Bug 528696
Summary: | Gloox 1.0.rc3 is out | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov> |
Component: | gloox | Assignee: | Pavel Alexeev <pahan> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | pahan |
Target Milestone: | --- | ||
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 1.0-1.11.fc12 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-10-20 13:54:49 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Peter Lemenkov
2009-10-13 12:12:00 UTC
gloox-1.0rc3-0.8.SVNr4204.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gloox-1.0rc3-0.8.SVNr4204.fc11 gloox-1.0rc3-0.8.SVNr4204.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gloox-1.0rc3-0.8.SVNr4204.fc10 gloox-1.0rc3-0.8.SVNr4204.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gloox-1.0rc3-0.8.SVNr4204.fc12 I'm afraid, naming scheme for these packages violates Fedora rules for pre-releases. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages A proper naming scheme should be 1.0-0.8.rc3.SVNr4204 You are right. My mistake. gloox-1.0-0.9.rc3.SVNr4204.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gloox-1.0-0.9.rc3.SVNr4204.fc10 gloox-1.0-0.9.rc3.SVNr4204.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gloox-1.0-0.9.rc3.SVNr4204.fc11 gloox-1.0-0.9.rc3.SVNr4204.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gloox-1.0-0.9.rc3.SVNr4204.fc12 Thank you for request. Closing. gloox-1.0-0.9.rc3.SVNr4204.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. gloox-1.0-0.9.rc3.SVNr4204.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. gloox-1.0rc3-0.8.SVNr4204.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. gloox-1.0rc3-0.8.SVNr4204.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. Seems that these two last packages should be untagged from stable gloox-1.0rc3-0.8.SVNr4204.fc10 gloox-1.0rc3-0.8.SVNr4204.fc11 they broke versioning scheme badly, because gloox-1.0rc3-0.8.SVNr4204.fc10 beats gloox-1.0-%{whatever}.fc10 In this case you should add epoch inn order to update to the final release. Please, be more carefully with updates in the future. (In reply to comment #14) > Seems that these two last packages should be untagged from stable Oh yes. Can you say how I can do that? Must I fill ticket to FESCO? > Please, be more carefully with updates in the future. Yes, yes, my mistake... gloox-1.0-1.11.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gloox-1.0-1.11.fc10 gloox-1.0-1.11.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gloox-1.0-1.11.fc11 gloox-1.0-1.11.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gloox-1.0-1.11.fc12 gloox-1.0-1.11.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. gloox-1.0-1.11.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. gloox-1.0-1.11.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |