On Ter, 2015-11-10 at 13:16 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 10.11.2015 um 13:05 schrieb Sérgio Basto:
>> fine, don't apply to gstreamer ugly and honestly i don't understand why
>> developers / maintainers not install their own dogfood to find out such
>> major breaks weeks ago or just don't bump so-names shortly befor the
>> Fedora version goes goldReindl Harald
> You should understand that you are not helping with this kind of
> comments , you are lucky have packages of RPMFusion for F23 , what do
> you mean by "don't apply to gstreamer ugly" ? , developers /
> maintainers don't have the access to infra, they can't commit anywhere,
> because infra still being build , and noone knows how it will end.
> where is the bug report?
"they can't commit anywhere" and "noone knows how it will end"
what? how are the packages with broken deps built?
Means that RPMFusion is not operational
"what do you mean by "don't apply to gstreamer
ugly" - the initial mail
was pretty clear,
initial mail is not a bug report, without a bug report the most likely
is not be fixed .
gstreamer ugly get rebuild
seems to be solved in the meantime, i had to REMOVE
the requires from my metapackages to be able upgrade to F23
i simply expect that whoever is repsonsible for a package has the
"updates-testing" repos enabled and verify that it is installable, not
more and not less, that do not need bugreports at all
-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: what about soname bumps and rebuilds
Datum: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:35:06 +0100
Von: Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net>
Antwort an: RPM Fusion users discussion list
Organisation: the lounge interactive design
An: Mailing-List rpmfusion <rpmfusion-users(a)lists.rpmfusion.org>
* x264 so 148
* avidemux requires so 142
* the gstreamer ugly requires so 142
why does that happen *everytime* when somebody decides to bump x264
without take care of rebuild depending packages?
Sérgio M. B.