Re: [opensuse-factory] Re: KDE 4.9 is now in Tumbleweed:Testing,
Achim Gratz wrote:
I've updated to KDE 4.9.3 just fine (I did remember to revert the gratuitous changes to /usr/share/kde4/config/kdm this time). After a reboot zypper wants to downgrade to 4.8.5 since these three old patches intervene: openSUSE-2012-588, openSUSE-2012-701, openSUSE-2012-685. I've locked them and that seems to take care of everything and verify says that the system is good.
The error from the patch check does not make much sense to me:
Problem: kdebase4-workspace-4.9.3-2.1.i586 requires kdebase4-workspace-branding = 4.9.3, but this requirement cannot be provided uninstallable providers: kdebase4-workspace-branding-upstream-4.9.3-2.1.i586[Tumbleweed]
kdebase4-workspace-branding-basedonopensuse-12.2-3.7.1.i586[current-Update]
kdebase4-workspace-branding-basedonopensuse-12.2-3.3.1.i586[openSUSE-current-OSS]
but maybe this gives somebody else an idea of where to look.
I've a similar problem and I think the cause could be the same. I've conflicts from Yast Online Update (and also with Apper) caused by patches openSUSE-2012-588, openSUSE-2012-701 and openSUSE-2012-685: kwin-4.9.3-2.1.x86_64 conflicts with kdebase4-workspace-branding-openSUSE-12.2-6.8.1.x86_64 kdm-4.9.3-2.1.x86_64 conflicts with kdm-branding-openSUSE-12.2-11.12.1.noarch If I downgrade kwin and kdm the conflicts are resolved (but this is not a solution). If I use the packages: kdebase4-workspace-branding-openSUSE-12.2-6.10.2.x86_64 kdm-branding-openSUSE-12.2-11.18.2.noarch from KDE 49 repository I can resolve the conflicts without downgrading anything. My opinion is that the problem is the different version number of rpms. In Tumbleweed repository you have: kdebase4-workspace-branding-openSUSE-12.2-2.1.x86_64 kdm-branding-openSUSE-12.2-2.1.noarch In Updates repository: kdebase4-workspace-branding-openSUSE-12.2-6.8.1.x86_64 kdm-branding-openSUSE-12.2-11.12.1.noarch In KDE 49 repository: kdebase4-workspace-branding-openSUSE-12.2-6.10.2.x86_64 kdm-branding-openSUSE-12.2-11.18.2.noarch With the packages from Tumbleweed I've conflicts, with the packages from Updates repository I've to downgrade, with the packages from KDE 49 repository all works. My question is: why the packages from Tumbleweed have a lower version number than those from other repositories? It's not possible to use the same package version number of KDE 49 repository? Last thing: package kgpg is missing from Tumbleweed repository. Cheers, ConteZero -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:36:29PM +0100, ConteZero wrote:
With the packages from Tumbleweed I've conflicts, with the packages from Updates repository I've to downgrade, with the packages from KDE 49 repository all works.
Yes, you will have to do that.
My question is: why the packages from Tumbleweed have a lower version number than those from other repositories? It's not possible to use the same package version number of KDE 49 repository?
Nope, it's the build number, that does not propagate across repos, even when you link packages from them. It's a very annoying thing, and it causes some package updates to never get seen by people (like the emacs update that's in Tumbleweed right now.) I do not know of any way to resolve this, does anyone else?
Last thing: package kgpg is missing from Tumbleweed repository.
Is it really needed? Ok, I'll go add it now, thanks. greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Greg KH writes:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:36:29PM +0100, ConteZero wrote:
With the packages from Tumbleweed I've conflicts, with the packages from Updates repository I've to downgrade, with the packages from KDE 49 repository all works.
Yes, you will have to do that.
...or locking the patches works just fine.
My question is: why the packages from Tumbleweed have a lower version number than those from other repositories? It's not possible to use the same package version number of KDE 49 repository?
Nope, it's the build number, that does not propagate across repos, even when you link packages from them. It's a very annoying thing, and it causes some package updates to never get seen by people (like the emacs update that's in Tumbleweed right now.)
It would work if the Tumbleweed repo had priority over the 12.2 repos. I know you keep advising against it, but this would pull in the correct branding packages from Tumbleweed. I can switch the packages by hand to Tumbleweed, but then the next update tries to use the packages from openSUSE-Update. Giving Tumbleweed a higher priority fixes that — it'll show a long list of packages that have a higher version number (build number, really) in the update repo, but it will not switch them automatically. You could still install one of those packages by hand and it would stick until you did another dup from Tumbleweed (which you would need to lock out if you really wanted to avoid it). You still have to lock the patches, still don't know what they trigger on. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf rackAttack: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Il 20/11/2012 20:17, Achim Gratz ha scritto:
Greg KH writes:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 06:36:29PM +0100, ConteZero wrote:
With the packages from Tumbleweed I've conflicts, with the packages from Updates repository I've to downgrade, with the packages from KDE 49 repository all works. Yes, you will have to do that. ...or locking the patches works just fine. Locking only works in Yast Online Update, it doesn't work with Apper. My question is: why the packages from Tumbleweed have a lower version number than those from other repositories? It's not possible to use the same package version number of KDE 49 repository? Nope, it's the build number, that does not propagate across repos, even when you link packages from them. It's a very annoying thing, and it causes some package updates to never get seen by people (like the emacs update that's in Tumbleweed right now.) It would work if the Tumbleweed repo had priority over the 12.2 repos. I know you keep advising against it, but this would pull in the correct branding packages from Tumbleweed. I can switch the packages by hand to Tumbleweed, but then the next update tries to use the packages from openSUSE-Update. Giving Tumbleweed a higher priority fixes that — it'll show a long list of packages that have a higher version number (build number, really) in the update repo, but it will not switch them automatically. You could still install one of those packages by hand and it would stick until you did another dup from Tumbleweed (which you would need to lock out if you really wanted to avoid it). You still have to lock the patches, still don't know what they trigger on. I've tried changing the priority but it hasn't worked in both Yast and Apper.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
ConteZero writes:
Locking only works in Yast Online Update, it doesn't work with Apper.
A lock placed with zypper works just fine in current Apper (i.e. it will not offer to install the patch, in an older version it listed the patch and then told you that there was nothing to do when you tried to start the install, IIRC). I haven't used Yast for setting locks, but it seems to respect locks from zypper just fine. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Wavetables for the Waldorf Blofeld: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#BlofeldUserWavetables -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Il 20/11/2012 21:34, Achim Gratz ha scritto:
Locking only works in Yast Online Update, it doesn't work with Apper. A lock placed with zypper works just fine in current Apper (i.e. it will not offer to install the patch, in an older version it listed the patch and then told you that there was nothing to do when you tried to start
ConteZero writes: the install, IIRC). I haven't used Yast for setting locks, but it seems to respect locks from zypper just fine.
I've placed a lock with yast and Apper has not respected the lock. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 11/22/2012 03:56 AM, ConteZero pecked at the keyboard and wrote:
Il 20/11/2012 21:34, Achim Gratz ha scritto:
Locking only works in Yast Online Update, it doesn't work with Apper. A lock placed with zypper works just fine in current Apper (i.e. it will not offer to install the patch, in an older version it listed the patch and then told you that there was nothing to do when you tried to start
ConteZero writes: the install, IIRC). I haven't used Yast for setting locks, but it seems to respect locks from zypper just fine.
I've placed a lock with yast and Apper has not respected the lock.
Which is one of the reasons people delete apper. -- Ken Schneider SuSe since Version 5.2, June 1998 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Am Donnerstag, 22. November 2012, 09:56:02 schrieb ConteZero:
Il 20/11/2012 21:34, Achim Gratz ha scritto:
ConteZero writes:
Locking only works in Yast Online Update, it doesn't work with Apper.
A lock placed with zypper works just fine in current Apper (i.e. it will not offer to install the patch, in an older version it listed the patch and then told you that there was nothing to do when you tried to start the install, IIRC). I haven't used Yast for setting locks, but it seems to respect locks from zypper just fine.
I've placed a lock with yast and Apper has not respected the lock.
Report a bug against the zypp backend of packagekit. apper just shows the list it gets from zypp, i.e. it's not an apper bug if the list is wrong. Sven -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
ConteZero writes:
I've placed a lock with yast and Apper has not respected the lock.
To determine which application to file the bug against: Does the lock show up when you do a zypper ll and which part of Apper does not respect the lock (if it does register with zypper)? Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Wavetables for the Waldorf Blofeld: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#BlofeldUserWavetables -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Il 20/11/2012 19:25, Greg KH ha scritto:
My question is: why the packages from Tumbleweed have a lower version number than those from other repositories? It's not possible to use the same package version number of KDE 49 repository? Nope, it's the build number, that does not propagate across repos, even when you link packages from them. It's a very annoying thing, and it causes some package updates to never get seen by people (like the emacs update that's in Tumbleweed right now.)
I do not know of any way to resolve this, does anyone else? It's a bug of openSUSE Build Service or a missing feature?
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/20/2012 07:25 PM, Greg KH wrote:
I do not know of any way to resolve this, does anyone else?
Maybe we can redefine release number to have precedence over others
and testing to have a bit lower than real tumbleweed. prjconf like
this should do this (untested):
In tumbleweed:
Release: tw1.
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:46:08PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 11/20/2012 07:25 PM, Greg KH wrote:
I do not know of any way to resolve this, does anyone else?
Maybe we can redefine release number to have precedence over others and testing to have a bit lower than real tumbleweed. prjconf like this should do this (untested): In tumbleweed: Release: tw1.
. in tumblweed:testing: Release: tw0. . Hmm, but then adding whatever is in tumbleweed into tumbleweed:testing wouldn't dup packages from testing. Oh, testing should have higher priority when people have testing enabled. So the above the other way round?
Either way would help out when I have updated packages in tumbleweed, yet because of the build number being lower than what is in the 12.2 repo, they never get updated. Is there a way in the configuration of the repo to add such a release prefix to all packages? I really don't want to have to hand-edit all packages just to do this :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 12:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:46:08PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 11/20/2012 07:25 PM, Greg KH wrote:
I do not know of any way to resolve this, does anyone else?
Maybe we can redefine release number to have precedence over others and testing to have a bit lower than real tumbleweed. prjconf like this should do this (untested): In tumbleweed: Release: tw1.
. in tumblweed:testing: Release: tw0. . Hmm, but then adding whatever is in tumbleweed into tumbleweed:testing wouldn't dup packages from testing. Oh, testing should have higher priority when people have testing enabled. So the above the other way round?
Either way would help out when I have updated packages in tumbleweed, yet because of the build number being lower than what is in the 12.2 repo, they never get updated.
CAREFUL: prefixing the 'release' tag with tw will ALLWAYS make it lower than 12.2... 1.0-1 > 1.0-tw7.15 So you wouldn't win anything to what you have now (well, you would win consistency.. all packages would always have a lower release and only the version number would ever be considered). Dominique PS: you can conveniently use zypper to verify what is higher: zypper vcmp 12.2-1.0 12.2-tw1.0 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:35:07PM +0100, Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
On Tue, 2012-11-20 at 12:30 -0800, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:46:08PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 11/20/2012 07:25 PM, Greg KH wrote:
I do not know of any way to resolve this, does anyone else?
Maybe we can redefine release number to have precedence over others and testing to have a bit lower than real tumbleweed. prjconf like this should do this (untested): In tumbleweed: Release: tw1.
. in tumblweed:testing: Release: tw0. . Hmm, but then adding whatever is in tumbleweed into tumbleweed:testing wouldn't dup packages from testing. Oh, testing should have higher priority when people have testing enabled. So the above the other way round?
Either way would help out when I have updated packages in tumbleweed, yet because of the build number being lower than what is in the 12.2 repo, they never get updated.
CAREFUL:
prefixing the 'release' tag with tw will ALLWAYS make it lower than 12.2...
1.0-1 > 1.0-tw7.15
So you wouldn't win anything to what you have now (well, you would win consistency.. all packages would always have a lower release and only the version number would ever be considered).
Ah, good point, no, we don't want that to happen. So that isn't going to work, any other suggestions? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Hello, Am Dienstag, 20. November 2012 schrieb Greg KH:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:35:07PM +0100, Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
prefixing the 'release' tag with tw will ALLWAYS make it lower than 12.2...
1.0-1 > 1.0-tw7.15
So you wouldn't win anything to what you have now (well, you would win consistency.. all packages would always have a lower release and only the version number would ever be considered).
Ah, good point, no, we don't want that to happen.
So that isn't going to work, any other suggestions?
Use "9999." as prefix in the release tag ;-) Regards, Christian Boltz -- Immerwieder der gleiche Anfaengerfehler: /dev/null ist fuer Backup, /dev/zero ist fuer Restore. [J. P. Meier] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:36:00PM +0100, Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
Am Dienstag, 20. November 2012 schrieb Greg KH:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:35:07PM +0100, Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
prefixing the 'release' tag with tw will ALLWAYS make it lower than 12.2...
1.0-1 > 1.0-tw7.15
So you wouldn't win anything to what you have now (well, you would win consistency.. all packages would always have a lower release and only the version number would ever be considered).
Ah, good point, no, we don't want that to happen.
So that isn't going to work, any other suggestions?
Use "9999." as prefix in the release tag ;-)
Ick, no, that's not very nice. I guess we are stuck with the current situation then, oh well :( thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Il 22/11/2012 02:10, Greg KH ha scritto:
On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 12:36:00PM +0100, Christian Boltz wrote:
Hello,
Am Dienstag, 20. November 2012 schrieb Greg KH:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:35:07PM +0100, Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
prefixing the 'release' tag with tw will ALLWAYS make it lower than 12.2...
1.0-1 > 1.0-tw7.15
So you wouldn't win anything to what you have now (well, you would win consistency.. all packages would always have a lower release and only the version number would ever be considered). Ah, good point, no, we don't want that to happen.
So that isn't going to work, any other suggestions? Use "9999." as prefix in the release tag ;-) Ick, no, that's not very nice.
I guess we are stuck with the current situation then, oh well :(
Current situation is also not very nice :(
Nope, it's the build number, that does not propagate across repos, even when you link packages from them. It's a very annoying thing, and it causes some package updates to never get seen by people (like the emacs update that's in Tumbleweed right now.)
I think a bug should be reported to OBS and a new discussion opened in opensuse-buildservice list (if OBS is the cause of the problem). -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/20/2012 09:30 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Is there a way in the configuration of the repo to add such a release prefix to all packages? I really don't want to have to hand-edit all packages just to do this :)
Heh :D, of course, this is an line for osc meta prjconf... thanks, - -- js suse labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQq+l9AAoJEL0lsQQGtHBJghoQAIrS5fEFGJGZYe7SDjeogtfb YKr641nUtOHeCEKIEjSQQF73bvtVfdipP42AV3/XRW2IlprecqUkhMxmY5fLkasr zrX6kJExtPOTWF0nnMsu2/wpdSO9f4taeXpxdCHJIG29PPRzmvKp4cPpewrRcFOq V6G0E1/64rlTgkKkpZJ6/LNxqYhZP1ORvwGJsj6SSesV7AmJKB3RkGm4Ach9lErv p141NIyxQXQcvAN+tTnBZRaTk4bwpiNIr7MGFv+sLmAVY9++ChXaNMevhATbnOku NhZDmV3zbTMoJWO3uZw3V7SPT9ukY8vBL3zupVcA2N7HAeq9pnh1fQvyD52UnE9m 1mKG0EHhJaOM9or+MYjCLqTtVCPkurqiOfdp7UEE5WJYJfDJ4EMpHhkq4QDOoT+R XPghcV9VZUusamTrEmyoz6NhD3x3CXhnzhMaZUUPFheJxMnYRLxn5angiErQt77l qqJn4ksLhOtzraCDhUregrhFMbxLdCgXiMnAzZNLKRiNM18DtCu6x/XRroY/Az6/ CFMGOxcacHFSUoHStiv1eWx20V8/9X3csZFzs6kMZ/HBcDyfNYrlwYFSczrXWslH kyIYc8kwWsUxd1bBKadz2Dn/qimHx2nbXT9QjUYd6WcykBGwWTuSZPRupn+SnlD4 rEiZ/EO2Y/7aci0O0O+1 =slGL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:35:09PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 11/20/2012 09:30 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Is there a way in the configuration of the repo to add such a release prefix to all packages? I really don't want to have to hand-edit all packages just to do this :)
Heh :D, of course, this is an line for osc meta prjconf...
Given that I don't see it in the man pages, any hint as to what that line might look like? :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11/20/2012 09:42 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:35:09PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 11/20/2012 09:30 PM, Greg KH wrote:
Is there a way in the configuration of the repo to add such a release prefix to all packages? I really don't want to have to hand-edit all packages just to do this :)
Heh :D, of course, this is an line for osc meta prjconf...
Given that I don't see it in the man pages, any hint as to what that line might look like? :)
Exactly like I wrote them. See: http://en.opensuse.org/openSUSE:Build_Service_Tips_and_Tricks#How_to_control... thanks, - -- js suse labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQq+ubAAoJEL0lsQQGtHBJpLUP/3sC7JPMvRj9dgVG2jZebfkB HHA6y2frF2mZvHiCk2VzPWQNkOlp2FcltIRCohkLGcYaZro93XyJUFZfEhExJgEo CNNy+DjCqBwbXXR06NjPdOzPzwSjlLQObcE4L9MwOkz5twmt1ZoTLcXyCi8xLGHE g//YBvg8pDV+WRzBiPhhEYC0gXc+5H/7ZWaocFhazmLZ2XQNBvQo/5uTX0tyH/Oi 8dw4Jq78earKAwDPUDv5UkFOF8OuamXt8XQxy6KL0G4i09jgiIYURRpe0DVSzHKj SMwhuFuFrpfzWE6kh1Zpln/tfNrME3MAO9DALeJhuU8pmg3kzHfj3FjOW2fZIuWo l0A8tyAG5tUsdQ6drQUS+clGFJDerfpiAtQk+BXDiTz+lJbeI7BWKrlug0fgmtMd CCJdPiZhYh6oiAy1dFu+dFmnluUenKCpExd52yu/RiBpNVq/4kghEiCvRl2EqQT1 sC+fLMbattcA085jY0UQJT++9oNPnCicaDkt/+LaUbIFMS4iJsIb+TdxNTSElXI0 9z3NNYkCvqh/GdsKu4+YKKjsC3N2XCFBFG55dmdCWKvULOdsfiuczpDvtDkEpwnM Ds+LNgH/s1d8OuNN/QvcRc+pibzIDN+p9oRt1tyleFPeGs5jZ6Po4PCk1H/i0lbj 8uA4D1jkDlGQ12AsJgmS =bm5v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Greg KH writes:
I do not know of any way to resolve this, does anyone else?
The folks that maintain Packman(-Tumbleweed) seem to have figured out how to start out with a build number that's higher than whatever repo they are trying to supersede has, they should be able to tell you how they do that. Regards, Achim. -- +<[Q+ Matrix-12 WAVE#46+305 Neuron microQkb Andromeda XTk Blofeld]>+ Factory and User Sound Singles for Waldorf Blofeld: http://Synth.Stromeko.net/Downloads.html#WaldorfSounds -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (8)
-
Achim Gratz -
Christian Boltz -
ConteZero -
Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger -
Greg KH -
Jiri Slaby -
Ken Schneider - openSUSE -
Sven Burmeister