Dear all:
Please don't fix your packages for this issue until enough discussion
is done on fedora-packaging mailing list.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=604169
Regards,
Mamoru
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sat, 2010-06-12 at 21:39 +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> It's seems, that this feature is not implemented in the current
> fedora-packager package.
>
> when I try to make a fedpkg cloone --branches I will get only
> a message which describe the function for this command without
> any visible res
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 17:47 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> = Summary =
> kde-4.4.4 update status
> * AGREED: kde-4.4.4 updates to be queue'd for stable updates asap
Yippee ! Good work !
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/de
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 01:40:43PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Casey Dahlin said:
> > I'd say fire and forget or something close for most sysv initscripts. If
> > you want to do better you need a modern tool like systemd/upstart/etc.
> > Trying to do it better in bash just makes
Once upon a time, Casey Dahlin said:
> I'd say fire and forget or something close for most sysv initscripts. If
> you want to do better you need a modern tool like systemd/upstart/etc.
> Trying to do it better in bash just makes for piles of ugly, and the
> weird failure modes and corner cases wil
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 03:30:05PM +0300, Manuel Wolfshant wrote:
> On 06/15/2010 03:08 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
*snip*
> > Thoughts?
> Well, I'd say it depends on how we define the "start" part. "fire and
> forget", "start and make sure it was started" or "start and make sure
> it is running".
>
This is a report of the weekly KDE-SIG-Meeting with a summary of the
topics that were discussed. If you want to add a comment please reply
to this email or add it to the related meeting page.
--
= Weekly KDE Summary
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Hmm, then maybe this is a bug in PackageKit. In the Software Update GUI,
> it's listed as "normal update".
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=574658
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Joe Orton wrote:
>
> I'd instinctively prefer (1) from a "do one thing and do it well"
> perspective; (2) starts down the road of a better/more complex form of
> service-monitoring/management and ends up doing it really badly in messy
> sh script in N places.
Abso
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:08:20 -0400
Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 07:59 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > Hmm, then maybe this is a bug in PackageKit. In the Software Update
> > GUI, it's listed as "normal update".
>
> I've seen that a lot over the past few months. Unfortunatel
On 06/15/2010 03:08 PM, Joe Orton wrote:
> Any opinions on this? I've had a query.
>
> What should "service start" do for a daemon - or more specifically,
> when should it return? There is inconsistency amongst different current
> init scripts, two general approaches:
>
> 1) fire and forget:
Any opinions on this? I've had a query.
What should "service start" do for a daemon - or more specifically,
when should it return? There is inconsistency amongst different current
init scripts, two general approaches:
1) fire and forget: start the daemon, return immediately
2) stop and
On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 07:59 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Hmm, then maybe this is a bug in PackageKit. In the Software Update GUI,
> it's listed as "normal update".
I've seen that a lot over the past few months. Unfortunately, I haven't
investigated to the point of being able to write a usef
On 06/15/2010 07:54 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 07:28:40AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> Can someone explain to me why a package whose update comment lists
>> "added patch that fixes insufficient environment sanitization issue
>> (CVE-2010-1646)" is not marked as a security
On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 07:28:40AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Can someone explain to me why a package whose update comment lists
> "added patch that fixes insufficient environment sanitization issue
> (CVE-2010-1646)" is not marked as a security bug?
No, because according to the Bodhi web
Can someone explain to me why a package whose update comment lists
"added patch that fixes insufficient environment sanitization issue
(CVE-2010-1646)" is not marked as a security bug?
--
Stephen Gallagher
RHCE 804006346421761
Delivering value year after year.
Red Hat ranks #1 in value among s
Compose started at Tue Jun 15 08:15:05 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
1:anjuta-2.30.0.0-2.fc14.i686 requires libgladeui-1.so.9
cpanspec-1.78-5.fc14.noarch requires perl(IO::Uncompress::Bunzip2)
dates-0.4.11-3.fc14.i6
Hi,
I have packaged LibRaw since it is needed to build Shotwell
trunk. Review Request link here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=602279
Anyone trying to build Shotwell will need this and gexiv2, which has
also been packaged:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=599097
--
Si
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 03:20:40PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
> meeting tomorrow at 19:30UTC (3:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net.
>
I'm still in the United Kingdom on a pseudo-working-holiday, so I'll
make the
19 matches
Mail list logo
