to Rawhide:
# yum update
[...]
--> Processing Conflict: gnome-settings-daemon-3.13.92-1.fc22.x86_64 conflicts
gnome-shell < 3.13.92
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: gnome-settings-daemon conflicts with gnome-shell-3.13.91-1.fc22.x86_64
Could breakage
On 09/17/2014 11:52 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> And once again, F20 doesn't upgrade to Rawhide:
>
> # yum update
> [...]
> --> Processing Conflict: gnome-settings-daemon-3.13.92-1.fc22.x86_64
> conflicts gnome-shell < 3.13.92
> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> Error: gnome-settings-daemon c
On Sep 17, 2014, at 1:14 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 15:50 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> For reference:
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-September/010657.html
>>
>> I'm uncertain what this means for F20->F21 testing scope. For sure,
>> fedup upgra
25 matches
Mail list logo
