Am 10.03.2014 20:40, schrieb drago01:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Reindl Harald
<h.reindl(a)thelounge.net> wrote:
>
> Am 10.03.2014 20:18, schrieb drago01:
>> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 6:12 PM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl(a)thelounge.net>
wrote:
>>>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-2922/libreoffice-4.2....
>>>
>>> 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"