Re: How about firefox 3.6 in Fedora 12 ?

Liu Yu Fei Eric wrote: > I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.5.6 for a rather long time. > What about 3.5.7 and the recently 3.6? They are even not in koji. http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2010/01/22/Firefox-3.6-en Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https:/

Re: Draft privilege escalation policy for comments

Adam Williamson wrote: > Please do provide any and all feedback on the proposed policy. if we can > get it into a shape which most people on the list would find acceptable, > my next step will be to take it back to FESco for them to review. > Thanks. >From the proposal: > Add, remove, upgrade or

Re: Draft privilege escalation policy for comments

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 18:40 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > > Please do provide any and all feedback on the proposed policy. if we can > > get it into a shape which most people on the list would find acceptable, > > my next step will be to take it back to FESco for them to review. > > Thanks. > > S

How about firefox 3.6 in Fedora 12 ?

Hi, I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.5.6 for a rather long time. What about 3.5.7 and the recently 3.6? They are even not in koji. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: update means only runlevel 1

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 15:15, Tom London wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:11 PM, darrell pfeifer > wrote: > > i did an update this morning that took my machine from current rawhide > > to a few koji updates. included were dracut, udev and i memory serves > > me right, a minor initscript clean

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:13 -0800, John Reiser wrote: > > The last entry on > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2010-January/date.html > is for 09 January 2010, which is almost three weeks ago. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-January/date.html -- Jesse Keat

Re: Draft privilege escalation policy for comments

Hi Adam, On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, everyone. Since the big PackageKit brouhaha surrounding Fedora 12, > there's been a discussion surrounding the need for a policy about > privilege escalation in Fedora. Representing the QA group, we would like > for there to b

Re: update means only runlevel 1

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:11 PM, darrell pfeifer wrote: > i did an update this morning that took my machine from current rawhide > to a few koji updates. included were dracut, udev and i memory serves > me right, a minor initscript cleanup. > > now i can't get any farther than runlevell 1. going t

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On 01/29/2010 02:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:03 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> We have attempted to create test images at a few points before Alpha, >> when Anaconda team is ready for testing and leading up to the freeze so >> that we can identify blockers prior to th

update means only runlevel 1

i did an update this morning that took my machine from current rawhide to a few koji updates. included were dracut, udev and i memory serves me right, a minor initscript cleanup. now i can't get any farther than runlevell 1. going to even runlevel 3 hangs. any suggestions of what might be broken?

Draft privilege escalation policy for comments

Hi, everyone. Since the big PackageKit brouhaha surrounding Fedora 12, there's been a discussion surrounding the need for a policy about privilege escalation in Fedora. Representing the QA group, we would like for there to be such a policy in order to allow a meaningful review of privilege escalati

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:03 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > We have attempted to create test images at a few points before Alpha, > when Anaconda team is ready for testing and leading up to the freeze so > that we can identify blockers prior to the freeze. If any of these > happens to work we would

Re: disk woes: revive w/o-reboot after SATA "START_STOP FAILED"?

Jim Meyering wrote: > Hello, > > I've just returned one relatively new disk drive[*], > and hope I'm not about to return another... > > [*] It was a 1TB Samsung ecogreen, and some strenuous testing > would reliably provoke I/O errors which would apparently > damage the disk enough to

Re: Moving lspci and setpci from /sbin to /usr/sbin?

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:57 +0200, Sergey Rudchenko wrote: > On 1/29/2010 2:38 PM, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:32:15 +0100 > > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > >> Presuming /sbin/lspci is supposed to work without having /usr/ > >> mounted, then libpci.so.X needs to

Re: Purging the F13 orphans

On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 23:24 -0500, Patrick Dignan wrote: > On 01/28/2010 07:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 09:10 -0500, Patrick Dignan wrote: > > > > > >> I'll take nautilus-python. I spoke with upstream to confirm they had no > >> intention of picking it up. > >>

Re: RawTherapee now GPLv3 -- anyone else interested?

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 03:40:52PM +0100, jan.kle...@brandforge.sk wrote: > I'm working on packaging already. How's it going? Any help needed? -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedorapro

[Bug 560066] perl-Date-Manip needs to be updated to version 6.05

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=560066 Jonathan Kamens changed: What|Removed |Added ---

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 10:59 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 01/29/2010 10:53 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > > As part of No Frozen Rawhide, we no longer make images for the rawhide > > tree. Rawhide is just a repo of packages. When we branch for Alpha > > we'll publish the release to be in it's ow

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On 01/29/2010 10:08 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 01/29/2010 12:59 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> On 01/29/2010 10:53 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: >>> As part of No Frozen Rawhide, we no longer make images for the rawhide >>> tree. Rawhide is just a repo of packages. When we branch for Alpha >>>

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On 01/29/2010 12:59 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 01/29/2010 10:53 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: >> As part of No Frozen Rawhide, we no longer make images for the rawhide >> tree. Rawhide is just a repo of packages. When we branch for Alpha >> we'll publish the release to be in it's own tree path wi

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On 01/29/2010 10:53 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > As part of No Frozen Rawhide, we no longer make images for the rawhide > tree. Rawhide is just a repo of packages. When we branch for Alpha > we'll publish the release to be in it's own tree path with images > nightly. Rawhide will move on to F14 st

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 10:51 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Am I looking in the wrong place for rawhide install images these days? > They used to be in development//os/images, which would appear when > that part of the build succeeded. As part of No Frozen Rawhide, we no longer make images for

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On 01/28/2010 10:44 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > We are doing another image drop today for rawhide acceptance testing. A > number of issues were found during the last test run, we may have usable > images this run that we can publish as "last known good". > Am I looking in the wrong place for rawhi

Re: Reordering in package changelogs (was Re: rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 17:04 +, Mat Booth wrote: > On 29 January 2010 17:00, Pierre-Yves wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:59 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > >> Here's where it gets weird: > >> 0.6.10-1 then 0.6.10-2 then 0.6.9-4 then 0.6.9-2 seems an arbitrary > >> ordering: > > It is only wei

Re: I am an unresponsive maintainer?

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Paul Wouters wrote: > Subject: I am an unresponsive maintainer? > I just heard I might be put through the "unresponsive maintainer process" > in Fedora? I'm a little confused as I've never received emails on this, > and I'm always on irc and read fedora-devel and still perfor

Re: I am an unresponsive maintainer?

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:08 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote: > Hi, > > I just heard I might be put through the "unresponsive maintainer process" > in Fedora? I'm a little confused as I've never received emails on this, > and I'm always on irc and read fedora-devel and still perform very regular > packag

Re: best practice for packing programs that use strlcpy()?

Eric Smith wrote: > What is considered the best practice for packaging a program that uses > strlcpy()? > Is there a Fedora library that provides strlcpy() and friends? > Should I add an implmentation of strlcpy() to the package as an > additional source or patch? > Should I modify the program to n

I am an unresponsive maintainer?

Hi, I just heard I might be put through the "unresponsive maintainer process" in Fedora? I'm a little confused as I've never received emails on this, and I'm always on irc and read fedora-devel and still perform very regular package updates. Can someone tell me what's going on, and forward me em

Re: Reordering in package changelogs (was Re: rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

On 29 January 2010 17:00, Pierre-Yves wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:59 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: >> Here's where it gets weird: >> 0.6.10-1 then 0.6.10-2 then 0.6.9-4 then 0.6.9-2 seems an arbitrary >> ordering: > It is only weird/inverted when the date are the same. > > Pierre > -- > devel

Re: Reordering in package changelogs (was Re: rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:59 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > Here's where it gets weird: > 0.6.10-1 then 0.6.10-2 then 0.6.9-4 then 0.6.9-2 seems an arbitrary > ordering: It is only weird/inverted when the date are the same. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.f

Reordering in package changelogs (was Re: rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:45 +, Rawhide Report wrote: [snip] Looks like whatever generates this report is reordering items in the changelog relative to the %changelog in the specfile, but in some surprising ways; is this a known issue? Normally the items in a %changelog are in order most-rece

Re: RFC: Remove write permissions from executables

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:43:09AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Richard Zidlicky (r...@linux-m68k.org): > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:11:41AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > > > > All in all I think it's a shame that the original proposal didn't work > > > > out at this time. Havin

Re: Purging the F13 orphans

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 03:04:20PM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote: > Colin Walters wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:01:25AM +0200, Alexander Kurtakov wrote: > >> > >>> How can I take jna-posix? I need it for one of my projects

Re: Beware: Thunderbird (ver 3.0.1) CORRUPTS all email state

Adam Williamson wrote: > There was a clear failure in this process, though, which was that the > update was sent straight to updates and did not go through > updates-testing. I can't see any reason why that should be acceptable > for an update to a very popular package which manipulates data that

rawhide report: 20100129 changes

Compose started at Fri Jan 29 08:15:08 UTC 2010 Broken deps for i386 -- doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1 easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires libboost_serialization-mt.so.5 1:fife-devel-0.3.0-1.fc13

Re: Moving lspci and setpci from /sbin to /usr/sbin?

On 29 January 2010 14:16, Maxim Burgerhout wrote: >> What if we link the lspci and lsusb as static binaries? That would allow >> us not to break the filesystem architecture and have usable tools. > > You'd still miss pci.ids without /usr, so that would have to move too. > Only place remotely suita

Re: Moving lspci and setpci from /sbin to /usr/sbin?

> What if we link the lspci and lsusb as static binaries? That would allow > us not to break the filesystem architecture and have usable tools. You'd still miss pci.ids without /usr, so that would have to move too. Only place remotely suitable for that - not being beneath /usr or /var - would be /

Re: Beware: Thunderbird (ver 3.0.1) CORRUPTS all email state

Sorry for my delayed response... On 01/28/2010 05:58 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Steve Dickson writes: > >> I guess I have a different definition of crap... ;-) >> >> I have been on both sides of these bugs... So I know (the hard way) >> when you push something out that breaks existing configur

Re: abrt not working in current Rawhide?

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 01:26:23PM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: > On 01/28/2010 11:52 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 10:21 -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > > > >>>C'mon do we really need to make this into a fight? The reason why I > >>>didn't implement it is that it would be tempora

Re: Moving lspci and setpci from /sbin to /usr/sbin?

On 1/29/2010 2:38 PM, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:32:15 +0100 > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > >> Presuming /sbin/lspci is supposed to work without having /usr/ >> mounted, then libpci.so.X needs to reside in /lib|/lib64. >> >> Or differently: Everything in /bin and /sbin

Re: Moving lspci and setpci from /sbin to /usr/sbin?

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:32:15 +0100 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Presuming /sbin/lspci is supposed to work without having /usr/ > mounted, then libpci.so.X needs to reside in /lib|/lib64. > > Or differently: Everything in /bin and /sbin, must only be > dynamically linked against libraries in /lib|/lib6

Re: abrt not working in current Rawhide?

On 01/28/2010 11:52 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 10:21 -0500, Neil Horman wrote: C'mon do we really need to make this into a fight? The reason why I didn't implement it is that it would be temporary anyway and thus doesn't worth the work, because it's not just that 10 lines

Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

Bugzilla status for packages violating the Static Library guidelines: acl 556036 -> CLOSED atlas 556037 attr556038 -> CLOSED audit 556039 binutils

Re: best practice for packing programs that use strlcpy()?

On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 23:38 -0800, Eric Smith wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > You could probably package up libbsd for inclusion: > > http://libbsd.freedesktop.org/wiki/ > > > That's exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to find. I've submitted a > package for review: > > https://bug

Re: Moving lspci and setpci from /sbin to /usr/sbin?

On 01/29/2010 07:19 AM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> Consider taking out /usr from your fstab and to check how far you can get. >> With /sbin/lspci you will be able to check your pci setup, with >> /usr/sbin/lspci, you wouldn't. > > False.