On 12/03/2010 05:20 PM, James Antill wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-03 at 10:24 +0100, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am seeking some help here to solve a possible $subject. I have been
>> trying to find a simple alternate solution, but I just can´t see it or
>> it´s not obvious to me.
>>
>>
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 2:39 AM, BJ Dierkes wrote:
> Hello all,
>
Just to be clear... PyPI has an implied "one source" requirement
embedded in its repository structure and you have optimized your
upstream project release structure to meet PyPI's implied requirement.
Question does PyPI handle depe
Dne 7.12.2010 22:30, Richard W.M. Jones napsal(a):
> The issue we face with libvirt is it needs to be able to add extra
> rules to the existing firewall, and have those rules added in the
> right place, and preserved across firewall restarts, reboots and so
> on. There are other services which nee
Hello all,
I've been trying to figure the best way to handle this situation for the better
part of two days... and so I figured I'd bring it on list and hopefully I can
clarify this all. I have several projects that relate to this question,
however I will reference 'cement' as an example. Bas
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:01:20PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
> lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> exceptions, these 110 bugs are
Bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618349
The bug is blocking my ability, or at least my willingness to upgrade
to F14. I would appreciate some assistance so that I can finally do
the upgrade.
--
Fedora 13
(www.pembo13.com)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 01:05:06 +
Bastien Nocera wrote:
...snip...
> > The
> > lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> > exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as well, so
> > they haven't had much maintainer love in quite some time (6-18
> > months).
>
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 23:01 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier.
You better not.
> The
> lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> exceptions, these
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:20:28AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> While I'm looking into the git setup and ACLs and all this, I have a
> question.
>
> Is anybody seeing any real value of having different commit ACLs per
> Fedora branch? I've seen some argument for EPEL vs Fedora, but is there
> re
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 14:53 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > One thing is e.g notifications to users when some service/app requests
> > to open a port. First version won't have network zones yet, but he and
> > Dan Williams are working on that for the next generation which will then
> > basica
On Fri, 2010-11-26 at 10:16 -0300, Horst H. von Brand wrote:
>
> It used to say there was none; after updating gnome-settings-daemon
> to
> 2.91.4-1.fc15.x86_64 (which prevented Gnome fromn starting) and
> downgrading back to 2.91.3-1.fc15.x86_64 it works (?!).
Very highly unlikely to actually
On 12/03/2010 04:09 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> We're working on this. It won't always be practical, however; in the
>> current case, for example, you need specific hardware to test mdadm.
>
> Uh, this is md, not dm, you don't need very special HARDWARE (basically only
> 2
On 12/07/2010 02:25 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> To properly display the state of the package in PackageDB. E.g. if a
> package has different owners in different releases, it is more clear who
> is responsible. E.g. sometimes packages are faded out from Fedora and
> therefore orphaned in devel, but not i
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=658976
Vincent Danen changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
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=658976
Vincent Danen changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:55:26PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 11:52 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:20:28AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> While I'm looking into the git setup and ACLs and all this, I have a
> >> question.
> >>
> >> Is anybody seeing any real
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=658976
Vincent Danen changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
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=660960
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
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=658976
Vincent Danen changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
commit 5220207659e6a65796b33ef02646a7b12aab5f99
Author: Emmanuel Seyman
Date: Tue Dec 7 23:07:15 2010 +0100
Add perl(CGI) and perl(Class::ISA) to BuildRequires
Add perl default filter
perl-CGI-Application.spec | 10 +-
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
d
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 17:30UTC (12:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
= Followups =
#topic Updates policy
#351 Create a policy for updates - status report on implementation
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/351
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=660761
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
On 12/07/2010 11:52 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:20:28AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> While I'm looking into the git setup and ACLs and all this, I have a
>> question.
>>
>> Is anybody seeing any real value of having different commit ACLs per
>> Fedora branch? I've seen some
commit 4251ea8ea7680dc3db15c010bfae00d7ebe543a5
Author: Emmanuel Seyman
Date: Tue Dec 7 22:54:01 2010 +0100
Add perl(CGI) to BuildRequires and add perl default filter
perl-HTML-FillInForm.spec |9 -
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-HTML-Fi
On 12/07/2010 11:22 AM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> There can be a case that F-13 package and F-14 package are completely
> "different", even if the packages have the same name.
>
> For example there may be a case that a package of older version
> shipped in F-13 is written in perl, and new version shi
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 02:02:48PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:54 -0500, Luke Macken wrote:
>
> > Yep, that happens. There are also people that add +0 comments to
> > updates saying "Untested". There is an obvious need for more
> > fine-grained karma types.
>
> I've
On 12/07/2010 10:27 AM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> The pkgdb interface distinguishes them. Apparently there was some
> motivation for that in the first place. If the git hooks are not
> going to distinguish them, then pkgdb should change not to either.
Currently the git ACLs do enforce per-branch A
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 08:16:11PM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 7.12.2010 19:57, Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a):
> > Or something like that. I do remember a lot of over-engineering and
> > then a very simple it does this from Alan. And I remember a lot of
> > issues we were having with customers
On 12/07/2010 10:25 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> While I'm looking into the git setup and ACLs and all this, I have a
>> question.
>>
>> Is anybody seeing any real value of having different commit ACLs per
>> Fedora branch? I've seen some argum
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:08:49PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said:
> > On most laptops, however, which are the most common types of system sold
> > today, a firewall is very definitely needed when you're connecting to
> > hotel networks, public wifi access point
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 06:41 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:35:35PM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote:
>>> Matt Domsch wrote:
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> Note that I am not advocating keeping these packages unfixed. I wanted
>> to point out that things might turn ugly and might even trigger an
>> avalanche when you remove the FTBFS packages from the repo and then
>> the packages that depend on t
This from Matej, who tried to send it a while ago, but who appears to be
unable to post to the mailing list for some reason (I blame Canonical):
Some of leading members of our glorious BugZappers crew presented some
unreasonable requirements, like they would to sleep sometimes and stuff,
but in ou
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> While I'm looking into the git setup and ACLs and all this, I have a
> question.
>
> Is anybody seeing any real value of having different commit ACLs per
> Fedora branch?
No
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.f
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:10:00PM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> > point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. ??The
> > lists may be broken down by when
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=438244
Steven Pritchard changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
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=544738
Steven Pritchard changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:48 +0100, François Cami wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Andreas Tunek
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 22:26 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> >> 4 as well (not F13), but I can not change the version.
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:01:26PM +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> Yeah, general discovery. From the top of my head:
> - Pulseaudio sinks and sources
> - libvirt instances for virt-manager
> - VNC desktops for Vinagre
> - local web pages (think SOHO router config page) for zeroconf
> enabled Web
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:48 +0100, François Cami wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 22:26 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> >> 4 as well (not F13), but I can not change the version.
> >> > Do I have to file a new bug?
> >>
> >> I have reopened
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:20:28AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> While I'm looking into the git setup and ACLs and all this, I have a
> question.
>
> Is anybody seeing any real value of having different commit ACLs per
> Fedora branch? I've seen some argument for EPEL vs Fedora, but is there
> re
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:39 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 22:26 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
>> 4 as well (not F13), but I can not change the version.
>> > Do I have to file a new bug?
>>
>> I have reopened i
>
> So what kind of special access do you have to have to bugzilla
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 22:26 +0530, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> 4 as well (not F13), but I can not change the version.
> > Do I have to file a new bug?
>
> I have reopened i
So what kind of special access do you have to have to bugzilla in order
to change version?
--
devel mailing list
devel@li
Jesse Keating wrote, at 12/08/2010 03:20 AM +9:00:
> While I'm looking into the git setup and ACLs and all this, I have a
> question.
>
> Is anybody seeing any real value of having different commit ACLs per
> Fedora branch? I've seen some argument for EPEL vs Fedora, but is there
> real value in A
commit c8550842012e10312c157dc7ffa90c4159ab6817
Merge: 4906ac0 a0afb94
Author: Steven Pritchard
Date: Tue Dec 7 13:17:47 2010 -0600
Sync with rawhide.
.gitignore |2 +-
perl-BerkeleyDB.spec | 72 +++---
sources |
Summary of changes:
7e24a6c... Fix typo that causes a failure to update the common directo (*)
4cd3f1e... - rebuild against perl 5.10.1 (*)
741a1dc... Update to 0.41. (*)
698c420... - Mass rebuild with perl-5.12.0 (*)
08279d0... - Rebuild for Berkeley DB 4.8.30 in F-13 and Rawhide (#5922
Dne 7.12.2010 19:57, Stephen John Smoogen napsal(a):
> Or something like that. I do remember a lot of over-engineering and
> then a very simple it does this from Alan. And I remember a lot of
> issues we were having with customers going away after having them run
> it.
There is something weird abo
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
> lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182507
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=467113&action=diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=467113&action=edit
Description:
Replication drops unhashed passwords which is necessary for
the AD password sync. This patch allows
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-PDF-API2-0.73-4.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661083
Summary: FTBFS perl-PDF-API2-0.73-4.fc14
Product: Fedora
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-File-Comments-0.07-7.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661088
Summary: FTBFS perl-File-Comments-0.07-7.fc14
Product: Fedora
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-Test-WWW-Mechanize-1.28-1.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661092
Summary: FTBFS perl-Test-WWW-Mechanize-1.28-1.fc14
Produ
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-WWW-Mechanize-1.66-1.fc15
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=661086
Summary: FTBFS perl-WWW-Mechanize-1.66-1.fc15
Product: Fedora
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 09:24, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 08:03 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> There's also more to life than TCP ports. UDP ports, ICMP, other
>> protocols, other unrecognized protocols, packets containing completely
>> random stuff ... Having a firewall that lets thr
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:20:28AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> While I'm looking into the git setup and ACLs and all this, I have a
> question.
>
> Is anybody seeing any real value of having different commit ACLs per
> Fedora branch? I've seen some argument for EPEL vs Fedora, but is there
> re
> Is anybody seeing any real value of having different commit ACLs per
> Fedora branch? I've seen some argument for EPEL vs Fedora, but is there
> real value in ACLs for f13, f14, devel, etc...?
The pkgdb interface distinguishes them. Apparently there was some
motivation for that in the first pl
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> While I'm looking into the git setup and ACLs and all this, I have a
> question.
>
> Is anybody seeing any real value of having different commit ACLs per
> Fedora branch? I've seen some argument for EPEL vs Fedora, but is there
> real value i
While I'm looking into the git setup and ACLs and all this, I have a
question.
Is anybody seeing any real value of having different commit ACLs per
Fedora branch? I've seen some argument for EPEL vs Fedora, but is there
real value in ACLs for f13, f14, devel, etc...?
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora --
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-Class-Observable-1.04-8.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660849
Summary: FTBFS perl-Class-Observable-1.04-8.fc14
Product:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-SuperForm-0.5-2.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660860
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-SuperForm-0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-Stream-2.10-4.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660857
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-Stream-2.10-4
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-LogDispatch-1.02-4.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660821
Summary: FTBFS
perl-CGI-Applica
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-POE-Component-SNMP-1.1001-4.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660832
Summary: FTBFS perl-POE-Component-SNMP-1.1001-4.fc14
P
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-POE-Component-Server-SimpleHTTP-2.04-1.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660836
Summary: FTBFS perl-POE-Component-Server-SimpleHTTP-2.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-Class-DBI-AsForm-2.42-11.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660826
Summary: FTBFS perl-Class-DBI-AsForm-2.42-11.fc14
Product
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-FastCGI-0.02-2.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660828
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-FastCGI-0.02-2.fc14
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-POE-Component-DBIAgent-0.26-7.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660827
Summary: FTBFS perl-POE-Component-DBIAgent-0.26-7.fc14
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Dispatch-2.17-2.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660800
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Dispatch-2.17-2.fc14
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-Test-HTTP-Server-Simple-StashWarnings-0.04-4.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660808
Summary: FTBFS
perl-Test-HTT
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-CAPTCHA-0.01-2.fc15
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660787
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-CAPTCHA-0.01
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-Class-Can-0.01-5.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660810
Summary: FTBFS perl-Class-Can-0.01-5.fc14
Product: Fedora
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Session-4.35-5.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660792
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Session-4.35-5.fc14
Product: Fedora
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-ActionDispatch-0.97-2.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660771
Summary: FTBFS
perl-CGI-Appl
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-ValidateRM-2.3-5.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660775
Summary: FTBFS
perl-CGI-Applicati
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-ViewCode-1.02-4.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660777
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-ViewCode-1.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-HTML-FormFu-Model-DBIC-0.06000-2.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660763
Summary: FTBFS perl-HTML-FormFu-Model-DBIC-0.06000-2.fc14
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Untaint-1.26-9.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660774
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Untaint-1.26-9.fc14
Product: Fedora
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-HTML-FillInForm-2.00-4.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660761
Summary: FTBFS perl-HTML-FillInForm-2.00-4.fc14
Product: Fe
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-ConfigAuto-1.32-2.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660762
Summary: FTBFS
perl-CGI-Applicat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-AutoRunmode-0.16-5.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660755
Summary: FTBFS
perl-CGI-Applica
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-Session-1.03-4.fc14
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=660749
Summary: FTBFS perl-CGI-Application-Plugin-Session-1.03
2010/12/7 Genes MailLists :
> On 12/07/2010 10:20 AM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>
>> How many users use NFS on desktop? This is not even used on all servers.
>>
>> So the question is - do we want to have NFS by default?
>>
>> I use samba and I don't want to force all users to install it by default.
On Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:18:53 +
Frank Murphy wrote:
> Sorry list,
> Couldn't find where to find the correct info\contact for this.
>
> sha256sum -c *-CHECKSUM
> Fedora-14-i386-DVD.iso: OK
>
> sudo mount -o loop
> /home/frank/Torrents/Fedora_14/Fedora-14-i386-DVD/Fedora-14-i386-DVD.iso
>
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 05:45:58PM +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> How do I reopen the bug? Previously in the bug report I stated that
> this affects F14 as well (not F13), but I can not change the version.
> Do I have to file a new bug?
I have reopened it for you.
--
Siddhesh
--
devel mailing lis
Bug 467267 got this message:
--- Comment #7 from Bug Zapper
2010-12-05 02:07:18 EST ---
Fedora 12 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2010-12-02. Fedora 12 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bu
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:01:20PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> mingw32-libglademm24-2.6.7-8.fc12 [u'631374 NEW'] (build/make) sailer,rjones
> mingw32-pangomm-2.26.0-1.fc12 [u'631208 NEW'] (build/make) sailer,rjones
> mingw32-plotmm-0.1.2-4.fc12 [u'631082 NEW'] (build/make) sailer,rjones
> mingw32-g
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:26 AM, FlorianFesti wrote:
> This is now implemented as "show-installed" which is part of
> yum-utils-1.1.29-2.fc15 found in Fedora devel.
Awesome! I'm very happy to see this!
--
Jared Smith
Fedora Project Leader
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http
On 12/07/2010 08:03 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> There's also more to life than TCP ports. UDP ports, ICMP, other
> protocols, other unrecognized protocols, packets containing completely
> random stuff ... Having a firewall that lets through every TCP port
> does still give you protection from
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 11:12 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>
> dude, read to the end of the thread. I walked away - I conceded the
> point about disabling the firewall.
Sorry, sent too early (and twice, to add insult to injury).
Anyway, to put a more positive note on this, I'm looking forward to
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 14:56 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>
> ah, printing.
>
> Is there anything that's not last century?
>
So you are trying to defend the last-century firewall technology by
calling everything that wants to share data last century ?
That seems not the most constructive attitud
On 12/07/2010 04:57 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 02:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Could somebody explain this change between f14 and f15?
>>
>> f14: perl -V:vendorarch
>> vendorarch='/usr/lib64/perl5';
>> f15: perl -V:vendorarch
>> vendorarch='/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_pe
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 09:50:22AM +, Tim Waugh wrote:
> If the CUPS snmp backend could say to "the firewall", "hey, please allow
> responses on this port I've got for the next few seconds" -- which can
> be controlled using PolicyKit -- then this network discovery would
> finally work.
Is the
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 11:10 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 14:56 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>
> >
> > ah, printing.
> >
> > Is there anything that's not last century?
> >
>
> So you are trying to defend the last-century firewall technology by
> calling everything that wan
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 14:56 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>
> ah, printing.
>
> Is there anything that's not last century?
>
So you are trying to defend the last-century firewall technology by
calling everything that wants to share data last century ?
That seems not the most constructive attitud
On Sun, 2010-12-05 at 17:04 +0100, valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 11:44 PM, valent.turko...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501227
> >
> > I'm writing to devel list just if anybody can say will there be any
> > chance to get nautilus an
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 03:25:30PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 12/06/2010 12:18 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Jesse Keating writes:
> >> The argument of default firewall or not would probably quiet down quite
> >> a bit if we had any sort of decent UI to help users get the firewall out
> >> of thei
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 08:44:02AM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 7.12.2010 00:21, Jesse Keating napsal(a):
> > Actually bittorrents that have upnp work. Routers I've seen come
> > pre-configured to allow upnp, so an app on a computer, or a game
> > console, sends out a upnp request to open up/for
On 12/07/2010 02:48 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could somebody explain this change between f14 and f15?
>
> f14: perl -V:vendorarch
> vendorarch='/usr/lib64/perl5';
> f15: perl -V:vendorarch
> vendorarch='/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl';
>
> This causes f15 to install their vendorarch'ed mod
On 12/07/2010 10:20 AM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> How many users use NFS on desktop? This is not even used on all servers.
>
> So the question is - do we want to have NFS by default?
>
> I use samba and I don't want to force all users to install it by default.
>
No idea how many but count
On 12/07/2010 04:28 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 09:50:22AM +, Tim Waugh wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 21:50 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> Still not seeing how /etc/iptables.d wouldn't work ...
>>
>> Here is how:
>>
>> When I ask CUPS for a list of network pr
1 - 100 of 117 matches
Mail list logo
