Am 10.03.2014 20:18, schrieb drago01: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2.1.1-1.fc20?_csrf_token=a6a024f6e2d35ad3f3333b8666c1244e215a6aa2 >> >> how can people pretend "installation went smoothly, no issue detected during basic >> document manipulation" for packages which are not installable at all due >> dependencie problems? > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mesa-10.0.3-1.20140206.fc20 > ... again broken dep and someone gave it +1 regardless. You should > know that "someone" very well ;) > > Now seriously auto qa detected the broken dep. Maybe it should give > negative karma even if there are false positives a wrong negative > karma is not the end of the world ... yes i know that one well, that's why that one notified here that rebuilds are needed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1066718 the difference is: * that packages install and are running here the whole day * now downloads from other builds required * the openoffice one did *not* install from the build alone in no case at all
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
