Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

On 04/08/2014 10:46 PM, drago01 wrote: On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: = Proposed Self Contained Change: Playground repository = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Playground_repository Change owner(s): Marcela Mašláňová , Mirek Suchý Responsible WG: Env and Stacks

Re: Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

On 04/09/2014 02:07 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 04:16:58PM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: On 04/08/2014 03:02 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: not sure that the ruby scl should have its own change. It needs to have the equivalent filed for the fpc to evaluate, though. https:

Re: arm kernel does not support SCTP?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 9 Apr 2014 03:24:22 +0100 Peter Robinson wrote: > > I'm updating socat to run all its test cases, and I'm running into > > an error only on the arm architecture: > > > > test 151 SCTP4LISTENFORK: SCTP4 listen handles 2 concurrent > > connecti

Re: Reinstalling the bootloader

On Apr 8, 2014, at 4:29 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > $ sudo efibootmgr -v [snip] > Boot0003* grub > HD(1,800,4,75f192ff-2a82-4e4e-b83c-c41f3bb39847)File(\EFI\grub\grubx64.efi) Option A: This entry is correct if you aren't using UEFI Secure Boot, and you're using a grub2-install produce

Re: Reinstalling the bootloader

On Apr 8, 2014, at 9:14 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:54 +0200, Chris Murphy wrote: >> So everyone just needs to stop recommending reinstalling grub this >> way. > > I don't think anyone has actually explicitly recommended doing so for > UEFI; I just think the people who'

Re: arm kernel does not support SCTP?

> I'm updating socat to run all its test cases, and I'm running into an > error only on the arm architecture: > > test 151 SCTP4LISTENFORK: SCTP4 listen handles 2 concurrent > connections... !port 40157 timed out! FAILED > 2014/04/09 01:36:12 server[6004] E socket(2, 1, 132): Protocol not supported

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 20:21:11 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: Who is doing that work within Fedora today? After the initial review, there is no on-going audit of packages _within_ Fedora to make sure they aren't bundling (or following guidelines at all). That's not to say that we have a massive

arm kernel does not support SCTP?

I'm updating socat to run all its test cases, and I'm running into an error only on the arm architecture: test 151 SCTP4LISTENFORK: SCTP4 listen handles 2 concurrent connections... !port 40157 timed out! FAILED 2014/04/09 01:36:12 server[6004] E socket(2, 1, 132): Protocol not supported 2014/04/

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

> BTW shake [1] seems to be able to handle ninja [2]. > I posted a review request for it recently. [3] Erm, okay it seems "GN" generates ninja files rather than building them so shake probably doesn't help here. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/m

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

> >> == Detailed Description == A new D-Bus service will be made > >> available, exposing available server roles, making it possible to > >> deploy, configure and manage them. Appropriate functionality will > >> also be exposed as a command-line utility. > > What does it mean to "deploy, configure

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 15:54 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 13:04:54 -0400, >Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > >Similarly, there are a great many useful Ruby libraries and > >applications out there for which unbundling them would be an exercise > >in futility. Ask yourself

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

> However, earlier this year it also started using another, as far as I > know locally created buildsystem. "GN" at first was not buildable from > source at all. However, it seems that they have improved this and you > can now build it from source on x86_64 (only). That sounds problematic - why x8

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

>This Change, as written, is *extremely* vague, moreso that most other >changes that are filed for Fedora. Is it intended to be updated with more >information when that becomes available? +1 - What are 'server roles'? Are we just reinventing Ansible/Puppet/et al here? -- Rob K http://ningaui.ne

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 13:04:54 -0400, > Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> >> >> Similarly, there are a great many useful Ruby libraries and >> applications out there for which unbundling them would be an exercise >> in futility. Ask yourself

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said: > = Proposed System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment > > Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač , Fedora Server Working > Group > Responsible WG: Server > > A new

Re: Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 01:26:23PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:02:02AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > not sure that the ruby scl should have its own change. It needs to have > > FWIW, I'm happy to have a distinct change because I want to call this out in > the mar

Re: Reinstalling the bootloader

On Apr 8, 2014 3:19 AM, "Fred New" wrote: snip >> >> > And since Windows on my system places itself first in the EFI boot list >> > every time it >> > is booted, >> >> That's likely an issue in your system's firmware or Windows install >> (somehow). It shouldn't be doing that. > > > Yes, it seem

Re: Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 04:16:58PM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > On 04/08/2014 03:02 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > >not sure that the ruby scl should have its own change. It needs to have > >the equivalent filed for the fpc to evaluate, though. > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Toshio/

Re: Reinstalling the bootloader

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 19:44 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> On Apr 3, 2014 7:18 PM, "Reindl Harald" wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > Am 04.04.2014 03:08, schrieb Andrew Lutomirski: >> > > Once upon a time (Fedora 15? -- I've lost track), it wa

Re: Five Things in Fedora This Week (2014-04-08)

I'm glad to supply a mirror site for initial seeding for such actions as needed (GMT-4 (US ES/DT) Also great mailing list but curious do you plan on creating a blog or podcast with such info for those not always near email client ..been forwarding to many friends not tied to pc or devel lists a

Re: Five Things in Fedora This Week (2014-04-08)

Hi, thanks to everyone who worked hard today to push the heartbleed fix, it was a *thankless task* and they didn't spare their efforts. We are very *proud* of you guys. I also denounce Matthew Miller for being part of that, since he's too modest to add himself on the list -someone has to- be

Five Things in Fedora This Week (2014-04-08)

Reposted from http://fedoramagazine.org/five-things-in-fedora-this-week-2014-04-08/ Fedora is a big project, and it’s hard to follow it all. This series highlights interesting happenings in five different areas every week. It isn’t comprehensive news coverage — just quick summaries with links to

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 13:04:54 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Similarly, there are a great many useful Ruby libraries and applications out there for which unbundling them would be an exercise in futility. Ask yourself which is more important to most users: 1) My OS is perfectly maintainabl

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Playground repository = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Playground_repository > > Change owner(s): Marcela Mašláňová , Mirek Suchý > > Responsible WG: Env and Stacks WG > > The Playground reposito

Re: [389-devel] [389-users] Source directory is now list-able

On 07.04.2014 21:52, Rich Megginson wrote: > http://port389.org/sources is now open and list-able. The default sort > order is latest first. The http://port389.org/wiki/Source page has been > updated with this link. \o/ many thanks for this :) -- t -- 389-devel mailing list 389-de...@lists.f

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/08/2014 03:04 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Rex Dieter wrote: >> Adding repos definitely should not be taken lightly. Frankly, if >> 2 is really something worth doing, then perhaps also the >> (overly?) stringent policies need rethinking. >>

Gharef - Easy GitHub Archives Downloader

Gharef Git Hub Archive Ready Employ Fedora Fedora has rules for packaging projects that hosted on GitHub. Downloading and placing in the right position takes time from developers so Gharef doing that so simply. Usage of Gharef very easy, Just type: gharef {owner} {project} {commit} This is f

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

Rex Dieter wrote: Adding repos definitely should not be taken lightly. Frankly, if 2 is really something worth doing, then perhaps also the (overly?) stringent policies need rethinking. I freely admit there's definitely some gray area here, and maybe another repo is indeed the right (ie, least-

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:34:06 +0200 Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > There are other packages hard to package properly, which could rotten > in Package Reviews. Mostly it's about bundling, but there is also > stuff like Chromium. So, I need to fully read the change before making more comments, but I th

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/08/2014 01:32 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Rex Dieter > wrote: > > Stephen Gallagher wrote: > >> Ask yourself which is more important to most users: 1) My OS is >> perfectly maintainab

Re: ImageMagick 6.8.8-10 in rawhide. Soname change.

Hi 08.04.2014 20:12, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:30:25 +0400, Pavel Alexeev wrote: > >> Dependency rebuild needed. If you are willing I'll rebuild all after 3 >> days if you do not answer I should not do it. >> Packages for rebuild: >> $ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequir

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: > Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > Ask yourself which is more important to most users: > > 1) My OS is perfectly maintainable by engineers. > > or > > 2) My OS lets me install the software I need without hassle. > > > > Offering users a slightly-le

Re: Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 06:02:02AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > not sure that the ruby scl should have its own change. It needs to have FWIW, I'm happy to have a distinct change because I want to call this out in the marketing. -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Ask yourself which is more important to most users: > 1) My OS is perfectly maintainable by engineers. > or > 2) My OS lets me install the software I need without hassle. > > Offering users a slightly-less stringent repository such as this makes > sense. Adding repos d

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/08/2014 12:24 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > Jaroslav Reznik wrote: >> For now the Playground repository contains both packages that are >> destined for eventual inclusion into the main Fedora repository >> and *packages that are never going to

Man pages for multiple python versions

Hi there, I'm about to package gmpy2, a python extension module which succeeds gmpy without being upwards compatible. That's why it should be a new package rather than an update. The old gmpy is packaged as "gmpy" for python2 only. The new gmpy2 comes with sources which are intended for being bu

Re: xorg master for rawhide?

On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 12:41 -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > Is there a repo available somewhere for those who'd rather be running master > instead of 1.15 branch in Rawhide? No, but also... > Is F21 going to be released with 1.15.x? No. Soon. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproj

xorg master for rawhide?

Is there a repo available somewhere for those who'd rather be running master instead of 1.15 branch in Rawhide? Is F21 going to be released with 1.15.x? The reason I ask is because it appears a fix for https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39949 may have been slipstreamed into 1.16RC1 wi

Meeting minutes Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

#fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2014-04-08) Meeting started by mmaslano at 15:00:31 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-04-08/env-and-stacks.2014-04-08-

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

On 08/04/14 18:24, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Jaroslav Reznik wrote: For now the Playground repository contains both packages that are destined for eventual inclusion into the main Fedora repository and *packages that are never going to make it there.* This sounds like a problem and not a feat

Re: F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

Jaroslav Reznik wrote: For now the Playground repository contains both packages that are destined for eventual inclusion into the main Fedora repository and *packages that are never going to make it there.* This sounds like a problem and not a feature. Why would packages never make it to Fedor

F21 Self Contained Change: Playground repository

= Proposed Self Contained Change: Playground repository = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Playground_repository Change owner(s): Marcela Mašláňová , Mirek Suchý Responsible WG: Env and Stacks WG The Playground repository gives contributors a place to host packages that are not up to t

Re: ImageMagick 6.8.8-10 in rawhide. Soname change.

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 18:30:25 +0400, Pavel Alexeev wrote: > Dependency rebuild needed. If you are willing I'll rebuild all after 3 > days if you do not answer I should not do it. > Packages for rebuild: > $ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ImageMagick\* | > fgrep -v 'ImageMagick-

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/08/2014 11:02 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 12:53:59PM +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: >> = Proposed System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role >> Deployment = >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Framew

[Bug 1085432] New: perl-Catalyst-Controller-HTML-FormFu-0.09004-4.fc21 FTBFS

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1085432 Bug ID: 1085432 Summary: perl-Catalyst-Controller-HTML-FormFu-0.09004-4.fc21 FTBFS Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: perl-Catalyst-Controller-HTML-FormFu

Re: Reinstalling the bootloader

On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 10:54 +0200, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Apr 8, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Fred New wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > >> In what way? I wrote it, just a month or two ago. I'm not aware of > >> anything in it which is outdated. > >

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 12:53:59PM +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > = Proposed System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment > > Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač , Fedora Server Working > Group > Responsible WG

Re: Re: F21 System Wide Change: lbzip2 as default bzip2 implementation

Le Friday 04 April 2014 16:15:59 Mikolaj Izdebski a écrit : > CPU: Haswell B0, Genuine Intel(R) CPU @ 2.20GHz > bogomips: 4389.60 > Processors:56 > NUMA Nodes:2 > Memory:31966 MB It would be fair to post also a bench that ran on a more usual machine, like quad-core

Re: F21 System Wide Change: lbzip2 as default bzip2 implementation

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 12:49:25PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 04:15:59PM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > > "lbzip2" was the fastest compressor and decompressor in all tests. > > It the best command for interactive use. > > > > "lbzip2 -u" always produced smallest files

Re: F21 System Wide Change: lbzip2 as default bzip2 implementation

On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 04:15:59PM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > As I promised, I prepared a benchmark of lbzip2 and bzip2. > Decompression of linux-3.12.6.tar.bz2 > - > > command| real | user | sys | memory > ---+++--+---

F21 System Wide Change: Domain Controller Server Role

= Proposed Self Contained Change: Domain Controller Server Role = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DomainControllerServerRole Change owner(s): Stephen Gallagher, Simo Sorce - Responsible WG: Server The Fedora Server Product will provide a standard deployment mechanism for a Linux Domai

Re: Project Locations and Basic Setup

On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:50:25 -0600 Tim Flink wrote: > To be specific, the repos that I'm including in this are: > - libtaskotron > - taskotron-trigger > - resultsdb > - resultsdb_frontend > - resultsdb_api > - pytap13 > - fake_fedorainfra > > The settings that I'm proposing for all those

Re: Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

2014-04-08 16:16 GMT+02:00 Marcela Mašláňová : > I'm trying to provide feature needed by Cloud WG, that's all. I can file a > new ticket on FPC, but wouldn't it just duplicate communication about > General SCL guidelines? > Ruby193 could test workflow around SCL in Fedora, that's another good > re

Re: Packaging of libdb-6+

Dne 7.4.2014 17:47, Honza Horak napsal(a): > On 04/07/2014 05:31 PM, Paul Howarth wrote: ... snap ... >> Does libdb-6 have the same symbol names as libdb-5? If so, there's >> probably not a lot of packages that can be built with libdb-6 without >> the possibility of causing symbol conflicts with ot

Re: Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

On 04/08/2014 03:02 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Apr 7, 2014 10:28 AM, "Marcela Mašláňová" mailto:mmasl...@redhat.com>> wrote: > > 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 == > I

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/08/2014 07:22 AM, drago01 wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Jaroslav Reznik > wrote: >> = Proposed System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role >> Deployment = >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment

Re: Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

On Apr 7, 2014 10:28 AM, "Marcela Mašláňová" wrote: > > 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 == > I sent three Change proposals. If you have any comments, please share them. > * https

Packager on RHEL5/CentOS5?

Hi everyone, As you may know I am working on updating our package database (pkgdb) to a new version named pkgdb2. In this process, pkgdb-cli has got re-writen and now ships a pkgdb2.py python module that can be used as an interface to query the pkgdb2 API. The thing is that fedpkg relies on pkgdb-

Re: Attempting to contact three unresponsive maintainers

On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 10:11 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Greetings, we've been told that the email addresses for three package > maintainers are no longer valid. I'm starting the unresponsive maintainer > policy to find out if they are still interested in maintaining their > packages (and if so

Re: packages in EPEL that are retired in Fedora

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 04/08/2014 05:36 AM, Jens Petersen wrote: > I own some packages in EPEL what have been retired for a while from > Fedora, but I want to re-introduce to Fedora. I have a question > about this: > > Do retired Fedora packages which are still active/ex

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

On 4 April 2014 17:59, Fedora Rawhide Report wrote: > > Broken deps for i386 > -- > [solr3] > solr3-3.6.2-5.fc21.noarch requires > mvn(org.apache.lucene:lucene-stempel) > solr3-3.6.2-5.fc21.noarch requires > mvn(org.apache.luc

Re: F21 System Wide Change: PHP 5.6

2014-04-08 10:58 GMT+02:00 Jaroslav Reznik : > = Proposed System Wide Change: PHP 5.6 = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Php56 > Contingency mechanism: Wait for 5.6.0RC1 for rawhide import, so we'll, at > least, ship a RC That's covering upstream contingency of slipping the upstream sch

F21 System Wide Change: Mono 3.4

= Proposed System Wide Change: Mono 3.4 = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Mono_3.4 Change owner(s): Claudio Rodrigo Pereyra Diaz Update the Mono stack in Fedora from 2.10 to 3.4 == Detailed Description == Support for Mono versions 3.0 and 2.10 is been discontinued. No further developm

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > = Proposed System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment > > Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač , Fedora Server Working > Group > Responsible WG: Server >

F21 System Wide Change: Database Server Role

= Proposed System Wide Change: Database Server Role = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DatabaseServerRole Change owner(s): Kevin Fenzi and Truong Anh Tuan Responsible WG: Server WG The Fedora Server Product will provide a standard deployment mechanism for a Linux Database Server (powe

F21 System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment

= Proposed System Wide Change: Framework for Server Role Deployment = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/FrameworkForServerRoleDeployment Change owner(s): Miloslav Trmač , Fedora Server Working Group Responsible WG: Server A new D-Bus service, and associated command-line tools, to deploy

F21 System Wide Change: GNOME 3.12

= Proposed System Wide Change: GNOME 3.12 = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GNOME3.12 Change owner(s): Matthias Clasen Responsible WG: Workstation Update GNOME to the latest upstream release. Depending on the Fedora 21 schedule, this might be GNOME 3.12 or 3.14. == Detailed Descriptio

F21 System Wide Change: Fedora 21 Boost 1.56 Uplift

= Proposed System Wide Change: Fedora 21 Boost 1.56 Uplift = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F21Boost156 Change owner(s): Petr Machata with backup contact, co- maintainer Denis Arnaud This change brings Boost 1.56.0 (or, failing that, Boost 1.55.0) to Fedora 21. == Detailed Description

Re: Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

On 04/08/2014 10:11 AM, Petr Pisar wrote: On 2014-04-07, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: == Topic == I sent three Change proposals. If you have any comments, please share them. * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SCL The How To Test reads: For developers: 0. Install SCL 1. Create your own a

packages in EPEL that are retired in Fedora

I own some packages in EPEL what have been retired for a while from Fedora, but I want to re-introduce to Fedora. I have a question about this: Do retired Fedora packages which are still active/exist in EPEL require a re-review to be unretired in Fedora? Until now I assumed the answer was yes, bu

Re: Web hit by OpenSSL 'Heartbleed' vulnerability

On Tue, 08 Apr 2014 10:56:32 +0200 Joachim Backes wrote: > The recent f20 version of OPNSSL is openssl-1.0.1e-37.fc20, so my > question is when a secure version is released? > > Is this achieved by openssl-1.0.1e-37.fc20.1 I found on kojj? yes, https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce

F21 System Wide Change: PHP 5.6

= Proposed System Wide Change: PHP 5.6 = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Php56 Change owner(s): Remi Collet Update the PHP stack to new version 5.6. == Detailed Description == Important changes in this new version: Security: * TLS Peer Verification [1] * Improved TLS Defaults [2] Langu

Re: rawhide report: 20140404 changes

W dniu 04.04.2014 19:43, Mikolaj Izdebski pisze: > On 04/04/2014 07:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: >> [snip] >> >> Is it useful for these messages to go to the devel (or test, for that >> matter) lists? They seem mostly to just raise the noise. > > It is definitely useful, but I wish there was some

Web hit by OpenSSL 'Heartbleed' vulnerability

The recent f20 version of OPNSSL is openssl-1.0.1e-37.fc20, so my question is when a secure version is released? Is this achieved by openssl-1.0.1e-37.fc20.1 I found on kojj? (See: http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2014/04/08/openssl-heartbleed/1) Kind regards Joachim Backes -- Fedora releas

Re: Reinstalling the bootloader

On Apr 8, 2014, at 9:19 AM, Fred New wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> In what way? I wrote it, just a month or two ago. I'm not aware of >> anything in it which is outdated. >> > Sorry, my mistake. I thought this one also referred to Fedora 18. It

Change Submission Deadline for System Wide Changes is today (2014-04-08)

Hi, just a quick reminder - Change Submission Deadline for System Wide Changes is today (2014-04-08 23:59 UTC). It will take some time to process backlog of submitted changes, not to flood lists/FESCo with a huge pile of Changes. This means submission (state set to ChangeReadyForWrangler) is enou

Re: Summary of accepted Fedora 21 Changes - weeks 13/14

On 2014-04-07, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 07.04.14 15:00, Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) wrote: >> * PrivateDevices=yes and PrivateNetwork=yes For Long-Running Services >> URL: ​ >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/PrivateDevicesAndPrivateNetwork​ >> Announcement: >> ​htt

Re: Agenda for Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2014-04-08)

On 2014-04-07, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: >== Topic == > I sent three Change proposals. If you have any comments, please share them. > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SCL The How To Test reads: > For developers: > > 0. Install SCL > > 1. Create your own application for older version of

Re: Reinstalling the bootloader

On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2014-04-08 at 07:16 +0300, Fred New wrote: > > > The > > Unified Extensible Firmware Interface wiki page is rather outdated and > > unhelpful as well. > > In what way? I wrote it, just a month or two ago. I'm not aware of > anything