On 06/03/2012 07:05 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
> But don't you think that if they are determined enough to go to bugzilla
> and make an entry they
> are smart enough to turn off secure boot? I guess my feeling is that
> people that have the where
> withall to attempt to load another OS on their Window
On 06/03/2012 12:12 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> At the same time I don't want to be obliged to support something I
> don't want to. There are many more important things to deal with in
> the distribution than a stupid secure boot feature.
Let's narrow it down. Can you give a clear and specific ex
On 06/02/2012 11:32 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> You are responsible as a package maintainer for bugs against
>> the package. If you don't want to deal with it, give up the package or
>> find a co-maintainer who will deal with such issues. Wh
On 6/2/2012 7:03 PM, Adrian Alves wrote:
am not following what u mean?
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Michael Schwendt mailto:mschwe...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:00:29 -0300, Adrian Alves wrote:
done I built it, check this out:
Spec URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/supe
am not following what u mean?
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:30 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 23:00:29 -0300, Adrian Alves wrote:
>
> > done I built it, check this out:
> >
> > Spec URL: http://alvesadrian.fedorapeople.org/supercat.spec
>
> Check this out:
> https://fedoraproject.org
On 06/02/2012 08:56 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 08:43:41PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
On 06/02/2012 08:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:51:52PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
Who are these potential users? How many people running windows have you
conv
Michael Scherer wrote:
> And I think no one would be happy if someone start to use some stuff
> like Bluepill ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Pill_%28software%29 )
> to root them.
You can be blue-pilled purely from userspace, which "Secure" Boot does not
protect at all. Ever heard of software
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 08:43:41PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 06/02/2012 08:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:51:52PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> >
> >>Who are these potential users? How many people running windows have you
> >>convinced to also
> >>load Linux? I have
On 06/02/2012 08:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:51:52PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
Who are these potential users? How many people running windows have you
convinced to also
load Linux? I have been using Linux since 0.99 and have not been able to
convince any to use Li
On 06/02/2012 07:55 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Steve Clark said:
Who are these users? I have been using Linux since 0.99 while working with
many users of Windows,none of them
expressed an interest in trying linux.
Well, we obviously have different friends. I've got lots of t
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 07:51:52PM -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> Who are these potential users? How many people running windows have you
> convinced to also
> load Linux? I have been using Linux since 0.99 and have not been able to
> convince any to use Linux.
It's possible that this says more ab
Once upon a time, Steve Clark said:
> Who are these users? I have been using Linux since 0.99 while working with
> many users of Windows,none of them
> expressed an interest in trying linux.
Well, we obviously have different friends. I've got lots of technical
friends (and my father) that d
On 06/02/2012 05:26 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I think regressing to the installs
being somewhat easier than ten yearsish ago is still a better place to
be than the cryptographic lockdown.
I disagree and once again it is not a lockdown as peop
On 06/02/2012 11:27 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
And I don't think having to disable "Secure" Boot in the firmware is a
hurdle which will make our users "simply walk away". I didn't "simply walk
away" either back in the day where RHL wouldn't boot without disablin
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:32 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> [No disrespect intended, but I'm not point by pointing the rest
> because I think the educated reader could easily enough anticipate my
> responses from the past thread, we're becoming circular again]
Yeah that's fine we both have differen
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:23 PM, drago01 wrote:
> It can be argued both ways. Modifying software requires more "skills"
> and knowlegde anyway so it is more acceptable to accept that group of
> people to fiddle with the firmware then everyone including people that
> don't even know what a firmware
On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 12:09 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> You're fine with one level of injustice. I'm fine with another level of
>> injustice. Both compromise the freedoms that Fedora currently gives you.
>
> I'm not fine with it. It's an
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM, drago01 wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>>> I think regressing to the installs
>>> being somewhat easier than ten yearsish ago is still a better place to
>>> be than the cr
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 6:09 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> You're fine with one level of injustice. I'm fine with another level of
>> injustice. Both compromise the freedoms that Fedora currently gives you.
>
> I'm not fine with it. It's an
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 06:09:15PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I'm not fine with it. It's an unfortunate situation too. But producing
> a single special case trivial display program for users who couldn't
> run anything which was truly free at all is hardly comparable to
> cryptographically lo
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:57 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> You're fine with one level of injustice. I'm fine with another level of
> injustice. Both compromise the freedoms that Fedora currently gives you.
I'm not fine with it. It's an unfortunate situation too. But producing
a single special case
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 05:14:12PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> When it comes down to it, your "drawing the line" argument just
> doesn't make sense. There is always injustice in the world. If you
> want to be pedantic, anyone who ever seeks a more lawful or more
> ethical path is simply "dra
Le samedi 02 juin 2012 à 09:46 +0100, phantomjinx a écrit :
> Michael scherer wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 02:10:38AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > > Documenting the procedure may be viable after all. Kevin, could
> you start
> > > wri
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:26 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> I think regressing to the installs
>> being somewhat easier than ten yearsish ago is still a better place to
>> be than the cryptographic lockdown.
>
> I disagree and once again it is not a
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I think regressing to the installs
> being somewhat easier than ten yearsish ago is still a better place to
> be than the cryptographic lockdown.
I disagree and once again it is not a lockdown as people who care
enough can disable it, whi
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:21 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> That's fine as long as you speak English.
Come on now, you're building a strawman argument. I never said that it
had to be in a single language—notice messages I _normally_ write get
put into many languages.
I don't see why the text of the
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:08:45PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > But you're happy to sacrifice the freedom for people to modify the error
> > text that's provided? What's your threshold?
>
> I'm not quite sure where my threshold is, I'd
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 03:28:03PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> This should meet the signing requirements and it removes the opacity
>> without locking down any of Fedora. Such a bootloader should meet
>> whatever requirements to get
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 03:28:03PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> This should meet the signing requirements and it removes the opacity
> without locking down any of Fedora. Such a bootloader should meet
> whatever requirements to get signed, since if secureboot is turned on
> it wont boot anythi
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 15:28:03 -0400
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> If the issue were just the opaque and unpredictable behavior on
> failure this could be addressed without signing any of the
> distribution proper.
>
> Create a pre-bootloder. If secureboot is enabled only permitting this
> boot beca
Hi.
On Tue, 29 May 2012 16:42:30 -0400, Neal Becker wrote
> 1) Could I have actually recovered from this mess without a complete
> re-install?
There is a way to recover from (almost) all upgrade messes, although
it has several preconditions.
The first precondition is having a root file system o
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Per spec the machine simply falls back to attempting to execute the next
> entry in the boot list. An implementation may provide some feedback that
> that's the case, but there's no requirement for it to do so, so it's
> perfectly valid for
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 01:05:53PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
>
> > On 06/01/2012 01:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >> Is UEFI Secure Boot really the only way to prevent the problem it attempts
> >> to
> >> solve, and if so, what about the pletho
On Jun 1, 2012, at 12:50 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 01:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Is UEFI Secure Boot really the only way to prevent the problem it attempts to
>> solve, and if so, what about the plethora of BIOS hardware in the world
>> today, still even shipping as new systems? T
On Jun 2, 2012, at 5:56 AM, Pedro Lamarão wrote:
>
> Who exactly is this We person who cannot accomplish the goal of
> dealing with multiple vendors shipping multiple interfaces on
> different machines?
>
> The Free Software Movement certainly can.
This is very naive, IMO. Where is the influenc
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 14:26 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> That is not the answer to my question (hint: read the question).
>
> Indeed, it is not, but do you really want to put in the CLA the
> responsibilities of every role past present a
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 14:26 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> That is not the answer to my question (hint: read the question).
Indeed, it is not, but do you really want to put in the CLA the
responsibilities of every role past present and future available in the
project ?
Meaning that every time one i
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:26 PM, drago01 wrote:
> Simply refusing to run because secureboot is enabled (unless there are
> technical reasons) is simply "limiting the users freedom in the name
> of freedom" which is unacceptable.
>
I am making a clear distinction between "simply refusing to run" an
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> inode0 wrote:
>>> Doing this in my mind should not be allowed as it discriminates
>>> against a subset of users. Whether this is legally allowed or not I
>>> hope no one would consider doi
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 14:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> > You are responsible as a package maintainer for bugs against
>> > the package. If you don't want to deal with it, give
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 10:42 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> Basically the same kind of failure as the last several times I did updates.
> This time f16->f17. Used preupgrade.
I'd like to share with you my experience about installing Fedora
17/x86_64. It is a real PITA. No doubts about it.
* 1st atte
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:38 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:32 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> Or you don't do the later and just disable secureboot. Your freedom is
>> in *no way* limited by having secureboot support.
>> Let me repeat it again supporting secureboot on x86 does *NOT*
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 14:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > You are responsible as a package maintainer for bugs against
> > the package. If you don't want to deal with it, give up the package or
> > find a co-maintainer who will deal with su
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> You are responsible as a package maintainer for bugs against
> the package. If you don't want to deal with it, give up the package or
> find a co-maintainer who will deal with such issues. When you work
> within a community, it is a project
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>> You can even download the kernel source, study and modify it compile
>> and resign it and use it just fine with secureboot.
>> Either by using your own key or by using one from a CA (in this case
>> MS) for 99$.
>
> The CA wil
On 06/02/2012 11:05 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>
> I am more concerned about the package maintenance level. At the
> package maintenance level, it does not make sense to patch against the
> upstream decision. On the other hand, a package maintainer should have
> the right to not support users filing
Am 02.06.2012 19:24, schrieb Gregory Maxwell:
> Tmpfs just has the advantage of minimizing the disk activity— both in
> cases where none is needed, and in cases where it is.
you refuse to understand if some app creates a 2 GB
file in /tmp and does not remove your only pressure
is to the page-cache
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> inode0 wrote:
>> Doing this in my mind should not be allowed as it discriminates
>> against a subset of users. Whether this is legally allowed or not I
>> hope no one would consider doing it.
>
> I agree. Either Fedora supports "Secure" Boot or
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> inode0 wrote:
> > Doing this in my mind should not be allowed as it discriminates
> > against a subset of users. Whether this is legally allowed or not I
> > hope no one would consider doing it.
>
> I agree. Either Fedora supports "Secure" Boot or it doesn't
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald said:
> Am 02.06.2012 04:08, schrieb Jesse Keating:
> > The useless 2G file will get swapped out, not important things that are
> > actively being used in ram
>
> it does not matter WHAT get swapped out
> from the moment on the system starts to swap performance su
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 10:28 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> it does not matter WHAT get swapped out
> from the moment on the system starts to swap performance sucks
This is what I meant about being dogmatic up thread. You're being a
anti-swap zealot here.
Yes, using swap is slow. It's slow because
On 02/06/12 14:40, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
Hi all,
is there an easy way to test packages except of using
$ yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update
Hopefully this may be a step in the right direction.
Have put in an rfe for Security as a yum config option.
https://bugzilla.redhat.c
On 06/02/2012 03:38 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Mathieu Bridon writes:
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 10:14 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
as it seems the koji sql files are not packaged you must get them from
the koji source package
Not packaged?
$ yum whatprovides \*koji\*sql
[... snip ...]
koji-1.6.0-3.fc17.noar
inode0 wrote:
> Doing this in my mind should not be allowed as it discriminates
> against a subset of users. Whether this is legally allowed or not I
> hope no one would consider doing it.
I agree. Either Fedora supports "Secure" Boot or it doesn't, doing this per
package is a very bad idea (unle
Am 02.06.2012 04:08, schrieb Jesse Keating:
> On 06/01/2012 09:04 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> no, you do NOT want swap-usage in most workloads at all
>
> The useless 2G file will get swapped out, not important things that are
> actively being used in ram
it does not matter WHAT get swapped out
On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 17:36:47 +0100
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 10:31:20AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > What happens if you try and boot an unsigned image? I assume the
> > error you get is up to the BIOS folks? So, it could be misleading,
> > confusing, depressing or all t
Something similar already was requested:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563285
Please look there also for some mentioned alternatives in comments.
02.06.2012 17:40, Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
Hi all,
is there an easy way to test packages except of using
$ yum --enablerep
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 18:53:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Unfortunately, this also only works once the package is actually pushed to
> updates-testing. That's of course because yum still pulls it from updates-
> testing (yum cannot pull directly from Koji as the required metadata is not
> there),
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> What happens if you try and boot an unsigned image? I assume the error
> you get is up to the BIOS folks? So, it could be misleading, confusing,
> depressing or all three. It may be that people will see just "Failed to
> secure boot" and think there's something wrong with Fedor
Debarshi Ray wrote:
> It is not clear to me what "base N" stands for.
As far as I can tell, it's baseball slang. Some people seem to think
everyone in the world knows how baseball is played.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.or
On 06/02/2012 09:24 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
(Users would have to disable
> yum's gpg checking in order to install your unsigned package, or they would
> have to install/your/ gpg key and trust it in order to install the package
> signed with your key).
I distribute modified copies of Fedo
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 11:40 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:18:17PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>
>> Hmm, will the package maintainers have the freedom to not support
>> users who have the secureboot enabled? How are we going to detect
>> this?
>
> Any piece of userspace c
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> However, I have one question left. Does the yum plugin download the
> package directly from koji or do I have to wait until the package is
> distributed to all mirrors (because the command still mentions the
> updates-testing repo)?
Unfortunately, this also onl
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:18:17PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>
>> Hmm, will the package maintainers have the freedom to not support
>> users who have the secureboot enabled? How are we going to detect
>> this?
>
> Any piece of userspace ca
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:18:17PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Hmm, will the package maintainers have the freedom to not support
> users who have the secureboot enabled? How are we going to detect
> this?
Any piece of userspace can read the SecureBoot and SetupMode variables
and check that the
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 10:31:20AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> What happens if you try and boot an unsigned image? I assume the error
> you get is up to the BIOS folks? So, it could be misleading, confusing,
> depressing or all three. It may be that people will see just "Failed to
> secure boot" a
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 12:24:51PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> I'd like to now summon the folks arguing for this who earlier insisted
> that Fedora was being upfront about the tradeoffs here to come argue
> with people that there isn't a material loss of freedom. Being
> upfront means not onl
On Sat, 02 Jun 2012 16:57:20 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
> > But I also think it's important for our distro to work out of the
> > box on new computers without having to do that. If we don't have
> > that, people will simply walk away.
>
> And I don't think having to disable "
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Gregory Maxwell said:
>> When I create a fork, respin, or remix of Fedora and distribute it to
>> people it will not run for them like Fedora does without a level of
>> fiddling which the people advocating this have made clea
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 04:57:20PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I didn't "simply walk away" either back in the day where RHL wouldn't
> boot without disabling the "Plug and Play operating system" option in
> the BIOS.
You're a pretty atypical case.
> I found it perfectly normal that the firmwa
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:05 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> The only Freedom you've lost is that now, in addition to the person-hours to
> do the work and monetary cost to host your bits or generate physical media,
> you have an additional cost if you wish to have your own cert that will be
> accepte
> My point was to be practical and attempt to get from base 1 to base 2 with
> the aim of getting to base 4 down the road...
>
> Is this not a sensible way forward?
It is not clear to me what "base N" stands for.
Happy hacking,
Debarshi
--
K&R is like the Bible. The fervent read it from end t
On 06/02/2012 08:38 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
When I create a fork, respin, or remix of Fedora and distribute it to
people it will not run for them like Fedora does without a level of
fiddling which the people advocating this have made clear is entirely
unacceptable. This is because Fedora will
Once upon a time, Gregory Maxwell said:
> When I create a fork, respin, or remix of Fedora and distribute it to
> people it will not run for them like Fedora does without a level of
> fiddling which the people advocating this have made clear is entirely
> unacceptable.
As I understand how this wo
> When I create a fork, respin, or remix of Fedora and distribute it to
> people it will not run for them like Fedora does without a level of
> fiddling which the people advocating this have made clear is entirely
> unacceptable. This is because Fedora will be cryptographically
> signing the distr
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 5:32 AM, drago01 wrote:
> Or you don't do the later and just disable secureboot. Your freedom is
> in *no way* limited by having secureboot support.
> Let me repeat it again supporting secureboot on x86 does *NOT* limit
> your freedom.
After all this discussion you'll still
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> And I don't think having to disable "Secure" Boot in the firmware is a
> hurdle which will make our users "simply walk away". I didn't "simply walk
> away" either back in the day where RHL wouldn't boot without disabling the
> "Plug and Play operating syst
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 10:21 -0400, Randall Berry wrote:
> Does anyone plan to package MATE 1.2[1] for Fedora? MATE is a promising
> A Gnome 2.3 fork. If so I would like to be a co-maintainer. Or if
> nobody is planning on it I'll gladly start the project with a little
> help from a co-maintainer.
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 17:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> > is there an easy way to test packages except of using
> >
> > $ yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update
>
> yum install yum-security
> yum --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2012- upda
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus wrote:
> is there an easy way to test packages except of using
>
> $ yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update
yum install yum-security
yum --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2012- update
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapr
Peter Jones wrote:
> But I also think it's important for our distro to work out of the box on
> new computers without having to do that. If we don't have that, people
> will simply walk away.
And I don't think having to disable "Secure" Boot in the firmware is a
hurdle which will make our users "
Mathieu Bridon writes:
> On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 10:14 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
>> as it seems the koji sql files are not packaged you must get them from
>> the koji source package
> Not packaged?
> $ yum whatprovides \*koji\*sql
> [... snip ...]
> koji-1.6.0-3.fc17.noarch : Build system tools
> R
Hi,
Does anyone plan to package MATE 1.2[1] for Fedora? MATE is a promising
A Gnome 2.3 fork. If so I would like to be a co-maintainer. Or if
nobody is planning on it I'll gladly start the project with a little
help from a co-maintainer.
1) http://mate-desktop.org
Any interest please reply
On 06/01/2012 07:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
We don't know what all firmwares' UI's will look like, and it's possible -
even somewhat reasonable - that instead of "enable secure boot [X]" some
vendors would implement it, for example, as "[remove trusted key]" or
possibly a comb
On 06/02/2012 05:32 AM, drago01 wrote:
Either by using your own key or by using one from a CA (in this case
MS) for 99$.
This is incorrect, btw. The $99 goes to verisign/Symantec. Microsoft is
subsidizing it considerably to get it down to that price, and they'd doing
much of the work on the
Hi all,
is there an easy way to test packages except of using
$ yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update
For example, on May 30 a message reached the devel list that Pidgin
needs an update because of a security flaw. A new package was created
and needed karma in order to get pushed to stable qui
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Personal computing has existed for years without "Secure" Boot and the
> purported "security problem" has never been a practical issue.
You must not have customers running Windows; today's malware is very
good at hiding. Secure Boot is something large IT d
Debarshi Ray wrote:
> Based on the comments of this thread can a working group or sig be set up
> to build on MG and Co's work to find the most workable solution that
> preserves the reputation of the project.
If you had read the thread carefully, then people (Matthew, Peter, Tom) have
made it a
> Based on the comments of this thread can a working group or sig be set up
> to build on MG and Co's work to find the most workable solution that
> preserves the reputation of the project.
If you had read the thread carefully, then people (Matthew, Peter, Tom) have
made it abundantly clear that i
Chris Murphy wrote:
> Your renaming of the feature is quaint, but belies acceptance of the
> problem the feature attempts to solve. You have an uphill road to
> demonstrate the problem is inconsequential, or that there are better
> alternatives.
Personal computing has existed for years without "Se
drago01 wrote:
> You can even download the kernel source, study and modify it compile
> and resign it and use it just fine with secureboot.
> Either by using your own key or by using one from a CA (in this case
> MS) for 99$.
The CA will only sign kernels meeting its arbitrary security requirement
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 12:48:55PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote:
> We are all, Microsoft included, headed for signature-HELL.
>
> This is going to gum up the entire x86 hardware ecosystem to such a
> point and Microsoft will rue the day they ever dreamt up this
> nonsense.
This.
Microsoft also forgets
Michael scherer wrote:
> I would place less hope in interfaces designed by low level coders whose
> main priority is to ship ASAP to take over the market by speed.
>
> Neither would I think that fiddling with hardware settings with a
> graphical interface would be much safer than with text interfa
On 06/01/2012, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 12:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > We just need to provide a step-by-step guide for fixing your firmware
> > settings.
>
> Apparently I get to explain this until I'm blue in the face: we don't
> really believe that's a goal we can accomplish. Every v
Mathieu Bridon píše v So 02. 06. 2012 v 19:34 +0800:
> On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 10:14 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> > john maclean píše v So 02. 06. 2012 v 06:07 +0100:
> > > Setting up a private koji server. The keys and certs have been set up.
> > > Stuck at psql stage. This command always bombs.
> >
On Sat, 2012-06-02 at 10:14 +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
> john maclean píše v So 02. 06. 2012 v 06:07 +0100:
> > Setting up a private koji server. The keys and certs have been set up.
> > Stuck at psql stage. This command always bombs.
> >
> >
> > command
> > psql koji koji< /usr/share/doc/koji*/d
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 2:18 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>> Because it is *easier* for ordinary users to try and test fedora with
>> it (on new hardware).
>> i.e it increases the reach of free software instead of limiting it
>> (what you and others propose in the name of freedom).
>
>
Il 01/06/2012 18:42, Adam Williamson ha scritto:
> On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 10:37 +0200, Caterpillar wrote:
>> 2012/5/31 Adam Williamson
>> > Third bug: after preupgrade finished to download fc17
>> packages, I
>> > rebooted, but grub did not have a “upgrade system” entry. So
Michael scherer wrote:
On Sat, Jun 02, 2012 at 02:10:38AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > Documenting the procedure may be viable after all. Kevin, could you start
> > writing such guides on Fedora wiki?
>
> I cannot start documenting this before the first "Secure"-Boot-enabl
On 06/02/2012 09:14 AM, Dan Horák wrote:
john maclean píše v So 02. 06. 2012 v 06:07 +0100:
Setting up a private koji server. The keys and certs have been set up. Stuck at
psql stage. This command always bombs.
command
psql koji koji< /usr/share/doc/koji*/docs/schema.sql
first this file i
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
