On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 06:57:26PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 4/13/12 5:52 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > e2fsprogs 1.42 is in RC4.1 but 1.42.2 is upstream current. Chances of
> > rolling this in before final?
> >
> > http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/
> >
>
> 1.42.2 is in rawhide...
>
> I'm
Sorry folks -- thanks for untagging. I'll ping the list again after May 9, as
was suggested earlier in this thread.
AG
- Original Message -
From: "Kevin Fenzi"
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, "Anthony Green"
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 8:05:33 PM
I'm thinking that a
Subject: Re:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:03:36 GMT, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I think it should be possible to make repos that are always
> self-consistent even when mirrors only partially mirror or delay
> content. I have in mind a great proof of this, but thi
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:34:55 -0500
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Anthony Green wrote:
> > I recently release libffi 3.0.11, and ABI changes are mandating
> > a .so number change. Despite the ABI change, I suspect that simple
> > rebuilds are all that will be required for dependent packages.
>
On Apr 13, 2012, at 5:57 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 4/13/12 5:52 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> e2fsprogs 1.42 is in RC4.1 but 1.42.2 is upstream current. Chances of
>> rolling this in before final?
>>
>> http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/
>>
>
> 1.42.2 is in rawhide...
>
> I'm a little leery o
On 4/13/12 5:52 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> e2fsprogs 1.42 is in RC4.1 but 1.42.2 is upstream current. Chances of rolling
> this in before final?
>
> http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/
>
1.42.2 is in rawhide...
I'm a little leery of pushing it in at the last minute, since various bits like
the i
e2fsprogs 1.42 is in RC4.1 but 1.42.2 is upstream current. Chances of rolling
this in before final?
http://e2fsprogs.sourceforge.net/
Chris Murphy--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 02:40:11PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On 4/13/12 2:37 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >
> >>[...]
> >>If your package meets the following criteria you MUST enable the PIE
> >>compiler
> >>flags:
> >>[...]
> >> * Your package runs as root.
> >>[...]
> >
> >If this is meant
Anthony Green wrote:
> I recently release libffi 3.0.11, and ABI changes are mandating a .so
> number change. Despite the ABI change, I suspect that simple rebuilds
> are all that will be required for dependent packages.
Can you untag your build for a few weeks? It is too disruptive at the
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 04:36:07PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On 4/13/12 3:19 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:47:00AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >>Although (since I know Rich works on OCaml stuff) since OCaml is compiled to
> >>C before being compiled to object co
On 4/13/12 3:19 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:47:00AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Although (since I know Rich works on OCaml stuff) since OCaml is compiled to
C before being compiled to object code, this section might still apply.
OCaml isn't compiled to C, it's co
Once upon a time, Horst H. von Brand said:
> Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Adam Jackson said:
> > > On 4/13/12 2:37 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>[...]
> > > >>If your package meets the following criteria you MUST enable the PIE
> > > >>compiler
> > > >>flags:
> > > >>[
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
> ajax wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>> If this is meant to cover administrative binaries that have no
>>> privilege escalation pieces of their own, merely run by root, then
>>> what makes them different from any other /bin/* program that a root
>>>
Sorry I need to include a patch I sent recently to the list. Those
errors are bogus, btrfsck just needs to be taught about our special
space cache inodes. I'll pull that into fedora. You are right, you
don't need to run btrfsck on boot, just if you run into issues.
Thanks,
Josef
On Thu, Apr 12
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:47:00AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Although (since I know Rich works on OCaml stuff) since OCaml is compiled to
> C before being compiled to object code, this section might still apply.
OCaml isn't compiled to C, it's compiled direct to machine code.
The OCaml nati
ajax wrote:
> [...]
>> If this is meant to cover administrative binaries that have no
>> privilege escalation pieces of their own, merely run by root, then
>> what makes them different from any other /bin/* program that a root
>> process might invoke?
>
> It's not meant to cover that. That phras
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Adam Jackson said:
> > On 4/13/12 2:37 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > >
> > >>[...]
> > >>If your package meets the following criteria you MUST enable the PIE
> > >>compiler
> > >>flags:
> > >>[...]
> > >> * Your package runs as root.
> > >>[...]
> > >
>
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 06:39:14PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:36:36PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > > >
> > > > - Is the above an 'AND' or an 'OR' set of requirements?
> > >
> > > OR.
> >
> > Thanks. That wasn't clear to me at all --
Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Richard W.M. Jones
> wrote:
[...]
> > - What happens if the program isn't written in C?
> If it's not C, C++, etc, it's not applicable. I don't believe it
> applies to other compiled languages.
Why not? I can't think of a SUID binary wr
Once upon a time, Adam Jackson said:
> On 4/13/12 2:37 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >
> >>[...]
> >>If your package meets the following criteria you MUST enable the PIE
> >>compiler
> >>flags:
> >>[...]
> >> * Your package runs as root.
> >>[...]
> >
> >If this is meant to cover administrative
On 4/13/12 2:37 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
[...]
If your package meets the following criteria you MUST enable the PIE compiler
flags:
[...]
* Your package runs as root.
[...]
If this is meant to cover administrative binaries that have no
privilege escalation pieces of their own, merely ru
> [...]
> If your package meets the following criteria you MUST enable the PIE compiler
> flags:
> [...]
> * Your package runs as root.
> [...]
If this is meant to cover administrative binaries that have no
privilege escalation pieces of their own, merely run by root, then
what makes them diffe
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 06:39:14PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:36:36PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > >
> > > - Is the above an 'AND' or an 'OR' set of requirements?
> >
> > OR.
>
> Thanks. That wasn't clear to me at all -- when I first read it, I
> assumed it mus
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:36:36PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Richard W.M. Jones
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 05:37:12PM +0200, Mattia Verga wrote:
> >> Greetings,
> >> I saw the changes in packaging guidelines related to PIE:
> >>
> >> /If your package m
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:36:36PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Richard W.M. Jones
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 05:37:12PM +0200, Mattia Verga wrote:
> >> Greetings,
> >> I saw the changes in packaging guidelines related to PIE:
> >>
> >> /If your package m
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 05:37:12PM +0200, Mattia Verga wrote:
>> Greetings,
>> I saw the changes in packaging guidelines related to PIE:
>>
>> /If your package meets the following criteria you *MUST* enable the
>> PIE compiler flags: /
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 05:37:12PM +0200, Mattia Verga wrote:
> Greetings,
> I saw the changes in packaging guidelines related to PIE:
>
> /If your package meets the following criteria you *MUST* enable the
> PIE compiler flags: /
>
> * /Your package is long running. This means it's likely to be
On Mar 26, 2012, at 4:21 AM, Thomas Woerner wrote:
>>
> firewalld-config is not finished, yet. I am working on it.
This is still not in F17 beta RC4 which means it's not going to be in the beta
at all. I'm a little mystified why firewalld would ship as the default firewall
without the *primar
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Mattia Verga wrote:
> Greetings,
> I saw the changes in packaging guidelines related to PIE:
>
> If your package meets the following criteria you MUST enable the PIE
> compiler flags:
>
> Your package is long running. This means it's likely to be started and keep
Greetings,
I saw the changes in packaging guidelines related to PIE:
/If your package meets the following criteria you *MUST* enable the PIE
compiler flags: /
* /Your package is long running. This means it's likely to be started
and keep running until the machine is rebooted, not start on
Compose started at Fri Apr 13 08:15:05 UTC 2012
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[aeolus-conductor]
aeolus-conductor-0.4.0-2.fc17.noarch requires ruby(abi) = 0:1.8
[aeolus-configserver]
aeolus-configserver-0.4.5-1.fc17.noarch require
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
> You have to temper guidelines with some thought. How recently
> have these symbols been introduced? Are you aware of anything that
> actually calls them? If nothing does, have you considered simply
> removing them? Or, have you co
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=812304
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-13
10:29:59 EDT ---
perl-Net-GitHub-0.44-1.fc16 has been submitted as an updat
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=812304
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-13
10:30:40 EDT ---
perl-Net-GitHub-0.44-1.fc15 has been submitted as an updat
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=812304
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System 2012-04-13
10:28:49 EDT ---
perl-Net-GitHub-0.44-1.fc17 has been submitted as an updat
On 04/13/2012 03:55 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:01:58PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
>> On 04/12/2012 02:39 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 09:38:40AM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
(Think about it a moment. gdb -p is the same as firefox trying to
On 04/13/2012 03:59 AM, Anthony Green wrote:
> I recently release libffi 3.0.11, and ABI changes are mandating a .so
> number change. Despite the ABI change, I suspect that simple rebuilds
> are all that will be required for dependent packages.
This affects a number of GNOME packages (~ one
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 20:59 -0400, Anthony Green wrote:
> 2. A new function has been introduced to support
>variadic functions (ffi_prep_cif_var).
>
> Libtool's guidelines for .so versioning mandate that I move from
> libffi.so.5.0.11 to libffi.so.6.0.0 (because functions have been
> re
On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 01:59 AM, Anthony Green wrote:
>>
>> I recently release libffi 3.0.11, and ABI changes are mandating a .so
>> number change. Despite the ABI change, I suspect that simple rebuilds
>> are all that will be required for depen
commit b0fa2145a47488d5a693182fe5e0899d50ea2024
Author: Petr Šabata
Date: Fri Apr 13 14:51:09 2012 +0200
0.44 bump, default to APIv3
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Net-GitHub.spec |9 +++--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
d
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Net-GitHub:
565f6fafec146981bed23dda27635d89 Net-GitHub-0.44.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman
On 04/13/2012 01:59 AM, Anthony Green wrote:
>
> I recently release libffi 3.0.11, and ABI changes are mandating a .so
> number change. Despite the ABI change, I suspect that simple rebuilds
> are all that will be required for dependent packages.
>
> The ABI changes are simply:
>
> 1.
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:01:58PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> On 04/12/2012 02:39 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 09:38:40AM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> >> (Think about it a moment. gdb -p is the same as firefox trying to ptrace
> >> gnome-keyring)
> >
> > I thought a bit
43 matches
Mail list logo
