Heading into the last week of F19 Test Days, tomorrow is NetworkManager
Test Day! The page for the event is:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2013-06-04_Network_Manager
There will be QA folks and NM devs on hand in #fedora-test-day on
Freenode IRC, and there are full test instructions on t
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 06:07:59PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Whether this is a blocker or not comes down to a judgement call, because
> it hinges on whether this is a significant inconvenience for a large
> enough number of users. So we need to know from people who use Fedora in
> remote aut
Don't mess with teachers. They have tenure.
:-)
From: Adam Williamson
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 7:04 PM
Subject: Re: Call for Bikeshedding: remote auth at install time
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 19:02 -0700, Ada
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 19:02 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> But yes, in F19 Beta it was broken in g-i-s too, but soon it should not
> be. But we have a fully-supported paths...
excuse me just one second, I hear the doorbell...
...
oh, dear. It seems to be my high school English teacher, holding
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 21:53 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 18:07 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > As things stand, in Fedora 19, it's basically impossible to configure
> > remote authentication from the install/firstboot process. If you want to
> > use remote auth, you'd
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 18:07 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> As things stand, in Fedora 19, it's basically impossible to configure
> remote authentication from the install/firstboot process. If you want to
> use remote auth, you'd have to create a local user first and then do it
> using whatever to
We all know what devel@ does best, so let's fire up the power of the
bikeshedding machine :)
We had https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965883 on the list of
release blocker candidates that we evaluated at the blocker review
meeting this morning. Attendance at blocker reviews is pretty spo
Forwarding for the FreeIPA Team:
---
The FreeIPA team is happy to welcome you to a Fedora Test Day that is
being held on Thursday, June 6th.
We invite you to take part in testing of the new OTP authentication
feature that will become available in upcoming FreeI
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 11:13 -0700, Dan Mashal wrote:
> Does not seem to take spins in to account.
Well, there's always been a separate process for proposing, reviewing
and accepting spins; you could have a 'publicity feature' for 'there is
this new spin in FXX', but the actual work of reviewing a
>
> The latter :-)
Thanks Bill, Rahul. Sorry for this noise.
Note to self: *Read* the goddamn email completely (especially at 01:00 AM)
before hitting
the send!
--
/kashyap
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> A rule of thumb: If _only_ the owners of the change need to be involved or
> informed, it is "self-contained". (This can be either because the change is
> so small, e.g. update of a single package, or because the number owners is
> so
Hi
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
>
> Tom/Anyone:
>
> Is it purposeful to not have presenter's name next to each talk's Abstract
> ? Or is it a
> limitation of the talk proposal system ? Or am I just terribly blind ?
>
The latter :-)
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
dev
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Dan Mashal wrote:
> What is a system wide change vs a self contained change vs a new change?
>
There are two categories only: "self-contained" and "system-wide".
A rule of thumb: If _only_ the owners of the change need to be involved or
informed, it is "self-cont
Kashyap Chamarthy (kcham...@redhat.com) said:
> Tom/Anyone:
>
> Is it purposeful to not have presenter's name next to each talk's Abstract ?
> Or is it a
> limitation of the talk proposal system ? Or am I just terribly blind ?
From the message you quoted:
...
These submissions are mostly
anon
On 06/03/2013 10:06 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> Thanks to the Fedora Community for submitting 125 awesome talks,
> hackfests, sprints and workshops for Flock, our new contributor conference!
>
> We've taken those submissions and put them in the Fedora Elections web
> application, and now, it is time
On 06/03/2013 12:52 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> - gitlab has(had?) no such concept of public repositories so the idea
> of someone forking and contributing a patch was not even in the system
Just a quick note on that. In v5.2 (released this month) there was
introduced a new feature wherelogged-in use
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Hi!
> Fedora 19 is close (let's hope it's alive) to the release and it's
> again the time to start planning for the upcoming version.
>
> For Fedora 20, in coordination with FESCo [1], the new Planning process
> was developed to replace the
Hello guys!
My name is Axilleas Pipinellis, an undergraduate from Athens Greece, and
I will be joining the packagers team:)
My primary goal is to package some (many :p ) Ruby gems and ultimately
GitLab [0], as this is a project that got accepted in this year's Google
Summer of Code.
You can find
Hi!
Fedora 19 is close (let's hope it's alive) to the release and it's
again the time to start planning for the upcoming version.
For Fedora 20, in coordination with FESCo [1], the new Planning process
was developed to replace the old, not satisfactory Feature process.
In reality, it's pretty si
Thanks to the Fedora Community for submitting 125 awesome talks,
hackfests, sprints and workshops for Flock, our new contributor conference!
We've taken those submissions and put them in the Fedora Elections web
application, and now, it is time for you to give us your feedback. These
proposals hav
Hi, folks. Just wanted to throw out a random note on something that
often irks me.
Next time you're thinking about cloning a bug: think twice. I've found
that it's rarely the case that cloning a bug is really the right thing
to do.
When you clone a bug:
* The new bug gets the exact same summary
On 6/3/13 11:06 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi, folks. Just wanted to throw out a random note on something that
> often irks me.
>
> Next time you're thinking about cloning a bug: think twice. I've found
> that it's rarely the case that cloning a bug is really the right thing
> to do.
>
> When y
On Sun, 2 Jun 2013 18:21:28 -0400
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Personally, I value that advantage and have advocated for free
> infrastructure and emphasized that while setting up Ask Fedora etc
> but the question really is, is that enough of an advantage on its own
> to continue investing in maintai
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970092
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
Fixed In Version|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970092
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
Resolution|---
Ian just posted a comment on my package that he will review it in these days.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 16:45 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 31 May 2013 15:19, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> > few days ago I was explaining to someone*, what the Developer Assistant
> > [0] is.
> >
> > When I said something like: "...and you project is exported directly to
> > Git
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On Mon, Jun 03, 2013 at 08:07:41AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Does anyone know how to contact Ian Weller?
>
> He has not responded to his gmail account since I e-mailed him last
> week. His last fedora activity seems to be about 6 months ag
Compose started at Mon Jun 3 09:15:02 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[bochs]
bochs-2.6.1-1.fc19.x86_64 requires vgabios
[deltacloud-core]
deltacloud-core-rhevm-1.1.3-1.fc19.noarch requires rubygem(rbovirt) >=
0:0.0.18
[d
On 06/03/2013 02:33 PM, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Matej Cepl mailto:mc...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 2013-06-03, 12:19 GMT, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
> It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted
> with the latest version in u
Compose started at Mon Jun 3 08:15:03 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[collectd]
collectd-gmond-5.3.0-2.fc20.x86_64 requires
libganglia-3.5.0.so.0()(64bit)
[dragonegg]
dragonegg-3.1-19.fc19.x86_64 requires gcc = 0:4.7.2-9
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> On , Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted
>> with the latest version in upstream?
>>
>
> Officially, it is a SHOULD (as pointed out by Volker), practically it is
> p
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970100
Bug ID: 970100
Summary: perl-Pod-Usage-1.63 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Pod-Usage
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Severity: unspecified
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970099
Bug ID: 970099
Summary: perl-Pod-Parser-1.61 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Pod-Parser
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Severity: unspecified
Does anyone know how to contact Ian Weller?
He has not responded to his gmail account since I e-mailed him last
week. His last fedora activity seems to be about 6 months ago.
He is the owner of the mediawiki-ParserFunctions package, which has now
been merged with the upstream mediawiki package. I
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Volker Fröhlich wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 17:49 +0530, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted
> > with the latest version in upstream?
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Kalpa We
On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 2013-06-03, 12:19 GMT, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
> > It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted
> > with the latest version in upstream?
>
> Could you elaborate a bit on the particular situation? Why wouldn't you
> g
On , Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
Hi,
It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted
with the latest version in upstream?
Officially, it is a SHOULD (as pointed out by Volker), practically it is
pretty much consider as a MUST unless there is/are valid reason(s) not
to.
The
2013-06-03 13:48, Simone Caronni skrev:
> any provenpackager willing to push these 2 fixes? One is really trivial
> and the other one is simply a typo.
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883983
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948613
I have fixed the Brasero issue; the 2
On Mon, 2013-06-03 at 17:49 +0530, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted
> with the latest version in upstream?
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Kalpa Welivitigoda
> Junior Treasurer | Electrical Engineering Society
> Undergradu
On 2013-06-03, 12:19 GMT, Kalpa Welivitigoda wrote:
> It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted
> with the latest version in upstream?
Could you elaborate a bit on the particular situation? Why wouldn't you
go with the latest upstream?
Best,
Matěj
--
devel mailing
Hi,
It is compulsory that a package waiting to be reviewed, be submitted with
the latest version in upstream?
--
Best Regards,
Kalpa Welivitigoda
Junior Treasurer | Electrical Engineering Society
Undergraduate | Department of Electrical Engineering
University of Moratuwa
Sri Lanka
http://about.
Hello,
any provenpackager willing to push these 2 fixes? One is really trivial and
the other one is simply a typo.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883983
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=948613
Thanks & regards,
--Simone
--
You cannot discover new oceans unless you have
Hi, my name is Matt Rose and I'm looking for a sponsor for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860249
I've been using one or another version of redhat/fedora for well over 15 years
now, and I'm very comfortable packaging RPMs, having done it for personal and
professional reasons for a
Well, he just replied.
Nevermind.
On 3 June 2013 12:42, Simone Caronni wrote:
> Hello,
>
> following on the mail at:
>
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/179574
>
> I've filed the "unresponsive mantainer bug" for the bacula package:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show
Hello,
following on the mail at:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/179574
I've filed the "unresponsive mantainer bug" for the bacula package:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970016
No package updates were committed, no commits in the git repositories; no
bug
Hello,
I'm following the unresponsive mantainer policy [1] for the package dkms;
I'm at the second week trying to get a response (point 4 of the process).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965712
Does anyone know any other mail address to contact the mantainer?
In the bug comments I'v
- Original Message -
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> > Actually I was going to ask the opposite question: Do we still need
> > FedoraHosted?
>
> I have found it a valuable service to provide an upstream home for fedora-
> specific projects.
Sure, it's a great home for fedora-specific u
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 05:52:07PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> I think freedom of the service does matter. The debacles with google
> reader and google talk recently should be pointing that up to all of
> us.
Don't forget Google Code removing downloads :-(
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization
On Sun, Jun 02, 2013 at 02:43:15PM +0200, enclair wrote:
> I'd like a tool similar to portaudit in FreeBSD or debscan in Debian. This
> tool should list all packages which have a security issue. Currently there
> is yum-security-plugin but it lists packages only if an update is
> available. The new
Hi folks,
can anybody make the review request of vim-javabrowser package?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961384
Thank you in advance
--
Best regards / S pozdravem
Petr Hracek
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 06/02/2013 02:43 PM, enclair wrote:
I'd like a tool similar to portaudit in FreeBSD or debscan in Debian.
This tool should list all packages which have a security issue.
I don't know about portaudit, but debsecan works completely out of the
usual software management stack. Part of the reas
On 2. 6. 2013 at 14:43:15, enclair wrote:
> I'd like a tool similar to portaudit in FreeBSD or debscan in Debian. This
> tool should list all packages which have a security issue. Currently there
> is yum-security-plugin but it lists packages only if an update is
> available. The new tool would lis
53 matches
Mail list logo
