Re: RFC: fedora.us bugzilla keywords
by "Nils O. Selåsdal"
On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 13:01, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Let's try out what a new bugzilla keyword will yield. Everyone, who has
> posted a positive review of a package request in the fedora.us queue,
> please add the
>
> REVIEWED
>
> keyword to "Keywords:" field of the bug ticket. That should help upon
> finding package requests which someone has reviewed already but which need
> a second review according to the publish criteria. It should also help
> upon building teams.
So one should just set this when one have "voted" for PUBLISH ?
Not add it on e.g. "I reviewd it, build failed.."
--
Nils Olav Selåsdal
System Engineer
w w w . u t e l s y s t e m s . c o m
20 years, 1 month
RFC: fedora.us bugzilla keywords
by Michael Schwendt
This is a request for comments on the following proposal:
To add a new bugzilla keyword at bugzilla.fedora.us to mark package
requests which have been reviewed and approved by one person and which
need a second approval.
The rational argument behind this is to make another easy bugzilla query
possible which returns packages which someone has reviewed already, but
which are in need of a second pair of eyes according to the current
policies. Without a bugzilla keyword (and without a global tracking
ticket), it would be difficult to find such package requests in the
database, and especially people new to "reviewing" might want to build
teams with other reviewers.
Of course, this doesn't have any influence on package requests which only
a single reviewer seems to have interest in. But at least they would be
more easy to locate, too. ;)
First I've thought about adapting bugzilla.redhat.com triage->foo
keywords, but these have the drawback, that once set in an additional
comment on a bug ticket, they cannot be taken back and would pollute
queries. On the contrary, bugzilla keywords [1] can be added/removed
arbitrarily, e.g. to withdraw a package approval in case more issues are
found. Fedora.us uses the QA keyword to flag packages which are in need of
reviews, the NEEDSWORK keyword to indicate a package is not ready yet
(being developed further and could need help), and PUBLISH to flag
packages which have been approved and which should be built and published
in the "pending" preview repository.
The keyword I have in mind would be REVIEWED or APPROVED, but I'm open for
different suggestions.
The first reviewer who approves a package would set the keyword in
addition to the existing keywords (including the QA keyword). The second
reviewer would replace QA and REVIEWED with PUBLISH if he approves the
package, too. Else he would delete the REVIEWED keyword (and possibly set
NEEDSWORK upon major issues) to restart the approval process. When only a
single approval is needed, the keyword is not used.
Feedback appreciated.
--
[1] https://bugzilla.fedora.us/describekeywords.cgi
20 years, 1 month
Re: Re: evolution ??
by Scott Sloan
I'll continue to use the 1.5.4 packages against FC2 until the release of Evolution 2.
A.) This will allow me to help debug some of the problems with evolution and FC2.
b.) it may not heal the blisters, but it will provide some relief.
Scott Sloan
------------
devscott.org
>
> From: Hugo van der Kooij <hvdkooij(a)vanderkooij.org>
> Date: 2004/02/26 Thu AM 12:23:33 CST
> To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
> Subject: Re: Re: evolution ??
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004, Scott Sloan wrote:
>
> > I suppose that is a good reason, however i know I for one converted all my evolution stuff when I installed FC2. Do these new conversions work in 1.4.5?
>
> Sounds like you try production work on a test release. The Dutch saying
> "Wie zijn billen brandt, moet op de blaren zitten" (translated roughly as
> "Whoever burns his bottom will have to sit on the blisters") applies here
> I guess.
>
> Hugo.
>
> --
> All email sent to me is bound to the rules described on my homepage.
> hvdkooij(a)vanderkooij.org http://hvdkooij.xs4all.nl/
> Don't meddle in the affairs of sysadmins,
> for they are subtle and quick to anger.
>
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
20 years, 1 month
Re: Re: evolution ??
by Scott Sloan
I suppose that is a good reason, however i know I for one converted all my evolution stuff when I installed FC2. Do these new conversions work in 1.4.5?
Scott
>
> From: Jeremy Katz <katzj(a)redhat.com>
> Date: 2004/02/25 Wed PM 04:10:50 CST
> To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
> Subject: Re: evolution ??
>
> On Wed, 2004-02-25 at 17:02, Scott Sloan wrote:
> > Why are we rolling back to 1.4.5?
>
> Evolution 2.0 isn't going to be released until June. The plan is for
> FC2 to go out in April. The two don't match very well :-)
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
20 years, 1 month
YUM's shortcomings
by Jean Francois Martinez
Yum has for now two serious shortcomings
1) It has no browser, even a curses based one. You cannot, like
with apt or urpmi, browse what is available, select what you are
interested in and have it installed
2) It does not deal with removable media. Unlike what happens
with apt or urpmi it will not prompt you for the CD containing
what you need. End result is that, since I have ADSL I often
end downloading packages I have on CD and I am not happy about it.
Copying everything on hard
disk is a possibility but there are still plenty of boxes with
5 to 10 G disks where using 20% or more of disk space for keeping
packages is not an option. And plenty of people who have huge disks
(80g or more) and who are psychogically disturbed about keeping whole
distros on disk.
The problem of the huge download of headers is a PITA who only happens
once. The two problems I mentionned happen every day.
Atre there any plans to fix them?
--
Jean Francois Martinez <jfm512(a)free.fr>
20 years, 1 month
Re: evolution ??
by Scott Sloan
Why are we rolling back to 1.4.5?
Scott
>
> From: "Brian Millett" <bpm(a)ec-group.com>
> Date: 2004/02/25 Wed PM 01:28:17 CST
> To: <fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com>
> Subject: evolution ??
>
>
> I've read that you are rolling back to evolution-1.4.5. I'm currently
> using 1.5.4. Is there a srpm that has been fixed for the correct
> dependencies? If not, what packages to I need to roll back?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Brian Millett
> Enterprise Consulting Group "Shifts in paradigms
> (314) 205-9030 often cause nose bleeds."
> bpmATec-groupDOTcom Greg Glenn
>
>
>
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>
20 years, 1 month
kernel-2.6.3-1.106: Badness in interruptible_sleep_on_timeout atkernel/sched.c:1937
by Martin Gansser
kernel-2.6.3-1.106 reports the following error on dmesg,
when the dvb modules are loaded:
Linux video capture interface: v1.00
intel8x0_measure_ac97_clock: measured 49379 usecs
intel8x0: clocking to 48000
saa7146: register extension 'dvb'.
saa7146: found saa7146 @ mem e0a01e00 (revision 1, irq 12)
(0x13c2,0x0003).
DVB: registering new adapter (Technotrend/Hauppauge PCI rev2.1).
probe_tuner: try to attach to Technotrend/Hauppauge PCI rev2.1
drivers/media/dvb/frontends/stv0299.c: setup for tuner BSRU6, TDQB-S00x
DVB: registering frontend 0:0 (STV0299/TSA5059/SL1935 based)...
Technotrend/Hauppauge PCI rev2.1 adapter 0 has MAC addr =
00:d0:5c:21:3f:ee
DVB: AV7111(0) - firm f0240009, rtsl b0250018, vid 71010068, app
8000261b
DVB: AV7111(0) - firmware supports CI link layer interface
Badness in interruptible_sleep_on_timeout at kernel/sched.c:1937
Call Trace:
[<c011fcaa>] interruptible_sleep_on_timeout+0x5d/0x23a
[<c011f37f>] default_wake_function+0x0/0xc
[<c01258b3>] daemonize+0xa1/0xa5
[<e0aede3d>] dvb_kernel_thread_setup+0xb5/0x154 [dvb_core]
[<e0b2dbde>] arm_thread+0x0/0x3a7 [dvb_ttpci]
[<e0b2dc3c>] arm_thread+0x5e/0x3a7 [dvb_ttpci]
[<e0b2dbde>] arm_thread+0x0/0x3a7 [dvb_ttpci]
[<c01091d5>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xb
av7110(0): Crystal audio DAC detected
videodev: "av7110" has no release callback. Please fix your driver for
proper sysfs support, see http://lwn.net/Articles/36850/
saa7146_vv: saa7146 (0): registered device video0 [v4l2]
av7110: found av7110-0.
Badness in interruptible_sleep_on_timeout at kernel/sched.c:1937
the error is already reported on the dvb mailinglist
http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-dvb linuxtv org/msg14852.html
the only working kernel, without this messages is the 2.6.2-1.81
--
viele Grüße Martin
20 years, 1 month
workaround for 116299? ("Obsoletes:" problem in rpm)
by Fernando Lopez-Lezcano
Hi all... anyone has any idea on how I could work around bug 116299?
(see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=116299)
Basically (in FC1), in certain instances the "Obsoletes:" tag is being
ignored by rpm in such a way that I cannot change the naming of a
package (ie: if I try to install the new package, which "Obsoletes:"
another older package with almost the same contents but a different
name, the rpm process fails with a "conflicting files" message instead
of replacing the old package with the new one).
Maybe I'm making some packaging mistake, but the exact same thing works
fine in RedHat 7.3/8.0/9...
-- Fernando
20 years, 1 month
evolution ??
by Brian Millett
I've read that you are rolling back to evolution-1.4.5. I'm currently
using 1.5.4. Is there a srpm that has been fixed for the correct
dependencies? If not, what packages to I need to roll back?
Thanks.
--
Brian Millett
Enterprise Consulting Group "Shifts in paradigms
(314) 205-9030 often cause nose bleeds."
bpmATec-groupDOTcom Greg Glenn
20 years, 1 month
