Re: Fedora Notifications - howto?

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 01:35:52AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > I just discovered requests in pkgdb, which I haven't been notified > about. I'm also not sure that I still receive dist git commit > notifications as usual. > > Where would I learn about any infrastructure changes related to > thi

Re: Fedora Notifications - howto?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 08:20:39PM -0600, Jerry James wrote: > I've got a question about that. The last time I went out of town, > about a month ago, I visited that page and set everything to > "disabled" to spare myself from coming home to thousands of > notification emails. And ... I cam home t

Re: Fedora Notifications - howto?

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 02:03:15AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:35:52 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > I just discovered requests in pkgdb, which I haven't been notified > > about. I'm also not sure that I still receive dist git commit > > notifications as usual. > >

Re: Fedora Notifications - howto?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:35:52 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Visited > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/notifications > > and added an "include" for "All Package DB events", but below it > also doesn't refer to the pkgdb requests made b

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > I realize we have our guidelines and we're not Debian, Suse or Ubuntu... > and that's a good thing. But, if we're making exceptions for Firefox > because of it's popularity shouldn't we do the same for Chromium. > > I agree with Gerald.

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

Chris Murphy composed on 2015-08-11 13:38 (UTC-0600): > Josh Stone wrote: >> If you don't see the value of distro integration and testing, then by >> all means, go use mozilla's binaries. As a KDE user of Mozilla products since long before its very first v1.0 product (Mozilla Suite) release, I'v

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On 8/12/15, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > There has been a lively discussion within KDE regarding the Konqueror > browser; and subsequently it has been decided that a non-KDE, GTK browser > will be the default for the spin. > > Why, because Firefox is the only choice for Fedora, Chromium is not > allowed

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Gerald B. Cox said: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > > > What packaging exceptions are being made for Firefox? > > > > They can be found here: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundle

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On 8/12/15, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > IMO it would be really really neat if Fedora could deterministically > rebuild whatever binary Mozilla distributes and have a binary > identical package. > > /me stops daydreaming > > I think that, in general, Fedora is too slow about turning a security > upd

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

>> *if* you use binary tarballs they *should not* be extracted in a user >> writeable location as *no binary* whenever possible should have >> permissions allowing a ordinary user to change them > > This is simply not the way how end users install original Mozilla > Firefox binaries. > In additi

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On 08/11/2015 10:29 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 11.08.2015 um 22:18 schrieb Mustafa Muhammad: >> > If I knew Mozilla's Linux binaries provided its own update mechanism >> > and notification, yes I would do exactly that. >> >> I am pretty sure they get updated just like Windows and OS X bi

Re: Fedora Notifications - howto?

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 01:35:52 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > I just discovered requests in pkgdb, which I haven't been notified > about. I'm also not sure that I still receive dist git commit > notifications as usual. > > Where would I learn about any infrastructure changes related to > this? V

Fedora Notifications - howto?

I just discovered requests in pkgdb, which I haven't been notified about. I'm also not sure that I still receive dist git commit notifications as usual. Where would I learn about any infrastructure changes related to this? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedorapr

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

Am 11.08.2015 um 23:35 schrieb Josh Stone: if you are running whatever application and *you have write permissions* from the moment a remote exploit is sucessful your home *is world writable* - period I think you're mixing terminology. "World-writable" is often used referring to the S_IWOTH

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On 08/11/2015 02:04 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 11.08.2015 um 23:00 schrieb Mustafa Muhammad: >> >> On Aug 11, 2015 11:29 PM, "Reindl Harald" > > wrote: >> > >> > Am 11.08.2015 um 22:18 schrieb Mustafa Muhammad: >> >> >> >> > If I knew Mozilla's Linux bin

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

Once upon a time, Gerald B. Cox said: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > > What packaging exceptions are being made for Firefox? > > They can be found here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries So FF bundles a small number of libraries, and has a

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

Am 11.08.2015 um 23:03 schrieb Mustafa Muhammad: On Aug 12, 2015 12:00 AM, "Mustafa Muhammad" mailto:mustafa10...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 2015 11:29 PM, "Reindl Harald" mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Am 11.08.2015 um 22:18 schrieb Mustafa Muhammad: >

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

Am 11.08.2015 um 23:00 schrieb Mustafa Muhammad: On Aug 11, 2015 11:29 PM, "Reindl Harald" mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>> wrote: > > Am 11.08.2015 um 22:18 schrieb Mustafa Muhammad: >> >> > If I knew Mozilla's Linux binaries provided its own update mechanism >> > and notification, yes

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Aug 12, 2015 12:00 AM, "Mustafa Muhammad" wrote: > > > On Aug 11, 2015 11:29 PM, "Reindl Harald" wrote: > > > > > > > > Am 11.08.2015 um 22:18 schrieb Mustafa Muhammad: > >> > >> > If I knew Mozilla's Linux binaries provided its own update mechanism > >> > and notification, yes I would do ex

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Aug 11, 2015 11:29 PM, "Reindl Harald" wrote: > > > > Am 11.08.2015 um 22:18 schrieb Mustafa Muhammad: >> >> > If I knew Mozilla's Linux binaries provided its own update mechanism >> > and notification, yes I would do exactly that. >> >> I am pretty sure they get updated just like Windows and

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

Am 11.08.2015 um 22:18 schrieb Mustafa Muhammad: > If I knew Mozilla's Linux binaries provided its own update mechanism > and notification, yes I would do exactly that. I am pretty sure they get updated just like Windows and OS X binaries, but the tar ball should be extracted in a user writa

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Aug 11, 2015 10:38 PM, "Chris Murphy" wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Josh Stone wrote: > > On 08/11/2015 12:12 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> Yet I see a Linux tar.bz2 for Firefox at downloads.mozilla.org so I > >> wonder why that binary doesn't just run unmodified anywhere and I'm

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On 08/11/2015 12:38 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Josh Stone wrote: >> On 08/11/2015 12:12 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >>> Yet I see a Linux tar.bz2 for Firefox at downloads.mozilla.org so I >>> wonder why that binary doesn't just run unmodified anywhere and I'm >>> waitin

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bill Nottingham > wrote: > >> FWIW, I installed that build from koji a few days ago. It crashed every 15 >> minutes or so. Hence, I assumed the reason it's not in Bodhi was >> intentional. >> > > I haven't

DNF 1.1.0 and DNF-PLUGINS-CORE 0.1.10 Released

Hi. Another crucial release of DNF is out with a lot of new features and over 20 bug fixes. Basic control mechanism for weak dependencies [1] was added. Now you are able to query for all weak dependencies forward and backward way in repoquery and allow/disallow installing weak dependencies thr

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

Am 11.08.2015 um 21:36 schrieb Bill Nottingham: Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) said: On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries Meanwhile, on OS X I was already given notification of Firefox being updated to 4

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

Am 11.08.2015 um 21:12 schrieb Chris Murphy: On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries Meanwhile, on OS X I was already given notification of Firefox being updated to 40.0.0 just a bit ago. And while I see Firefox 40

Re: package-cleanup after F21

Am 11.08.2015 um 21:22 schrieb Michael Schwendt: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:22:59 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: * package-cleanup don't work First time you say that. "package-cleanup --leaves" here certainly prints that lame warning about being a deprecated tool, but it's still available and fin

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Josh Stone wrote: > On 08/11/2015 12:12 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> Yet I see a Linux tar.bz2 for Firefox at downloads.mozilla.org so I >> wonder why that binary doesn't just run unmodified anywhere and I'm >> waiting for 40.0 to show up in Bodhi? > > If you don't s

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > FWIW, I installed that build from koji a few days ago. It crashed every 15 > minutes or so. Hence, I assumed the reason it's not in Bodhi was > intentional. > I haven't had any issues with it if you did, you should report it to Tom.

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) said: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries > > Meanwhile, on OS X I was already given notification of Firefox being > updated to 40.0.0 just a bit ago. And while I see Fir

Re: package-cleanup after F21

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 20:22:59 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > * package-cleanup don't work First time you say that. "package-cleanup --leaves" here certainly prints that lame warning about being a deprecated tool, but it's still available and finds 84 leaves on Rawhide (such as 43 -debuginfo packag

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries > > Meanwhile, on OS X I was already given notification of Firefox being > updated to 40.0.0 just a bit ago. And while I

Re: package-cleanup after F21

On 11.08.2015 20:22, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 11.08.2015 um 20:03 schrieb Marcin Haba: >> On 11.08.2015 19:00, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> >>> >>> Am 11.08.2015 um 18:12 schrieb Michael Schwendt: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:02:49 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> it *is not* a replacement because

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On 08/11/2015 12:12 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Yet I see a Linux tar.bz2 for Firefox at downloads.mozilla.org so I > wonder why that binary doesn't just run unmodified anywhere and I'm > waiting for 40.0 to show up in Bodhi? If you don't see the value of distro integration and testing, then by all

Re: package-cleanup after F21

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 13:29:39 -0400, Felix Miata wrote: > Reindl Harald composed on 2015-08-11 19:00 (UTC+0200): > > > Michael Schwendt composed: > > >> To which I pointed you at their manual, which explicitly comments on the > >> "package-cleanup --leaves" command you had tried before. > > > it

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries Meanwhile, on OS X I was already given notification of Firefox being updated to 40.0.0 just a bit ago. And while I see Firefox 40.0 in koji, there are no Bodhi entries for it, so

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > >> What packaging exceptions are being made for Firefox? > > > They can be found here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries > > -- > devel mailing list > de

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > What packaging exceptions are being made for Firefox? They can be found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinf

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

Once upon a time, Gerald B. Cox said: > I realize we have our guidelines and we're not Debian, Suse or Ubuntu... > and that's a good thing. But, if we're making exceptions for Firefox > because of it's popularity shouldn't we do the same for Chromium. What packaging exceptions are being made for

Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

There has been a lively discussion within KDE regarding the Konqueror browser; and subsequently it has been decided that a non-KDE, GTK browser will be the default for the spin. Why, because Firefox is the only choice for Fedora, Chromium is not allowed. Here is a good excerpt: On Tue, Aug 11, 2

Re: package-cleanup after F21

Am 11.08.2015 um 20:03 schrieb Marcin Haba: On 11.08.2015 19:00, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 11.08.2015 um 18:12 schrieb Michael Schwendt: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:02:49 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: it *is not* a replacement because "yum autoremove" existed and is a completly different beast No

Re: package-cleanup after F21

On 11.08.2015 19:00, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 11.08.2015 um 18:12 schrieb Michael Schwendt: >> On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:02:49 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > it *is not* a replacement because "yum autoremove" existed and is a > completly different beast > >> Now, whether the replacements works

Re: package-cleanup after F21

Am 11.08.2015 um 19:29 schrieb Felix Miata: Reindl Harald composed on 2015-08-11 19:00 (UTC+0200): Michael Schwendt composed: To which I pointed you at their manual, which explicitly comments on the "package-cleanup --leaves" command you had tried before. it *is not* a replacement becau

Re: package-cleanup after F21

Reindl Harald composed on 2015-08-11 19:00 (UTC+0200): > Michael Schwendt composed: >> To which I pointed you at their manual, which explicitly comments on the >> "package-cleanup --leaves" command you had tried before. > it *is not* a replacement because "yum autoremove" existed and is a > com

Re: package-cleanup after F21

Am 11.08.2015 um 18:12 schrieb Michael Schwendt: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:02:49 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: "dnf list autoremove" gives *nothing* while "dnf remove wget" as one of many samples could be removed without any deps - so i guess that's just working with the yumdb/dnfdb and is in *no

Re: package-cleanup after F21

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 18:02:49 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> "dnf list autoremove" gives *nothing* while "dnf remove wget" as one of > >> many samples could be removed without any deps - so i guess that's just > >> working with the yumdb/dnfdb and is in *no way* compareable with > >> "package-cle

Re: package-cleanup after F21

Am 11.08.2015 um 17:58 schrieb Michael Schwendt: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:46:28 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: See 'man yum2dnf' for more information. ^ ^^^ ^^ ^ (!) Scroll down to the bottom "dnf list autoremove" gives *nothing* while "dnf remove wget" as on

Re: package-cleanup after F21

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Am 11.08.2015 um 17:48 schrieb Igor Gnatenko: > Leaves and autoremove a bit different stuff.. You'd want to use > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf-plugins-extras/blob/mas ter/plugins/leaves.py > > I gave the leaves plugin a try a few

Re: package-cleanup after F21

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:46:28 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > >> See 'man yum2dnf' for more information. > >^ > >^^^ > >^^ > >^ > >(!) Scroll down to the bottom > > "dnf list autoremove" gives *nothing* while "dnf remove wget" as one of > many samples could be re

pghmcfc pushed to perl-Test-Kwalitee-Extra (perl-Test-Kwalitee-Extra-0.3.1-1.fc24). "Update to 0.3.1 (..more)"

This commit already existed in another branch. http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/perl-Test-Kwalitee-Extra.git/commit/?h=perl-Test-Kwalitee-Extra-0.3.1-1.fc24&id=3760098176b81aa4cd89c399d54898aafd6c -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel

Re: package-cleanup after F21

Am 11.08.2015 um 17:48 schrieb Igor Gnatenko: Leaves and autoremove a bit different stuff.. You'd want to use https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf-plugins-extras/blob/master/plugins/leaves.py i'd want to use Fedora with packages from Fedora and ignored until now F22, but trying F23

Re: package-cleanup after F21

Leaves and autoremove a bit different stuff.. You'd want to use https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf-plugins-extras/blob/master/plugins/leaves.py On Tue, Aug 11, 2015, 6:46 PM Reindl Harald wrote: > > > Am 11.08.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Michael Schwendt: > > On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:15:58 +

Re: package-cleanup after F21

Am 11.08.2015 um 17:34 schrieb Michael Schwendt: On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:15:58 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: so, upgraded to F23 with "dnf distro-sync" and how do dnf-developers and the people decided to replace yum at the moment imagine cleanup setups now? in fact after *every* dist-upgrade th

Re: package-cleanup after F21

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 17:15:58 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > so, upgraded to F23 with "dnf distro-sync" and how do dnf-developers and > the people decided to replace yum at the moment imagine cleanup setups now? > > in fact after *every* dist-upgrade there are obsolete packages left > because cha

package-cleanup after F21

so, upgraded to F23 with "dnf distro-sync" and how do dnf-developers and the people decided to replace yum at the moment imagine cleanup setups now? in fact after *every* dist-upgrade there are obsolete packages left because changed dependencies [root@rawhide data]# package-cleanup --leaves Y

Re: Boost updated to 1.58.0 in rawhide and f23

On 11/08/15 15:43 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 10/08/15 12:24 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 17:51:30 +0100 José Matos wrote: On Saturday 18 July 2015 12:46:51 Jonathan Wakely wrote: Hi, I've pushed a new version of Boost, 1.58.0, to rawhide and f23, which will require al

Re: Boost updated to 1.58.0 in rawhide and f23

On 10/08/15 12:24 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 17:51:30 +0100 José Matos wrote: On Saturday 18 July 2015 12:46:51 Jonathan Wakely wrote: > Hi, > > I've pushed a new version of Boost, 1.58.0, to rawhide and f23, > which will require all packages that depend on Boost to be rebui

New version of Copr (includes dist-git)

It is my pleasure to announce that we just upgraded https://copr.fedoraproject.org It includes several major improvements: * UI converted to PatternFly [1]. Most visible change is that tables (e.g. list of builds) can be sorted using any column and you can filter visible rows using any value.

Same comand names in /usr/bin and /usr/sbin

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015, Ben Boeckel > wrote: > On Mon, 10 Aug, 2015 at 18:50:52 GMT, Josh Stone wrote: > > Do emphasize *different* programs or packages, as there are legitimate > > self-contained cases -- /usr/bin/mock vs. /usr/sbin/mock for instance. > > Anyone who wants to chime in on this

rawhide report: 20150811 changes

Compose started at Tue Aug 11 05:15:05 UTC 2015 Broken deps for i386 -- [IQmol] IQmol-2.3.0-6.fc23.i686 requires libboost_serialization.so.1.57.0 IQmol-2.3.0-6.fc23.i686 requires libboost_iostreams.so.1.57.0 [Ray] Ray-m

Announcing the release of Fedora 23 Alpha!

Fedora 23 Alpha Release Announcement The Fedora 23 Alpha is here, right on schedule for our planned October final release. Download the prerelease from our Get Fedora site: * Get Fedora 23 Alpha Workstation:

F-23 Branched report: 20150811 changes

Compose started at Tue Aug 11 07:15:03 UTC 2015 Broken deps for armhfp -- [apache-scout] apache-scout-1.2.6-11.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.apache.juddi:uddi-ws) apache-scout-1.2.6-11.fc21.noarch requires mvn(org.apache.juddi:

Re: F24 System Wide Change: TeXLive 2015

On Tuesday 11 August 2015 07:28:26 Neal Becker wrote: > Is there somewhere I can see a summary of changes? Regarding texlive I saw it first on: http://www.latex-community.org/home/news/46-news-latex-distributions/517-texlive-2015 and the list of changes: http://www.tug.org/texlive/doc/texlive-en/

Re: F24 System Wide Change: TeXLive 2015

Is there somewhere I can see a summary of changes? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

rebase-helper updated to 0.6.0 from rawhide till F22

Hi folks, I've pushed a new version of rebase-helper, 0.6.0, to rawhide, F23, F22. Main project page is here [1]. Description of rebase-helper: This tool helps you to rebase package to the latest version using git rebase. The rebase-helper also run several diff tools like pkgdiff, abipkgdiff,

netpbm updated to 10.71.02 in rawhide and F23

Hi, I've pushed a new version of netpbm, 10.71.02, to rawhide and f23. Differences between packages (compared by abipkgdiff) are here: - netpbm [1] - netpbm-devel [2] - netpbm-doc [3] - netpbm-progs [4] Any problems rebuilding either open a bug or feel free to email me or ping me on IRC (my fre

F24 System Wide Change: TeXLive 2015

= Proposed System Wide Change: TeXLive 2015 = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/TeXLive2015 Change owner(s): Tom Callaway Update Fedora TeXLive packaging to 2015. == Detailed Description == Fedora's core latex support comes from TeXLive. We've been on 2014 for a while now, and 2015 is ou