On Sun, 2017-12-17 at 11:09 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 12/17/2017 04:09 AM, Till Hofmann wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 12/17/2017 01:11 AM, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
> > > Sorry if this was discussed already, but it looks like Firefox 57
> > > on
> > >
Sorry if this was discussed already, but it looks like Firefox 57 on
Fedora 26 (and I assume 27 but have not checked) in the Fedora repo has
"extension.shield-recipe-client.enabled = true".
1) Is there a reason this is not turned off by default? This is being
used to install extensions without n
On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 11:11 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> If someone wants to package an addon, no problem - but they should
> keep it
> up-to-date.
>
> One issue that I think is problematic is test cases for addons within
> bodhi
> for firefox itself.
> You should not hold the release of the bro
On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 21:55 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Adam Williamson ect.org
> > wrote:
> >
> > (I don't understand why we package Firefox addons at all, it seems
> > like
> > a silly idea. But oh well.)
> >
> >
>
> +1 - Yeah, especially with the current a
Hi, I just installed this; it breaks the versions of AdBlockPlus,
HTTPSEverywhere, and Noscript I installed from the Fedora repo. Can we
revert to 56 until 57 at least does not break our own packages?
-- Ben
On Sat, 2017-11-11 at 20:17 +0100, Silvia Sánchez wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm using Firefox Quant
On Mon, 2016-06-06 at 16:34 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> On 06/06/2016 03:56 PM, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
> >
> > It took me three days to find the problem the last time systemd
> > caused
> > unexpected behavior on my system.
> What was this hard
On Wed, 2016-06-01 at 12:28 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 01/06/16 12:19, Howard Chu wrote:
>
> >
> > This is still looking at the problem back-asswards. The problem
> > isn't
> > that screen and tmux are special cases. The problem is that some
> > handful
> > of programs that got spawned in a GU
On Mon, 2016-05-30 at 12:05 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> The changed default here is really about defining the lifecycle of
> unprivileged code by privileged code, and thus about security.
Security against what? Who is the attacker? What is the threat model?
Bandying about the word "secu
On Sat, 2016-06-04 at 19:36 +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> On 06/02/2016 01:04 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> >
> > Well. Let's say you are responsible for the Linux desktops of a
> > large
> > security-senstive company (let's say bank, whatever), and the
> > desktops
> > are installed as fixe
On Sun, 2014-11-23 at 02:59 -0800, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
> Personally I prefer data over knee jerk reactions because honestly this is
> what I see going on. I don't see a demand from users that want a different
> default I see developers who want to choose a different default based on
> their ow
On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 17:14 +, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> On November 18, 2014 7:08:47 PM EET, Benjamin Kreuter
> wrote:
> >How about an opt-in requirement?
>
> Yes, that would make more sense.
> But I didn't opt-in to see commercial websites on gnome-shell either (a
On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 15:12 +0200, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> This is a moral judgment, so it's irrelevant for making a policy
> decision (from Fedora's point of view). Money or not, we need a
> consistent policy on advertisements for all upstream.
How about an opt-in requirement?
-- Ben
signatur
On Tue, 2014-11-18 at 11:15 +0200, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> >> I'm talking about the "advertisement" part. Some people seem to be
> >> bothered by this alone. Tiles feature indeed promotes some websites, but
> >> we already do that.
> >
> > No, actually we don't. We promote websites because we hones
Hi everyone,
I am trying to follow the procedure here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests#Package_Change_Requests_for_existing_packages
But I cannot set the fedora-cvs flag. Am I missing some sort of
permissions? What should I do?
Thanks,
Ben
--
Benjamin R Kreuter
U
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 20:30:54 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> I sort of got the impression that Benjamin was looking for the
> *upstream* maintainers ...?
Actually I was looking for Jerry; I took the rest of the discussion
off-list.
-- Ben
--
Benjamin R Kreuter
UVA Computer Science
brk..
I have tried to contact the coq and emacs-common-proofgeneral package
maintainers directly, but have not had much luck. If any of those
maintainers can shoot me an email, that would be great.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Benjamin R Kreuter
UVA Computer Science
brk...@virginia.edu
KK4FJZ
--
"If large numb
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 23:30:00 Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 09:03:02PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> > > However, I still think that changing memcpy away from years of "it just
> > > works" is an ABI change that should not be taken
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 23:27:48 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 11:26:31PM -0500, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 November 2010 22:59:54 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Pretty sure it doesn't point them out. It just breaks them.
> >
&g
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 22:59:54 Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:42:56AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Because it's NOT a bug in glibc, because what glibc does is CORRECT,
> > because it actually POINTS OUT bugs in applications which are
> > portability issues and can hur
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 16:43:48 Magnus Glantz wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 10:18 PM, Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
> >> 2) Create a work-around for the end-users (as has been done by several
> >> people in the BZ #638477-thread)
> >
> > This pretty much erases whate
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 15:58:28 Magnus Glantz wrote:
> I'm not saying that a broken Adobe Flash would stop Fedora from shipping.
>
> But.. if we notice that it's broken, we can:
> 1) Notify Adobe about it, so they -can- provide a fix. If they do not
> know, they can't fix it.. The Adobe dev
On Wednesday 17 November 2010 15:21:55 Magnus Glantz wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 09:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 08:57:20 +0100,
> >>
> >> Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> For those who do not know i
On Wednesday 10 November 2010 09:21:24 Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 11/09/2010 01:12 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> > X will run as a Wayland client. That means all applications that support
> > X will be able to run remotely without change. Since QT and GTK both run
> > on X and virtually all
23 matches
Mail list logo
