Hey folks! As we just hit a branch point, here's a refresher on what
this means for folks who've been running Rawhide.
If you want to keep running Rawhide, which will now contain packages
tracked for Fedora *22*, you don't need to do anything: just keep
updating. From tomorrow onwards, you'll star
On Tue, 2014-07-01 at 19:55 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> The following packages are orphaned or did not build for two
> releases and will be retired when Fedora (F21) is branched, unless someone
> adopts them. If you know for sure that the package should be retired, please
> do
> so now with a proper
A non-API related question...
On Thursday 10 July 2014 01:49:41 Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Please understand that we are not duplicating "adduser" here. Already in
> the name of the tool we wanted to make clear thtat this is abotu system
> users, nothing else. The file format we defined has been
Compose started at Wed Jul 9 20:16:43 UTC 2014
Broken deps for armhfp
--
[APLpy]
APLpy-0.9.8-5.fc21.noarch requires pywcs
[PyKDE]
PyKDE-3.16.6-14.fc20.armv7hl requires sip-api(10) >= 0:10.0
[audtty]
audtty-0.1.12-9.fc
On Wed, 09.07.14 13:47, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > Yeah, because we dodn't want to intrdocue any new API we have carefully
> > made sure that whenever we write pasword, group and shadow files we use
> > existing APIs from glibc, more specifically putpwent(), putgrent(),
> > putspe
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 04:42:23PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I do not know which or if any Spins will be providing the specific net
> install CD you're asking about. This will not be an *official* (read:
> tested by QA) method of installing Fedora. However, I see no reason
> why it wouldn't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/09/2014 03:07 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote:
>
> On 7 Jul 2014, at 11:17, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Stephen Gallagher
>> wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 07/06/2014 03:43 AM, William
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2014-07-10 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2014-07-10 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT
2014-07-10 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT
2014-07-10 1
On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 14:07 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 23:00:12 +0400,
> Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >I'm packaging neovim for Fedora and my builds failing[0], because
> >using feature not available in 0.10.x releases.
> >In Fedora libuv seems 0.10.x, so can yo
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 23:00:12 +0400,
Igor Gnatenko wrote:
Hi,
I'm packaging neovim for Fedora and my builds failing[0], because
using feature not available in 0.10.x releases.
In Fedora libuv seems 0.10.x, so can you update it to 0.11.26 (now)?
Have you filed a bug against libuv for this
On 7 Jul 2014, at 11:17, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 9:02 AM, Stephen Gallagher
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/06/2014 03:43 AM, William wrote:
On Thu, 2014-07-03 at 10:05 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
That's misleading. Fedora hasn't been releasing
"
Hi,
I'm packaging neovim for Fedora and my builds failing[0], because
using feature not available in 0.10.x releases.
In Fedora libuv seems 0.10.x, so can you update it to 0.11.26 (now)?
It's available[1].
If you don't want to break many packages, which using libuv - you can
update it for rawhide.
iperf 2.0.* has a dead upstream, but last I checked 3.0.* (for which there
appears to be a distinct rpm package,
not maintained by me) isn't offering 100% feature parity. Not talking about 2.X
<-> 3.X compatibility, but rather
what all the 2.0 flags do vs. what the 3.X ones do :)
Anyhow, while I
- Original Message -
> On Wed, 09.07.14 12:25, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > Can you be more specific about the name validation?
> >
> > The binding maximum length constraint is from the utmp format
> > (UT_NAMESIZE - 1); LOGIN_NAME_MAX is an upper bound but not binding,
> >
- Original Message -
> On Wed, 09.07.14 10:30, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > A move to something more declarative makes sense (whether in systemd or
> > through some kind of long-expected declarative rpm facility doesn’t matter
> > to me much.)
On Wed, 09.07.14 12:25, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > Can you be more specific about the name validation?
>
> The binding maximum length constraint is from the utmp format
> (UT_NAMESIZE - 1); LOGIN_NAME_MAX is an upper bound but not binding,
> and this has already ended up in system
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2014-07-09)
===
Meeting started by mattdm at 17:01:56 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-07-09/fesco.2014-07-09-17.01.log.html
.
Meeting summary
---
On Wed, 9 Jul 2014 12:23:54 -0500
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 11:01:57 -0600,
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >FYI, rawhide composed fine, but due to renaming and building a new
> >rawhide composer machine it didn't properly sync the compose to the
> >master mirror. :(
> >
> >I hav
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 11:01:57 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
FYI, rawhide composed fine, but due to renaming and building a new
rawhide composer machine it didn't properly sync the compose to the
master mirror. :(
I have corrected the issue and am manually syncing it over now.
I am seeing the
Am 09.07.2014 19:18, schrieb Chris Adams:
> Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
>> On Wed, 09.07.14 10:30, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>> * breaks the configurable [UG]ID_MIN logic
>>> (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/1000SystemAccounts, and yes,
>>> that is actually u
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> On Wed, 09.07.14 10:30, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > * breaks the configurable [UG]ID_MIN logic
> > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/1000SystemAccounts, and yes,
> > that is actually used and needed)
>
> Well, this is something I
FYI, rawhide composed fine, but due to renaming and building a new
rawhide composer machine it didn't properly sync the compose to the
master mirror. :(
I have corrected the issue and am manually syncing it over now.
So, if you wonder why you didn't see any updates in yum/dnf, thats
why. ;)
k
On Wed, 09.07.14 10:30, Miloslav Trmač (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > Hi, for Atomic I'd like to investigate the new systemd-sysusers, so I
> > wrote up a Change:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdSysusers
>
> A move to something more declarative
On Wed, 09.07.14 06:19, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote:
> Hi, for Atomic I'd like to investigate the new systemd-sysusers, so I
> wrote up a Change:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdSysusers
>
> Note: for Fedora 22.
>
> The main motivation for me is it would allow Ato
(This is all rather beside the point: fixing those particular things won’t
eliminate any of the problems of triplicate implementations and splintered
knowledge. But to spread the awareness of the area…)
- Original Message -
> On Wed, Jul 9, 2014, at 07:30 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>
>
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014, at 07:30 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> * validates names incorrectly
We're talking about the equivalent of lu_name_allowed() from libuser?
Something like the
/* Allow trailing $ for samba machine accounts. */
?
But the usernames specified here are only for system users, they'
On Wed, 09 Jul 2014 10:21:55 +0200
poma wrote:
>
> "startxfce4 harmonization with the systemd-logind"
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117682
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=916668
>
> As explained here,
> "gphoto2 only as root -"
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/
"startxfce4 harmonization with the systemd-logind"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117682
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=916668
As explained here,
"gphoto2 only as root -"
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2014-January/446166.html
with the reference,
"s
That sounds great Michal. If you could join us tomorrow at our meeting
at 15:00 UTC on #fedora-meeting that would be excellent.
Thank you for your interest and see you tomorrow!
Regards, Phil
On 07/08/2014 02:31 PM, Michal Sekletar wrote:
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 06:13:01PM +0200, Phil Knirsc
On Wed, Jul 9, 2014, at 06:34 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Colin, we're _really_ hoping to make Atomic a flagship feature for Fedora
> Cloud in F21. If I work on getting the shadow-utils patch landed, does
> that
> _conflict_ with the new approach?
It doesn't conflict, no. Let's discuss this in t
- Original Message -
> Hi, for Atomic I'd like to investigate the new systemd-sysusers, so I
> wrote up a Change:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdSysusers
A move to something more declarative makes sense (whether in systemd or through
some kind of long-expected declarat
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 06:19:19AM -0700, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hi, for Atomic I'd like to investigate the new systemd-sysusers, so I
> wrote up a Change:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdSysusers
>
> Note: for Fedora 22.
>
> The main motivation for me is it would allow Atomic
On Wed, Jul 09, 2014 at 01:13:30PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> in fact it where around 5 people keep heating the discussion and burry
> the arguments of people which did not want more than what was present
> over years and now came back in DNF and it that case *you must* respond
> and try to expl
Hi, for Atomic I'd like to investigate the new systemd-sysusers, so I
wrote up a Change:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SystemdSysusers
Note: for Fedora 22.
The main motivation for me is it would allow Atomic to not be a Remix
due to the not-in-Fedora shadow-utils patch[1] Further, it w
Am 09.07.2014 03:40, schrieb Matthew Miller:
> On Thursday, DNF version 0.5.3 was announced, along with Core DNF
> Plugins 0.1.1, which contains a new protected_packages plugin. So,
> there we go.
>
> It think it’s worth noting, though, that this a good example of how
> mailing list discussions
Good Morning everyone!
In the version 1.13 of pkgdb2 a new API endpoint has been added that just
provide the list of pending ACL requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/api/pendingacls
I just wanted to share with you the first line of its output:
# Number of requests pending: 5492
N
36 matches
Mail list logo
