On Sat, Dec 02, 2006 at 11:00:16AM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >Axel.Thimm AT ATrpms.net: > > smart > > FE4 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc4 > 0:0.42-39.fc6) > > FE5 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc5 > 0:0.42-39.fc6) > > FE6 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc6 > 0:0.42-39.fc6) > > I wonder if it would be reasonable to suppress rawhide in this report > until we get closer to test time. Since rawhide occasionally doesn't > build, and maintainers often concentrate on released versions when > fixing important bugs or pushing security fixes, the information often > isn't pertinent. FWIW the smart build fails on KDE not liking the newest autoconf: *** YOU'RE USING autoconf (GNU Autoconf) 2.61. *** KDE requires autoconf 2.52, 2.53 or 2.54 Are there other packages affected that way? But I agree rawhide in fast development mode creates a lot of noise in such reports. Maybe two sections, one w/o rawhide and one only checking releases vs rawhide? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpwVV0dSgCxz.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
