On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:41:37 +0100, CW (Christoph) wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 18:30 +0100 schrieb Thomas Spura: > > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Christoph Wickert <christoph.wickert> wrote: > > > Am Mittwoch, den 21.03.2012, 12:52 +0000 schrieb buildsys: > > >> > > >> parcellite has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree: > > >> On i386: > > >> parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libpango-1.0.so.0()(64bit) > > >> parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) > > >> parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libgobject-2.0.so.0()(64bit) > > >> parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libglib-2.0.so.0()(64bit) > > >> parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libgdk-x11-2.0.so.0()(64bit) > > >> parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) > > >> parcellite-1.0.2-0.1.rc5.fc17.i686 requires libX11.so.6()(64bit) > > >> Please resolve this as soon as possible. > > > > > > I resolved this on March 10th with 1.0.2-0.2.rc5 > > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=306351 > > > but still I keep getting these mails. Why? And why is the script > > > complaining about the F17 package when there is a F18 one in rawhide? > > > > Looks like the script looks for fc17, but says it's rawhide... > > Yeah, except that I get another mail for F17. > > > (There are still broken deps in fc17, because your update is not yet stable: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-3933/parcellite-1.0.2-0.2.rc5.fc17 > > ) > > I was aware of the F17 update not yet being pushed. The funny (?) thing > is that the F17 mails stopped after the update was in testing, only > rawhide continues and I have no idea why. Are you sure about that? parcellite is still listed in the "F-17 Branched report" broken deps, but not in the "rawhide report". The Branched report covers F17 + updates, but not updates-testing. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
