On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 14:59 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 20 May 2011 15:52:35 -0500
> Ian Pilcher wrote:
>
> > On 05/20/2011 03:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > fedpkg co somepackage
> >
> > [pilcher@ian temp]$ fedpkg co btrfs-progs
> > Cloning into btrfs-progs...
> > The authenticity
On Fri, 20 May 2011 15:52:35 -0500
Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 05/20/2011 03:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > fedpkg co somepackage
>
> [pilcher@ian temp]$ fedpkg co btrfs-progs
> Cloning into btrfs-progs...
> The authenticity of host 'pkgs.fedoraproject.org (209.132.181.4)'
> can't be established.
Ian Pilcher wrote:
> I'm all for making maintainers lives easier, but ...
If you are not a packager you can just do:
git clone git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/btrfs-progs.git
fedpkg is for Fedora Packagers. :)
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedorapr
On 05/20/2011 02:52 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 05/20/2011 03:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> fedpkg co somepackage
> [pilcher@ian temp]$ fedpkg co btrfs-progs
> Cloning into btrfs-progs...
> The authenticity of host 'pkgs.fedoraproject.org (209.132.181.4)' can't
> be established.
> RSA key finger
Ian Pilcher wrote:
> Permission denied (publickey).
> fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
Do you have a fedora cert in ~/.fedora?
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Adam Williamson wrote:
> git log (note the ID of the commit*immediately prior* to yours)
> git format-patch (commit ID you identified in the last step)
Simpler step:
git format-patch -1
The "-1" formats the last commit into a patch. -2 does the previous two,
etc.
--
test mailing list
test@lis
On 05/20/2011 03:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> fedpkg co somepackage
[pilcher@ian temp]$ fedpkg co btrfs-progs
Cloning into btrfs-progs...
The authenticity of host 'pkgs.fedoraproject.org (209.132.181.4)' can't
be established.
RSA key fingerprint is fe:2e:6a:86:f3:41:e7:03:95:ea:9c:7f:75:9c:ce:9
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 13:31 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 05/20/2011 12:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > With the awesomeness of git-format-patch, probably not =) It's good to
> > get into the habit of providing spec fixes as git-formatted patches
> > these days, it makes it very easy on the main
On 05/20/2011 12:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> With the awesomeness of git-format-patch, probably not =) It's good to
> get into the habit of providing spec fixes as git-formatted patches
> these days, it makes it very easy on the maintainer - they can apply it
> with a one-liner.
Is there any d
On Fri, 2011-05-20 at 11:08 -0500, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 05/20/2011 10:57 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> > Also, given the triviality that you point out a patch in the bug wouldn't go
> > amiss I'm sure (fwiw e2fsprogs uses hardlinks for these files and dosfstools
> > uses symlinks).
>
> Yeah, but
On 05/20/2011 10:57 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> Also, given the triviality that you point out a patch in the bug wouldn't go
> amiss I'm sure (fwiw e2fsprogs uses hardlinks for these files and dosfstools
> uses symlinks).
Yeah, but it would be a one-line patch to the SPEC file. It seems like
it w
On 05/20/2011 03:31 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 05/20/2011 01:08 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>> No idea. Try filing a RFE against that package
>>
>
> Doesn't appear to have done any good in the past.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625967
>
I find I get better responses in b
On 05/20/2011 01:08 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> No idea. Try filing a RFE against that package
>
Doesn't appear to have done any good in the past.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=625967
--
Ian Pilcher
On 05/20/2011 04:34 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 05/19/2011 10:33 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> $ rpm -qf /sbin/btrfsck
>>
>> btrfs-progs-0.19-13.fc15.x86_64
>>
>
>
> Is there a reason that package doesn't provide a fsck.btrfs symlink?
No idea. Try filing a RFE against that package
Rahul
--
tes
On 05/19/2011 10:33 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> $ rpm -qf /sbin/btrfsck
>
> btrfs-progs-0.19-13.fc15.x86_64
>
Is there a reason that package doesn't provide a fsck.btrfs symlink?
--
Ian Pilcher
On 05/19/2011 08:55 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> Where?
>
> [pilcher@ian ~]$ sudo yum --disablerepo=*-debuginfo provides '*/fsck.btrfs'
$ rpm -qf /sbin/btrfsck
btrfs-progs-0.19-13.fc15.x86_64
Rahul
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/ma
On 05/19/2011 08:57 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 05/19/2011 07:28 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>> I assume since btrfs is available without a special boot command that
>> it now has fsck? If so it might be a good thing to mention since I
>> think the lack of it has scared a lot of people off from tryi
17 matches
Mail list logo
