On Thu, 2014-03-20 at 20:55 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> So offer something with equivalent functionality (and config file
> syntax compatibility), with a nice modern clean API and then systemd
> and others can be moved over to that 1 by 1, and once we've no more
> users left we can kill of the o
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 21:51 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Dominick Grift wrote:
> > No, that is a different discussion.
>
> Nonsense. That SELinux should be disabled is the whole point of this thread
> (I know, I have started it!), all the suggestions (in the various
>
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 19:10 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Never the less, I think this issue could have been prevented even before
> > a package was spun.
>
> Yes, by disabling SELinux by default. :-)
>
No, that is a different discussion. Disabling SELinux does nothing to
solve this. If anythi
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 22:54 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:17:20 +0100, Dominick Grift wrote:
>
> > >
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-0806/selinux-policy-3.12.1-116.fc20
> > >
>
> > Because you wo
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 21:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 21:06:29 +0100, Dominick Grift wrote:
>
> > Agreed, The testers did not fail. Their issues were solved.
>
> That doesn't match what one can read here:
>
>
> https://admin.fedor
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 11:14 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 19:26 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> I think that's being unnecessarily harsh on the testers. It's not at all
> obvious to anyone that you ought to test update/install of another
> package in order to validate a
