Re: Let's close the remaining merge reviews

On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: >> >> An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component >> in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like. >> >> Thoughts? >> > Alternative i

Re: Request for comments regarding default configuration of pam_abl module

Is there a policy that for different Fedora.next products, we can apply different rules? Or just add comments in the conf? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 17:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Saying that "nobody" wants this, it's "madness", "totally wacky", > "almost all users are NOT going to put up with this" is going rather > too > far. I think it's entirely worth the Desktop product making this > possible and I suspect quit

Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 19:07 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 13:38 -0700, Dan Mashal wrote: > > You always make sense. But nobody listens. > > > > Who the hell wants to install Gnome to install MATE or KDE or XFCE? > > Nobody, it's madness. I think this is rather overstati

Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 13:38 -0700, Dan Mashal wrote: > You always make sense. But nobody listens. > > Who the hell wants to install Gnome to install MATE or KDE or XFCE? Nobody, it's madness. I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that spins are here to stay. Are spins the best solution to this problem

Re: Let's close the remaining merge reviews

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote: > > An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component > in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like. > > Thoughts? > Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not ciritcal and ha

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On 03/24/2014 10:23 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: That doesn't work. On the contrary if it did not the business module Red Hat is build upon would not exist since Red Hat is making money out of stability promises to it's customers which upstream is not providing right. Unfortunately a common

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

2014-03-24 22:53 GMT+01:00 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" : > systemd is now, or soon will be, a core component of pretty much all >> major and minor distributions out there and it's no longer just about >> you Lennart and your thoughts of whether it's "Yuck!" or not, you are >> now similar to the kernel

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

Am 24.03.2014 22:53, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > By the way the kernel does not have a proper deprecation process which is > accurately reflected in all the code that > is bit-rotting there so it's not the holy grail of code maintenance as you > let it out to be the kernel at least has th

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On 03/24/2014 09:22 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: I wonder whether it wouldn't be time to say goodbye to tcpwrappers in Fedora. There has been a request in systemd upstream to disable support for it by default, but I am not sure I want to do that unless we can maybe say goodbye to it for the big pic

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 21:22 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> I wonder whether it wouldn't be time to say goodbye to tcpwrappers in > >> Fedora. There has been a request in systemd upstream to disable support > >> for it by default, but I am not sure I want to do that unless we can > >> maybe say g

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On Mon, 24.03.14 21:22, Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) wrote: > Interesting! You sent the email starting this thread a mere 4 days > ago, two of those a weekend. You've not given it a chance to even go > to FESCo meeting for discussion. Did you send it in the same way to > the rest of the d

Re: PEP453 // ensurepip // pip

On Mar 24, 2014, at 5:38 AM, Robert Kuska wrote: > Hi Donald, > > welcome to our mailing list. > > - Original Message - >> From: "Donald Stufft" >> To: python-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Sent: Friday, March 21, 2014 11:19:49 PM >> Subject: PEP453 // ensurepip // pip >> >> Hey th

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

Am 24.03.2014 22:22, schrieb Peter Robinson: > Interesting! You sent the email starting this thread a mere 4 days > ago, two of those a weekend. You've not given it a chance to even go > to FESCo meeting for discussion. Did you send it in the same way to > the rest of the distros that depend, or

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

>> I wonder whether it wouldn't be time to say goodbye to tcpwrappers in >> Fedora. There has been a request in systemd upstream to disable support >> for it by default, but I am not sure I want to do that unless we can >> maybe say goodbye to it for the big picture too. > > I have decided now to d

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

Am 24.03.2014 21:51, schrieb Lennart Poettering: > On Mon, 24.03.14 21:45, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote: > >> and that is the problem with you attitude > > Okeydokey, as you wish, you are now in my killfile so what - why should i case about beeing in the killfile of people whic

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On Mon, 24.03.14 21:45, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote: > and that is the problem with you attitude Okeydokey, as you wish, you are now in my killfile. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mail

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said: > this through... I'd be happy though if somebody else would pick this > up. Looking at the current FESCO members I am not entirely sure though > whether a proposal to disable libwrap would have a chance in the current > cycle though. (also, M. Mille

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

Am 24.03.2014 21:32, schrieb Lennart Poettering: > On Mon, 24.03.14 20:59, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote: > >> Am 24.03.2014 20:27, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: >>> But certain people seem to rather want to drown Fedora in bureaucracy and >>> vague future proposals >>> and wor

Let's close the remaining merge reviews

Hi all, In case readers don't know, this page describes what a merge review is: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews In short: when fedora core and extras merged, a Package Review was opened for every package in core. The idea was that every core package would be reviewed to ensure it me

Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 7:29 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Yeah, this idea of having to install GNOME first to be able to install the > desktop you actually want is totally wacky, and if that is really what we > recommend to our users, they will run to other distributions (that actually > support the

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On Mon, 24.03.14 20:59, Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) wrote: > Am 24.03.2014 20:27, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > > But certain people seem to rather want to drown Fedora in bureaucracy and > > vague future proposals > > and working groups instead of doing what needs to be done. > >

Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:55 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > Any other DE that wants to meet the requirements for Workstation is similarly > welcome. So if we meet the "requirements" exactly what happens? As far as I understand, all MATE would have to do is use gdm as the display manager. Is that correc

Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-03-25)

WG meeting will be at 16:00 UTC, 17:00 Central Europe, 12:00 (noon) Boston, 9:00 San Francisco, 1:00 Tokyo in #fedora-meeting on Freenode. == Topic == * chair(wo)man - I'm on different meeting, could someone handle it? * work more on Open Questions: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Env_and_Stacks/

Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

2014-03-23 3:48 GMT+01:00 Kevin Kofler : > Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > When we say that there should be "high bar" for becoming a Fedora > Product, > > that means that there should be few of them, > > I see this repeated over and over by several people. This strikes me as > quite the opposite of bei

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

Am 24.03.2014 20:30, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: >> Being at the bleeding edge of things also means deciding that >> some things really should go, from time to time... Besides deprecating >> old cruft like libwrap, this would also mean removing all the old crap >> from comps "standard" that we

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

Am 24.03.2014 20:27, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > But certain people seem to rather want to drown Fedora in bureaucracy and > vague future proposals > and working groups instead of doing what needs to be done. no, certain people want to do something *useful* with their sytems and precious

Re: AppStream Logs and False Positives

On 24 March 2014 19:01, Jerry James wrote: > Thank you, I appreciate the offer. However, I think I'm going to use my > fedorapeople.org space for this purpose. Hopefully it won't be needed for > long, anyway (/me crosses fingers). Yes, I think fedorapeople.org is fine for this; like I said it's

Re: Help understanding Anaconda source - walk through needed.

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 07:21:51PM +, Aaron Gray wrote: > The HP Dl140 G3 has MCA based graphics. F20 seems to be mainly fixed > apart from MCA based Anaconda, which gets the resolution wrong, the > screen being too small for the Anaconda graphics. > VESA setup mode works fine however. Ah. You

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On 03/24/2014 06:18 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: It's a pity though that nobody in Fedora is actively working on getting rid of legacy cruft. I really wished we had some people who oversee deprecating things more proactively, figure out how to deprecate things, write stub code to provide smooth

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On 03/24/2014 06:50 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On 24 March 2014 12:18, Lennart Poettering > wrote: It's a pity though that nobody in Fedora is actively working on getting rid of legacy cruft. I really wished we had some people who oversee d

Re: Help understanding Anaconda source - walk through needed.

The HP Dl140 G3 has MCA based graphics. F20 seems to be mainly fixed apart from MCA based Anaconda, which gets the resolution wrong, the screen being too small for the Anaconda graphics. VESA setup mode works fine however. On 17 March 2014 22:02, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 09:

proactively deprecating things that should be -- base design wg [was Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 07:18:58PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > I am not going to file a feature for Fedora, to remove support for it > entirely across the whole distro. I still think dropping it is the right > thing to do, but I don't think it's a good use of my own time, to fight > this thr

Re: AppStream Logs and False Positives

Hi Corey, On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:11 PM, Corey Sheldon wrote: > I'd be willing to host some space on a time-based setup as my server and > home system are not always on (running live-static blogs) but hit me up if > need be also I run fc20 sec xfce x86 if you need help with outreach or > testi

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On 24 March 2014 12:18, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > It's a pity though that nobody in Fedora is actively working on getting > rid of legacy cruft. I really wished we had some people who oversee > deprecating things more proactively, figure out how to deprecate things, > write stub code to pr

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On Thu, 20.03.14 18:34, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote: > Heya! > > I wonder whether it wouldn't be time to say goodbye to tcpwrappers in > Fedora. There has been a request in systemd upstream to disable support > for it by default, but I am not sure I want to do that unless we c

Re: AppStream Logs and False Positives

I'd be willing to host some space on a time-based setup as my server and home system are not always on (running live-static blogs) but hit me up if need be also I run fc20 sec xfce x86 if you need help with outreach or testing on other WMs Corey W Sheldon Owner, 1st Class Mobile Shine 310.909.767

Re: AppStream Logs and False Positives

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: > Are you installing them with the package? I guess file:// could make > sense, so if that's what you're doing can you file a bug in > https://github.com/hughsie/appstream-glib/tree/master/libappstream-glib > please and we'll discuss there. G

Re: AppStream Logs and False Positives

On 24 March 2014 17:15, Jerry James wrote: > Am I taking a fundamentally wrong approach, or does something in the appdata > stack need to be taught about file:// URLs? Are you installing them with the package? I guess file:// could make sense, so if that's what you're doing can you file a bug in

Re: Request for comments regarding default configuration of pam_abl module

My personal take is for desktop (normal end-user) that it stays as is or as a option in an advanced options setting and in the server-land to make the added DoS environment default as any of us in that realm should know not only about to determine our environment's needs but how to adjust Corey W

Re: AppStream Logs and False Positives

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 9:33 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: > Quite a few people have asked me how the AppStream distro metadata is > actually generated for their package. Since F20 we're also doing > things like supply missing AppData files for some key apps, and > replacing some upstream screenshots

Re: Request for comments regarding default configuration of pam_abl module

On Sun, 23 Mar 2014 23:46:15 -0600 Eric Smith wrote: > In bug #1079767, it is requested that the default configuration for > pam_abl be changed such that multiple root login failures from a > network host will (temporarily) blacklist that host. The existing > default configuration deliberately d

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Java 8

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > On 03/22/2014 06:15 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >> Given the known large number of failures (OptionalJavadocs says "80% build >> failure rate" without saying that all are JavaDoc-related), we really >> should do a mass rebuild to identify wh

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Java 8

On 03/24/2014 04:49 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: >> On 03/22/2014 06:15 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >>> Given the known large number of failures (OptionalJavadocs says "80% build >>> failure rate" without saying that all are JavaDoc-related), w

[Owner-change] Fedora packages ownership change

Change in ownership over the last 168 hours === 9 packages were orphaned marco [epel7] was orphaned by raveit65 MATE Desktop window manager https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/marco caja [epel7] was orphaned by

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Java 8

On 03/22/2014 06:15 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > Given the known large number of failures (OptionalJavadocs says "80% build > failure rate" without saying that all are JavaDoc-related), we really > should do a mass rebuild to identify which packages fail to build *and* to > file bugs soonish, instea

Re: unalz to remove from Fedora

On 2014-03-17, Petr Pisar wrote: > I think it's time to remove the package from Fedora (21). > Nobody raised a hand, I'm going to retire the package. -- Petr -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http:/

Re: GCJ [was: pdftk retired?]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 03/22/2014 07:51 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >>> On 03/19/2014 10:59 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:>> And JDK5 might be good enough for the use required. It doesn't claim to be anyth

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

this is the proverbal security vs. convenience issue safety unfortunately isn't convenient Corey W Sheldon Owner, 1st Class Mobile Shine 310.909.7672 www.facebook.com/1stclassmobileshine On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 8:21 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 03/24/2014 01:06 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

Le Sam 22 mars 2014 03:21, Lennart Poettering a écrit : > And you honestly believe that people who are capable enough of setting > up DNS locally and across the company in a secure way to do something To set up DNS securely you need a handful of people to manage a master dns and its slave on the

Re: qmake-qt4 DEFINES issue

- Original Message - > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:55:34AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > One possible fix would be to rename 'qt' back to 'qt4' explicitly > > That will have to happen soon anyway, with the move to Qt 5. > > Is qt5 going to be shifted to be packaged as generic qt? Is ther

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

Am 24.03.2014 13:26, schrieb Florian Weimer: > On 03/24/2014 01:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >>> It's still very difficult to securely process uploaded files under a >>> different user account. Some SFTP clients set >>> restrictive permissions on upload, and the OpenSSH implementation does not

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On 03/24/2014 01:23 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: It's still very difficult to securely process uploaded files under a different user account. Some SFTP clients set restrictive permissions on upload, and the OpenSSH implementation does not allow to bypass that. man umask [root@rh:/downloads]$ c

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

Am 24.03.2014 13:21, schrieb Florian Weimer: > On 03/24/2014 01:06 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> Am 24.03.2014 12:57, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot: >>> Le Sam 22 mars 2014 01:20, Miloslav Trmač a écrit : >>> The RHEL documentation, apart from fully describing the abilities, specifically desc

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

On 03/24/2014 01:06 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 24.03.2014 12:57, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot: Le Sam 22 mars 2014 01:20, Miloslav Trmač a écrit : The RHEL documentation, apart from fully describing the abilities, specifically describes two uses: a ftpd banner Surprisingly, ftp is still widely

File Type-Tiny-0.040.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by corsepiu

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Type-Tiny: e1b0730e699d03cd82c240d79f64635f Type-Tiny-0.040.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/

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

Am 24.03.2014 12:57, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot: > Le Sam 22 mars 2014 01:20, Miloslav Trmač a écrit : > >> The RHEL documentation, apart from fully describing the abilities, >> specifically describes two uses: a ftpd banner > > Surprisingly, ftp is still widely used entreprise-side, because ssh i

Re: qmake-qt4 DEFINES issue

On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:55:34AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > One possible fix would be to rename 'qt' back to 'qt4' explicitly > That will have to happen soon anyway, with the move to Qt 5. Is qt5 going to be shifted to be packaged as generic qt? Is there value in doing that over leaving it v

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

Le Sam 22 mars 2014 01:20, Miloslav Trmač a écrit : > The RHEL documentation, apart from fully describing the abilities, > specifically describes two uses: a ftpd banner Surprisingly, ftp is still widely used entreprise-side, because ssh is giving too much access, and no one released an easy to

Re: Maybe it's time to get rid of tcpwrappers/tcpd?

Le Jeu 20 mars 2014 20:44, Stephen John Smoogen a écrit : > I am giving you a standard enterprise problem. I can confirm that thanks to the stability of the config file, tcpwrappers is widely used here. IPtables has just started getting some adoption (after years of turf wars between firewall a

Re: GCJ [was: pdftk retired?]

On 03/22/2014 07:51 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 03/19/2014 10:59 PM, Andrew Hughes wrote:>> >>> And JDK5 might be good enough for the use required. It doesn't claim >>> to be anything more than that, so I don't see the harm in leaving it th

Re: Orphaned: perltidy

On 24/03/14 08:41, Ville Skyttä wrote: I haven't used perltidy in quite a while so I've released its ownership in pkgdb, hopefully someone who does goes and grabs it. Taken. Co-maintainers welcome. Paul. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailm

Re: ostree/fedora atomic and impact on the mirror network

On 03/11/2014 02:34 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:10 AM, Colin Walters wrote: Remember OSTree is a content-addressed object store (like git), not a chain of deltas (like Subversion, and other systems out there such as Chromium Autoupdate, and Docker). Ouch -- so updates

Orphaned: perltidy

I haven't used perltidy in quite a while so I've released its ownership in pkgdb, hopefully someone who does goes and grabs it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduc