On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 10:06:15AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> openCOLLADA is failing to build with GCC 4.7 in rawhide and I was
> hoping someone could point me in the right direction for a solution.
>
> Below is the build log snippet.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
> ---
> In file included from
> /build
When double checking the LICENSE file shipped with 0.10.1 final I noticed
it was GPLv3 instead of GPLv2 as noted in the spec file. I am not sure
exactly when the change occured.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> if a software-package, information, disclosure is NOT NEEDED it has
> to be disabled - again: take some security education!
And, there we go.
Convince upstream to change their behavior (but, read their FAQ on
this exact question first, and t
--- Original message ---
From: Bruno Wolff III
You really can't do that the way things are now. That would block doing
updates to the current (in updates) kernel that are needed.
Good point. Didn't think of that, to be honest.
OK, never mind. Bad plan.
--
Bojan
--
devel mailing l
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 14:55:58 +1100,
Bojan Smojver wrote:
>
> I was thinking more along the lines of:
>
> - an official updates-testing build is more likely to reach more people
> (it is great that that Rawhide build works, but not many will try it
> like that)
You really can't do that the
On Mon, 2012-01-09 at 08:57 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Would it be possible to get a 3.2 build for F-16, so that we can start
> testing?
I'm going to reply to my own message here, to keep the thread, but it is
really in reply to the other two messages, which I don't have in my
mailbox right no
On Sun, Jan 8, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:57:26 +1100
> Bojan Smojver wrote:
>
>> Given this:
>>
>> https://plus.google.com/109995262342451767357/posts/FzpWWo4sRip
>>
>> Would it be possible to get a 3.2 build for F-16, so that we can start
>> testing?
>
> The ra
Am 09.01.2012 02:36, schrieb Nathanael Noblet:
> On 01/08/2012 04:24 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> and you think that some random examples prove anything?
>> some webserver logs are showing nothing about real exploits
>>
>> there was and there will be exploits you will never see
>> in your webserve
On 01/08/2012 04:24 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
and you think that some random examples prove anything?
some webserver logs are showing nothing about real exploits
there was and there will be exploits you will never see
in your webserver-log because if they worked CODE was
executed in the context o
Am 08.01.2012 23:16, schrieb Nathanael Noblet:
> So from my logs. Not a probe first, just plain trying to get data using a
> hopeful exploit. They don't care what
> version of anything I'm running.
>
> I realize it looks like they got the files they wanted, but in reality it
> ignored the requ
Hi,
I was trying to build mame (an rpmfusion package) with gcc-4.7. I have
managed to get it to build, but it fails at the linking stage:
obj/sdl/libocore.a(sdlsocket.o): In function `operator new(unsigned long)':
/builddir/build/BUILD/mame-0.144u5/src/emu/emualloc.h:114: undefined
reference to `
On 01/08/2012 01:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 08.01.2012 21:06, schrieb Ian Pilcher:
On 01/06/2012 11:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
yes, i know it is security by obscurity
but does it hurt?
Yes, it hurts.
It hurts every time we make life a little more difficult to satisfy
someone's misguid
On Mon, 09 Jan 2012 08:57:26 +1100
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Given this:
>
> https://plus.google.com/109995262342451767357/posts/FzpWWo4sRip
>
> Would it be possible to get a 3.2 build for F-16, so that we can start
> testing?
The rawhide/F17 build works fine on f16 (at least as far as I can see)
Given this:
https://plus.google.com/109995262342451767357/posts/FzpWWo4sRip
Would it be possible to get a 3.2 build for F-16, so that we can start
testing?
--
Bojan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445757
will we ever get rid of this dmesg-spam?
the initial bugreport is more than 3 years old :-(
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listin
Am 08.01.2012 21:06, schrieb Ian Pilcher:
> On 01/06/2012 11:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> yes, i know it is security by obscurity
>> but does it hurt?
>
> Yes, it hurts.
>
> It hurts every time we make life a little more difficult to satisfy
> someone's misguided idea of "securitee". I refer
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 18:00UTC (1:00pm EST) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
= Followups =
#topic #720 kay - provenpackager for /usr move
.
On 01/06/2012 11:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> yes, i know it is security by obscurity
> but does it hurt?
Yes, it hurts.
It hurts every time we make life a little more difficult to satisfy
someone's misguided idea of "securitee". I refer you to the
Transportation Security Administration if you
I've been doing some rebuilds of my packages for the gcc 4.7 mass
rebuild and when comparing the F16 and newly-rebuilt packages, I seem
to be losing a lot of the perl dependencies.
For instance, with smbldap-tools, rpmdiff says (amongst other things):
removed REQUIRES perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14
19 matches
Mail list logo
