On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 10:00 -0500, James Laska wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-13 at 04:09 -0500, Kamil Paral wrote:
> ----- "Josef Skladanka" <jskladan(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > Although I do not really understand all the spec files & makefile
> > magic,
>
> Me neither.
>
> > it seems OK to me, and I do completely support the idea of not
> > packaging
> > the israwhide broken.
>
> I'm another big supporter :)
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "James Laska" <jlaska(a)redhat.com>
> >
> > Comments/concerns?
>
> kparal@kparal:/home/autoqa (master)$ git am < patch
> Applying: Drop israwhidebroken sub-package
> error: patch failed: Makefile:32
> error: Makefile: patch does not apply
> Patch failed at 0001 Drop israwhidebroken sub-package
>
> Maybe the patch was based upon a different version of Makefile (than the one
> currently in master)?
Oh oops, I thought I applied it against master, but I may have goofed.
I'll inspect later today.
Not sure why it wouldn't apply cleanly, I don't think my patch
accommodated for recent changes to autoqa.conf for ticket#205? I've
adjusted the patch and pushed into master.
http://git.fedorahosted.org/git/?p=autoqa.git;a=commit;h=3d1edc695b2e6305...
Thanks,
James