Search results

...autoqa/gwt/gwt-2.0.0-0.2.1.fc12.src.rpm gwt]</code>. The <code>gwt</code> package is a build dependency for [[Autotest]]. # Identify all remaining unpackaged build dependencies

...executables, to use in place of those in the native <code>deltaiso</code> package (which will not work on F14 or below).}} ...ity Assurance - [[User:Rhe]], [[User:Robatino]], [[User:Hongqing]], [[User:jlaska]]

* jlaska (91) * jlaska + fenris02 to review whether F-13-Beta is an option for boot.fedoraproject.

* jlaska (109) # jlaska - update [[AutoQA_PatchProcess]] to include fedorapeople.org git repo

* jlaska (111) * James Laska (jlaska)

# jlaska (93) == Latest and greatest on autoqa-0.4.4 ==

# jlaska (151) # jlaska to follow-up w/ halfline on bug#702650, kparal+jlaska to verify

...he many activities of the QA Team, including discussion and updates around AutoQA, improved freeze policy documentation, a proposed privilege escalation poli Fedora Package Database,

* jlaska (184) # jlaska / maxamillion to co-ordinate with sectool test day hosts tmraz, mbarabas an

* jlaska (135) # jlaska will follow-up w/ nirik after the meeting to setup zodbot feed watchers

* jlaska (114) * jlaska + adamw - clear out [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnam

; Owner - [[User:jlaska]] == AutoQA update ==

* jlaska (97) Jlaska asked the team to think about a method for dividing up remaining '''22''' c

* jlaska (163) # jlaska to add bugzilla shared query links to Common_Bugs wiki page

package must be correctly installed into %{_libdir}, because these files After [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] announced the first Fedora 16 blocker bug review meeting<ref>

* James Laska (jlaska) * James Laska (jlaska)

...lity Assurance reports on the first Fedora 15 Test Day, and a busy week of AutoQA development. The Translation team has been working on organizing the Locali ...st Tracker Bug and Ticket tracking system, as well as its 90 perl packages dependencies.

...st/2010-July/092040.html</ref> and that it should be the responsibility of package maintainers to submit reports upstream when appropriate. In general, though [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] reported<ref>http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/20

...000545.html</ref> the list that "If you're the maintainer of a cmake-based package, and use the %cmake macro, be aware I just implemented a change in rawhide ...nuary/000547.html</ref> that "The boost maintainers have updated the boost package to the current release (1.41.0) in rawhide for F13. More info<ref>https://f

* [[User:Jlaska|jlaska]] - Having [[QA/SOP_Test_Day_management]] was invaluable and resulted in a * [[User:jlaska|jlaska]] - Care and feeding of the Test Day live image creation wiki ([[QA/Test_Da

After more discussion and thought, though, the package maintainers ...it-and-changing-settings/</ref>: "In f12 the default policy for polkit for package kit is to allow users at the

...and Finish project focusing on display configuration, more details on the AutoQA activities with rawhide, bugzappers weekly log, and more. In Design news, ...lable<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20090701</ref>. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] reported that he had not yet been able to update the QA Goals

* James Laska (jlaska) * James Laska (jlaska)

* James Laska (jlaska) * James Laska (jlaska)

The rules for substituting dots with dashes in package names have been rpm and yum treat a dependency on a package of the form Requires: foo as

* jlaska (98) * {{bz|566979}} NEW - Failed dependencies and login problem; basic video driver installation, F13 Alpha RC1.

...he Sugar desktop on Fedora. From Quality Assurance we hear about some more AutoQA improvements and the last stretch of the Fedora 12 release process. The Des ...nd promises to add new features that will make it more useful to other non Package contributing groups in Fedora...I can very well see this becoming a portal

The rules for substituting dots with dashes in package names have been rpm and yum treat a dependency on a package of the form Requires: foo as

When selecting which source to download from upstream and use in a Fedora package, the smallest available (and Fedora compatible) source Since RPM now detects pkgconfig dependencies in all Fedora releases, it is no longer necessary for Fedora packages with

...nges involved, which are also included in rsync, split out into a separate package or merged into upstream zlib, but this has not yet been successfully accomp ...age within a few weeks, and also to make a public instance of the autotest/autoqa systems available.

...lable<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20090624</ref>. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] reported that he had not yet been able to update the QA Goals [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] reviewed the new schedule for Fedora 12 QA events which has b

...nd/or QA plus at least one more net positive karma is required before your package can move out of testing and into Fedora 13. We're still working on the wiki ...t it! (We're working on ways to make it more visible to the user that your package is critical path).

* AutoQA update ...ckages have explicit Conflicts: tags are acceptable) or unresolved package dependencies during a media-based (DVD) install"

...James Laska]] reported solid progress in transferring future tasks for the autoqa project into trac. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] reported that he had not had time to work with David Zeuthen

[[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] posted<ref>http://rawhidewatch.wordpress.com/2009/07/31/unabl ...lable<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20090727</ref>. [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] reported that he had contacted the infrastructure team's [[Us

...when adding one..." [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] also suggested<ref>http://jlaska.livejournal.com/5561.html</ref> that there are still some high priority def [[User:Jlaska|James Laska]] reported that he had not yet sent out a Test Day feedback sur

...1 out of the 146 packages that need to be updated doesn't have all of its dependencies satisfied). ...> about "some of the intricacies of licensing and ensuring that a software package included in Fedora and Red Hat is actually verified to be open source." (Vi

...ranslation news, updates to Fedora 11 and news of inclusion of the specspo package in the upcoming release. The artwork team muses about wallpaper gallery de ...ds-again/</ref> a number of reasons that there can never be a common Linux Package format, but suggested that "what others want is something that would actual

..., a report on a triage class on real-life bugzapping, and updates from the AutoQA team's activities. Ambassadors this week features several event reports fro ====Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?====

...usekeeping, and our issue wraps up with the latest Fedora security-related package releases. Enjoy FWN 276! for better power management. The tuned package contains a daemon that

Please pick up latest translation and build your package with it for translators by 26-Aug. On 27-Aug, Release Engineering team will * Package Database - <ref>https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/</ref>

...ages (first by explaining the difference between the terms Application and Package). Along with some other folks, they published a proposed specification<ref> ...oup requires all software used for Fedora systems be available as a Fedora package. [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] offered to help with the packaging.