Eric "Sparks" Christensen wrote, at 11/21/2010 01:47 PM +9:00:
> I'm working on updating the GPredict package for F13, F14, F15, and EL6.
> The package builds fine on F14 and F15 but on F13 it fails with the
> error '/lib64/libm.so.6: could not read symbols: Invalid operation'.
> You can see the
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Just drop all the requirements/go back to before we had any updates
> criteria.
That's really the only way to go. The policy failed, it's time to withdraw
it. All the other proposed solutions require even more complexity in the
software and policies, for little to no gai
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm working on updating the GPredict package for F13, F14, F15, and EL6.
The package builds fine on F14 and F15 but on F13 it fails with the
error '/lib64/libm.so.6: could not read symbols: Invalid operation'.
You can see the logs and such in koji[0].
Kyle McMartin writes:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 04:41:47AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Uhm, indeed, making publicly available files non-readable is really useless.
> If it stops even one automated attack, then it's worth while.
That's completely ridiculous. Shutting down Fedora altogether wou
Ray Strode wrote:
> I wonder if the nonresponsive package maintainers policy should have a
> provision for "ping maintainer on irc"
Most (potentially) nonresponsive folks aren't even on IRC in the first
place.
(Lennart is, though. His IRC nick is mezcalero.)
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mail
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Running aspell from the command line confirmed that it had to problems
> with the Yankee spelling, so Firefox must be using its own dictionary,
> instead of aspell. I distinctly remember an old thread which discussed a
> push to get all apps to use the system aspell diction
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 03:19 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On the positive side, it doesn't do anything terribly complicated, it
> > just ships a single HAL rules file which does this:
> >
> > > type="strlist">access_control > key="access_control.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 04:41:47AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > The thing is, we really need to be able to boot a kernel in qemu as
> > non-root, and carrying around a separately compiled or packaged kernel
> > is in nobody's interest.
> >
> > I'm fairly sure this won
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> The thing is, we really need to be able to boot a kernel in qemu as
> non-root, and carrying around a separately compiled or packaged kernel
> is in nobody's interest.
>
> I'm fairly sure this won't be the only application to break. We found
> it first because we are c
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I don't disagree with anything you say, but the question of what's more
> important than testing an update is key. If an update's worth doing,
> it's worth testing. This is pretty simple, and amply demonstrated by
> Fedora history: if we allow people to push untested packag
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 03:54:25AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Well, I don't see why we need separate testing on F13 for the exact same
> stuff which got tested by 4 people on F14.
Because F13 isn't F14.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I don't think that's true. One of the goals of the policy was to reduce
> the volume of updates that are pushed just because hey, it's easy to do,
> right? So if the policy is discouraging people from pushing trivial
> updates it's actually *achieving its goals*.
This was
François Cami wrote:
> There is also no other choice if we want to reduce the probability of
> introducing regressions in updates.
Well, I don't see why we need separate testing on F13 for the exact same
stuff which got tested by 4 people on F14.
> I also happen to believe that pushing a new ver
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 03:33:56AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Me. And I'm already angry at having to manually modprobe floppy in rc.local:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567533
If you're "angry" about a minor inconvenience then I think you might
want to seek counsel, but for what
On Sun, 2010-11-21 at 03:16 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Please remember the exact policy we have. There is still no absolute
> > requirement for testing for anything but critpath packages, which is a
> > fairly small number. All other packages can push updates without
>
Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Anyone uses gopher, uucp?
Me.
gopher://www.calcforge.org/1/
Web version: http://www.calcforge.org:70/
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/kio_gopher
(I don't use uucp though, but I see from Kevin Fenzi's reply that there's at
least one person using that t
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Please remember the exact policy we have. There is still no absolute
> requirement for testing for anything but critpath packages, which is a
> fairly small number. All other packages can push updates without
> testing; there's simply a short waiting period to do so.
But
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On the positive side, it doesn't do anything terribly complicated, it
> just ships a single HAL rules file which does this:
>
> type="strlist">access_control key="access_control.file"
>type="copy_property">linux.device_file
>
Ville Skyttä wrote:
> It probably did, and because the above is related to config files, leaving
> behind *.rpmorig is quite appropriate IMO. But leaving such cruft behind
> is not that fine for non-config files.
Well, instead of a mv to rpmorig, a rm -rf could probably be used.
Kevin Ko
On Sun, 21 Nov 2010 01:52:02 +0100, Ray Strode wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >> Completed "Policy for nonresponsive package maintainers" there, got an
> >> off-list reply but still no fix commit or commit rights approval.
> >
> > Lennart is surely around...
>
> I
Hi,
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 4:52 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> filed month+ ago:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643296
>>
>> Simple fix of memory corruption affecting various applications incl.
>> Firefox.
>>
>> Completed "Policy for nonresponsive package maintainers" there, got
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 22:52:51 +0100, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> but I think it might be good to get a few
> motivated maintainers for the fedora package.
Also think so.
Twinkle sound is choppy when using pulseaudio, the details are not important
here as I have not even filed it when the pulseaudio Bugs
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> ok, I dug through the devel list for the last month or two and wrote
> down all the various ideas folks have come up with to change/improve
> things.
>
> Here (in no particular order) are the ideas and some notes from me on
> how we could enab
Hi,
I would like to help with scripts conversion. IMO the conversion
action should be coordinated.
Comments, thoughts?
Kind regards,
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 17:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't by any means disagree with the idea that testing packages before
> they go out is a good thing. What I have a problem with is the idea
> that an "unfunded mandate" for that to happen is going to accomplish
> much. A policy isn't worth
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 17:45 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
> > I do. I don't believe all maintainers do. It's pretty hard to explain
> > why updates that completely prevent the app in question from working, or
> > even prevent the system from booting, got pushed in the past, if a
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 04:15:51PM -0500, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:14:39PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Kyle,
> >
> > From latest Rawhide kernel.rpm:
> >
> > * Wed Nov 17 2010 Kyle McMartin
> > - Make vmlinuz/System.map root read-write only by default. You can
>
Adam Williamson writes:
> I do. I don't believe all maintainers do. It's pretty hard to explain
> why updates that completely prevent the app in question from working, or
> even prevent the system from booting, got pushed in the past, if all
> maintainers actually test their updates.
I don't thin
ok, I dug through the devel list for the last month or two and wrote
down all the various ideas folks have come up with to change/improve
things.
Here (in no particular order) are the ideas and some notes from me on
how we could enable them. Please feel free to add new (actual/concrete
ideas or n
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 22:42:57 +0100
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> I personally can say that the week-long delay significantly diminishes
> my enjoyment of backporting patches into existing Fedora releases.
>
> Being able to spend 30 minutes fixing a bug for an user and getting an
> immediate feeling of
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 14:49 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:04:24 -0800
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> > > https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
> >
> > hum, that wasn't well publicised, and I wasn't aware of it. (I should
> > probably show up to more FESCo m
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 22:42:57 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> I personally can say that the week-long delay significantly diminishes
> my enjoyment of backporting patches into existing Fedora releases.
>
> Being able to spend 30 minutes fixing a bug for an user and getting an
> immediate feeling of
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 14:52 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 07:14:41 +0100
> Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > filed month+ ago:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643296
> >
> > Simple fix of memory corruption affecting various applications incl.
> > F
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 16:48 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
> > I don't disagree with anything you say, but the question of what's more
> > important than testing an update is key. If an update's worth doing,
> > it's worth testing. This is pretty simple, and amply demonstrated by
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 22:24:46 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> The packages have an automated test suite. I test the code
> changes as applied the main branch. I test the final update RPMs
> rebuilt locally my system.
>
> Given all this testing, I'm not going to spend time testing the
> particular
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 18:32:26 +0100
Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2010/11/12 Kevin Fenzi :
> > Any other exciting work in progress that might land in F15 that
> > people are actively working on?
>
> How about removing some old unix crud? (he said this and he saw that
> some people starts to
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 07:14:41 +0100
Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> Hello,
>
> filed month+ ago:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=643296
>
> Simple fix of memory corruption affecting various applications incl.
> Firefox.
>
> Completed "Policy for nonresponsive package maintainers" th
On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:04:24 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
...snip...
> > https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
>
> hum, that wasn't well publicised, and I wasn't aware of it. (I should
> probably show up to more FESCo meetings...picture FESCo members going
> 'no, no, really, it's fine!') I'
Adam Williamson writes:
> I don't disagree with anything you say, but the question of what's more
> important than testing an update is key. If an update's worth doing,
> it's worth testing. This is pretty simple, and amply demonstrated by
> Fedora history: if we allow people to push untested pack
Adam Williamson píše v So 20. 11. 2010 v 13:34 -0800:
> Also remember that if it's a leaf package which isn't important to
> critpath functionality it won't be critpath, and so the only requirement
> is that the package meets the karma threshold you set when submitting
> the update (which can be a
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 22:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Let me give you a specific example: I maintain quite a few leaf
> packages. The packages have an automated test suite. I test the code
> changes as applied the main branch. I test the final update RPMs
> rebuilt locally my system.
>
>
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 22:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Adam Williamson píše v So 20. 11. 2010 v 13:14 -0800:
> > On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 20:30 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > If the "something else" is more important than testing the update,
> > > testing the updates truly is a waste of time.
Adam Williamson píše v So 20. 11. 2010 v 13:14 -0800:
> On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 20:30 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > If the "something else" is more important than testing the update,
> > testing the updates truly is a waste of time.
>
> I don't disagree with anything you say, but the question of
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:14:39PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Kyle,
>
> From latest Rawhide kernel.rpm:
>
> * Wed Nov 17 2010 Kyle McMartin
> - Make vmlinuz/System.map root read-write only by default. You can
> just chmod 644 them later if you (unlikely) need them without root.
>
> Th
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 20:30 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Adam Williamson píše v So 20. 11. 2010 v 08:44 -0800:
> > I really don't see how you can say that testing updates is a 'waste of
> > time' with a straight face. It *takes* time, yes. It may be boring
> > sometimes, yes. But a waste of time
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 02:00:35PM -0500, Steve Dickson wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Currently the nfs-utils-lib package has two libraries,
> libnfsidmap and librpcsecgss. librpcsecgss is no longer
> needed since it was functionally replaced by libtirpc and
Are you happy about the licensing of libtirpc
On 11/20/2010 02:10 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "SD" == Steve Dickson writes:
>
> SD> So what/where are the steps I need to take to retire nfs-utils-lib
> SD> and create a new libnfsidmap package...
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
>
> And I
Adam Williamson píše v So 20. 11. 2010 v 08:44 -0800:
> I really don't see how you can say that testing updates is a 'waste of
> time' with a straight face. It *takes* time, yes. It may be boring
> sometimes, yes. But a waste of time? Do you write your code perfectly
> first time, every time?
That
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 11:23:37AM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:18:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers
> > would spend the rest of their lives doing nothing but test updates.
>
> This idea was neve
> "SD" == Steve Dickson writes:
SD> So what/where are the steps I need to take to retire nfs-utils-lib
SD> and create a new libnfsidmap package...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
And I think you're probably pretty familiar with the process of
submitting
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 07:53:40AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > > biosdevname installed by default, used in the installer and at runtime
> > > to rename Dell and HP server onboard NICs from non-deterministic
> > > "ethX" to clearly labeled "lomX" matching the chassis silkscreen.
> > But why ???l
Hello,
Currently the nfs-utils-lib package has two libraries,
libnfsidmap and librpcsecgss. librpcsecgss is no longer
needed since it was functionally replaced by libtirpc and
now that I'm the upstream maintainer of libnfsidmap,
I would like make that its own standalone package.
So what/where
2010/11/20 Richard W.M. Jones :
> On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 06:57:16PM +0100, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
>> Interesting. But the short version of that means that all those
>> users are useless in their current form, and could be removed?
>
> An administrator might decide to enable one of these accounts, b
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 06:57:16PM +0100, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Interesting. But the short version of that means that all those
> users are useless in their current form, and could be removed?
An administrator might decide to enable one of these accounts, but I'd
say that would be pretty unwise.
Hi.
On Sat, 20 Nov 2010 17:50:43 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote
>
Interesting. But the short version of that means that all those
users are useless in their current form, and could be removed?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 06:32:26PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> How about removing some old unix crud? (he said this and he saw that
> some people starts to gather firewood in the stack :))
>
> Anyone uses gopher, uucp?
>
> sync:x:5:0:sync:/sbin:/bin/sync
Someone at Red Hat asked me once wh
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 11:23 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:18:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>> > place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers
>> > would spend the rest of their lives
Hi,
2010/11/12 Kevin Fenzi :
> Any other exciting work in progress that might land in F15 that people
> are actively working on?
How about removing some old unix crud? (he said this and he saw that
some people starts to gather firewood in the stack :))
Anyone uses gopher, uucp?
sync:x:5:0:sync:
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-18 at 14:15 -0700, Linuxguy123 wrote:
>> I realize that most people on this mailing list are focused on
>> infrastructure and server/desktop usage.
>>
>> But some of us are looking forward to using future Fedora releases on
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 10:37 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le vendredi 19 novembre 2010 à 21:46 -0800, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> > On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 10:23 -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> >
> > > libconcord-0:0.21-10.fc14.i686
> > > libconcord-0:0.21-10.fc14.x86_64
> > I
> > don't know e
On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 11:23 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:18:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers
> > would spend the rest of their lives doing nothing but test updates.
>
> This idea was never promi
Hi,
On 11/19/2010 10:39 AM, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 06:28:58PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> thanks for looking at it.
>
>>> However for some of the reports it is only the matter of someone looking
>>> at them as they contain the obvious solution to the problem.
>>>
>>>
Compose started at Sat Nov 20 08:15:05 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.x86_64 requires libmono.so.0()(64bit)
beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.x86_64 requires libmono.so.0(VER_1)(64bit)
bognor-regis-0.6.11-1
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:18:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers
> would spend the rest of their lives doing nothing but test updates.
This idea was never prominently communicated as the default
situation. Iirc it was said t
Le vendredi 19 novembre 2010 à 21:46 -0800, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 10:23 -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>
> > libconcord-0:0.21-10.fc14.i686
> > libconcord-0:0.21-10.fc14.x86_64
> I
> don't know exactly what that is, but I can't imagine it'd be terribly
> hard to port
65 matches
Mail list logo
