Am 10.03.2014 20:40, schrieb drago01: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> 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 > > OK, but then you should undo your +1 by adding a -1 (which means 0 > instead of +1) maybe, the main difference is that i installed the packages, tried all sorts of graphical applications, KDE desktop effetcs and gave karma with "fedora-easy-karma" and that is a total different story than "uhm that is broken and i need to seek a completly different build"
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
