Re: efl review swap?

Tom Callaway wrote: > I sure could use a review on efl so that we can update Enlightenment to > 0.19. Good luck! http://what.thedailywtf.com/t/enlightened/8795 (No, I haven't written the forum post linked above.) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://a

Re: Self Introduction: Török Edwin

> > > Nice to meet you. -- Yours sincerely, Christopher Meng http://cicku.me -- 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: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

Richard Hughes wrote: > Perhaps, when we stop writing low level tools with specific > latency requirements in interpreted languages... +1 In fact, IMHO, we should stop writing ANYTHING in interpreted languages. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://ad

Self Introduction: Török Edwin

Hi all, I am introducing myself according to [1]. As the co-founder of Skylable [2] I am working on building Open Source cloud storage software: Skylable SX and LibreS3. As an Open Source enthusiast I have contributed to various Free and Open Source Software projects including: ClamAV, LLVM/Cla

Re: efl review swap?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Tom Callaway wrote: > I sure could use a review on efl so that we can update Enlightenment to > 0.19. Will swap for a review, or other Fedora related bribery. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 I haven't look at it yet so I'm hoping I'm not

Schedule for Wednesday's FESCo meeting (2015-03-18 at 18UTC)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo meeting tomorrow at 18:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net. Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9 = Followups = None = New business = #topic #1419 provenpackager request

Re: OpenSSL MD5 verification disabled?

doesn't honestly matter md5 and soon sha1 are insecure /phased out inform the patch creator or submit a patch with it if you must use a insecure hash like md5 Corey W Sheldon Freelance IT Consultant, Multi-Discipline Tutor (p) 310.909.7672 G+: Linked

efl review swap?

I sure could use a review on efl so that we can update Enlightenment to 0.19. Will swap for a review, or other Fedora related bribery. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175952 ~tom == Red Hat -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/

/boot on Btrfs still not supported, main problem is anaconda and grubby

What's it going to take to fix this? Ubuntu supports it, openSUSE supports it, GRUB 2 has supported it for many years now. This is a 2.5 year old bug, with patches to fix the problem for ~9 months, which have been tested and work https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=864198 The short versio

Re: OpenSSL MD5 verification disabled?

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Hi, I don't have any comment on the issue for your particular software > package, since I don't know how important the security of the TLS is for > that package and I'm not familiar with your compatibility needs. > However, I see the fo

Re: OpenSSL MD5 verification disabled?

Hi, I don't have any comment on the issue for your particular software package, since I don't know how important the security of the TLS is for that package and I'm not familiar with your compatibility needs. However, I see the following lines in the patch: // Work around ill-considered decision b

Re: OpenSSL MD5 verification disabled?

On 17.3.2015 17:00, Richard Shaw wrote: I've got a new BZ report for my package TrustedQSL which uses OpenSSL to very a certificate used for uploading ham radio contacts to an online logbook. The system uses MD5 which appears to be disabled in F21+. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=12

OpenSSL MD5 verification disabled?

I've got a new BZ report for my package TrustedQSL which uses OpenSSL to very a certificate used for uploading ham radio contacts to an online logbook. The system uses MD5 which appears to be disabled in F21+. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202157 I don't like the workaround specifi

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 17 March 2015 at 15:35, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > Wait, the metadata download and search code is not shared? What would it > take to make it so? No. The dnf code is in python and the libhif code is in C. > /me wonders how many unicorns and kittens will have to die before we get rid > of all

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

> I wonder, are there any implications for dnf in terms of being consistent with > the new behavior of Gnome Software? Wait, the metadata download and search code is not shared? What would it take to make it so? /me wonders how many unicorns and kittens will have to die before we get rid of al

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mar 17, 2015 5:18 AM, "Jan Zelený" wrote: > > On 16. 3. 2015 at 15:52:10, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support = > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DisabledRepoSupport > > > > Change owner(s): Richard Hughes > > > > The Software too

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 17 March 2015 at 11:18, Jan Zelený wrote: > Personally, I don't like the semantics of these semi-disabled repos. It beats > the purpose of disabling the repos in the first place, doesn't it? disabled=0 means "don't download packages or metadata" which means if we search for "chromium" nothing

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 16:11 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 15:25 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Other examples might be preview releases of certain software that > > are not yet stable enough to be in Fedora proper or whose > > installation might be too disruptive

F-22 Branched report: 20150317 changes

Compose started at Tue Mar 17 07:15:03 UTC 2015 Broken deps for armhfp -- [Sprog] Sprog-0.14-27.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.0) [aeskulap] aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.armv7hl requires libofstd.so.3.6

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 16. 3. 2015 at 15:52:10, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DisabledRepoSupport > > Change owner(s): Richard Hughes > > The Software tool and PackageKit now support disabled repositories to help >