provenpackager attention needed for penmount

[Peter Hutterer]

Please give some karma to
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-penmount-1.4.1-2.fc13
This update has been in testing since April 17 and all it requires is a
provenpackager ack. Harmless update, penmount was completely broken before
so it's hard to make it more broken now.

And I'm starting to get sick of the daily reminder emails.

Thanks.

Cheers,
  Peter

[Rahul Sundaram]

On 05/25/2011 06:48 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> Please give some karma to
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xorg-x11-drv-penmount-1.4.1-2.fc13
> This update has been in testing since April 17 and all it requires is a
> provenpackager ack. Harmless update, penmount was completely broken before
> so it's hard to make it more broken now.
>
> And I'm starting to get sick of the daily reminder emails.

Done.

Rahul

[Matej Cepl]

Dne 25.5.2011 03:18, Peter Hutterer napsal(a):
> This update has been in testing since April 17 and all it requires is a
> provenpackager ack. Harmless update, penmount was completely broken before
> so it's hard to make it more broken now.

Just one more nitpick ... you meant proventester, right?

Matěj

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 08:16 +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 25.5.2011 03:18, Peter Hutterer napsal(a):
> > This update has been in testing since April 17 and all it requires is a
> > provenpackager ack. Harmless update, penmount was completely broken before
> > so it's hard to make it more broken now.
>
> Just one more nitpick ... you meant proventester, right?

Indeed.

Note that ajax has a plan in motion (I think) for trimming this so that
esoteric X drivers are no longer considred to be critpath. He wrote to
the list about it a few weeks back.

[Peter Hutterer]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 08:16:47AM +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 25.5.2011 03:18, Peter Hutterer napsal(a):
> > This update has been in testing since April 17 and all it requires is a
> > provenpackager ack. Harmless update, penmount was completely broken before
> > so it's hard to make it more broken now.
>
> Just one more nitpick ... you meant proventester, right?

yes, sorry. luckily Rahul's capability of understanding what I mean exceeds
my capability of expressing what I mean :)

thanks Rahul!

Cheers,
  Peter