https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000256
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppi...@redhat.com
Depends On|
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Panu Matilainen
wrote:
> On 08/24/2013 03:12 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 02:28:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 23:15 +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
>>>
>>> So anyway - I think we need some best practice on
On 08/24/2013 03:12 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 02:28:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 23:15 +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
So anyway - I think we need some best practice on this. We definitely
need a 'if you absolutely must change a directory into
fre 2013-08-23 klockan 16:46 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
> But if
> I'm going to do it, I'd rather get the replace-dir-with-symlink stuff
> 'right' (for whatever value we decide is 'right') first time.
The shortest scriptlet I saw to remove a directory in pretrans is:
(see e.g.
http://pkgs.fedor
On 8/23/13, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> It's for case #2 that the exception got expanded to be allowed for
> webapp packages, but it's really not intended to just permit bundling
> to continue when you can just as easily unbundle. I'll look at
> tightening
Bah, that was supposed to say:
I'll loo
On 8/23/13, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 17:12 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> One further thought here:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:JavaScript#Static_Inclusion_of_Libraries
>>
>> Taking a static library approach is also allowed. This can save packa
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 17:12 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 02:28:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 23:15 +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
> >
> > So anyway - I think we need some best practice on this. We definitely
> > need a 'if you absolutely mus
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 02:28:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 23:15 +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
>
> So anyway - I think we need some best practice on this. We definitely
> need a 'if you absolutely must change a directory into a symlink (or a
> file, or the same operat
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 16:40 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > And, T.C., we probably need the Web Assets policy to set some
> > rules/guidelines on how best to achieve unbundling: should we always try
> > to patch the upstream to find th
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> And, T.C., we probably need the Web Assets policy to set some
> rules/guidelines on how best to achieve unbundling: should we always try
> to patch the upstream to find the 'official' location of the shared
> resource on Fedora? Should we a
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 01:53 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 22:05 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > As plupload is a .sh not a .as3 I *think* we may be able to build it
> > > with swfc. I'll see whether that'
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
> So what we found on irc :
>
> Since rpm first create the files for the new rpm that is installed, then
> remove the files that should be removed still present from old rpm and
> not in the new one, we fix the issue by waiting until the dire
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 06:36 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
>> Any chance you could just use an Alias in the apache config? Then you can
>> just
>> delete the directory and not muck around with making yum happy.
>
> Doesn't seem to work
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 23:15 +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
> > No, I've mostly left it as is since written, and adapted to additional
> > bundled PHP libs as needed. Testing was heavy at the time but has
> > been mimimal since. Conversely, it's been a long time since I've had
> > a BZ on any of t
Le vendredi 23 août 2013 à 14:19 -0500, Jon Ciesla a écrit :
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 13:57 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > Pretty? Nope. Overkill? Maybe? Reliable? So far.
>
> Are you sure? Does
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 13:57 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
>
> > Sorry, just noticed the gist of this thread. Are you trying to
> > replace a directory with a symlink? Take a look at gallery2:
> >
> >
> > Example.
> >
> >
> > In %install:
> >
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 13:57 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> Sorry, just noticed the gist of this thread. Are you trying to
> replace a directory with a symlink? Take a look at gallery2:
>
>
> Example.
>
>
> In %install:
> #remove bundled Smarty.
> rm -rf lib/smarty
> ln -s ../../php/Smarty2
> $
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 11:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > > You could just say "screw anaconda installs" and just use `rm -rf`.
> Though I
> > > tried that once, in *EPEL* even, and it only took a week for someone to
> > > complain.
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 11:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > You could just say "screw anaconda installs" and just use `rm -rf`. Though
> > I
> > tried that once, in *EPEL* even, and it only took a week for someone to
> > complain. :-(
>
> I suppose we could do it that way wrapped in an 'if' s
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 11:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Any chance you could just use an Alias in the apache config? Then you can
> > just
> > delete the directory and not muck around with making yum happy.
>
> Doesn't seem to work. Seems like it's just ignored: if I set it and move
> tin
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 06:36 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > All the upstream projects I found seemed to consider jumping to tinymce
> > 4 a rather large move. Debian packages 3 and 4 as separate packages. I
> > rather think we should d
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Just to cover my ass, this kind of symlinking is explicitly allowed by
> the draft new JavaScript policy:
>
> "Regardless, web applications may want to make subdirectories of
> %{_jsdir} available under their own directory via aliases or sy
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> All the upstream projects I found seemed to consider jumping to tinymce
> 4 a rather large move. Debian packages 3 and 4 as separate packages. I
> rather think we should do the same rather than just pretend they're the
> same thing and we'l
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 05:40 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> However, to do this, I run into the fucking
> convert-a-directory-to-a-symlink old chestnut, and RPM/yum just isn't
> having it. Following the breadcrumbs all over this list and Bugzilla I
> came up with this %pretrans:
>
> %pretrans -p
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 04:43 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> Thanks for tackling this!
>
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > So, tinymce has a 'media' plugin which lets you embed media in HTML
> > you're editing with it. If it thinks the media might need playing with
>
Thanks for tackling this!
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So, tinymce has a 'media' plugin which lets you embed media in HTML
> you're editing with it. If it thinks the media might need playing with
> Flash, it'll generate HTML that tries to use a Flash player -
> moxiep
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 04:03 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Just nuking moxieplayer.swf doesn't stop tinymce generating HTML that
> looks for it, so that's not really the way to go. But I think I found a
> way to patch the plugin not to try and use moxieplayer.swf and just to
> spit out nice clean
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 13:45 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf)
> files,
> but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
> toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these files.
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 13:45 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf)
> files,
> but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
> toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these files.
On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 22:05 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > As plupload is a .sh not a .as3 I *think* we may be able to build it
> > with swfc. I'll see whether that's possible.
>
> plupload looks like, well, a giant pain in the ass.
On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> As plupload is a .sh not a .as3 I *think* we may be able to build it
> with swfc. I'll see whether that's possible.
plupload looks like, well, a giant pain in the ass. It depends on a bit
called moxie which is just kinda smooshed into th
On 8/15/13, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf)
> files,
> but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
> toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these
> files.
> :-(
>
> It has nev
On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 20:20 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> On 8/22/13, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Looked into this a bit further this afternoon. Both swfupload and
> > plupload are open source projects, but Wordpress ships compiled binaries
> > in its 'source tarball', there is no build system
On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 20:20 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> What were the people who made this thing thinking, anyway?
"UPLOAD WIDGETS FOR ALL THE THINGS!!!11", I think.
If we could actually build the blobs I was thinking of setting up the
package to build them in a separate tree then drop th
On 8/22/13, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Looked into this a bit further this afternoon. Both swfupload and
> plupload are open source projects, but Wordpress ships compiled binaries
> in its 'source tarball', there is no build system in there for them at
> all. Wordpress posts the sources for them on
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 01:42 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 15:41 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> > WordPress?
> >
> > Not easy.
>
> Two of the ones in wordpress are both in upload libraries - plupload and
> swfupload. Both are present in the source tarball, it doesn't look
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 19:17 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > I just fixed these and gallery3, no need to file BZs, unless you'd like to
> > for tracking. Additional testers welcome!
>
> Nah, I'll rerun the query in the script that files BZ
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> I just fixed these and gallery3, no need to file BZs, unless you'd like to
> for tracking. Additional testers welcome!
Nah, I'll rerun the query in the script that files BZs later on.
Although if one of you ends up crippling your package by d
There are several options for uploading multiple files from browsers -
and the latest versions of all modern browsers support multiple file
selection.
A random example is this one:
https://github.com/blueimp/jQuery-File-Upload
With information about browser support here:
https://github.com/blueim
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 09:09:09AM +0200, Johan De Taeye wrote:
> T.C.,
>
> >>Please remove this prohibited content from your packages, or ensure that
> >>any included .swf files are built from source using a free software
> >>toolchain like `swfc` during the %build phase.
>
> The single SWF file
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth <
tchollingswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf)
> files,
> but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
> toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:42:25AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I don't know how many plugins that affects, but at least not core
> WordPress. The bad news is that, as that text mentions, Plupload is
> Wordpress's "library of choice", and it's the other thing with a .swf
> file. I don't have Fla
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 15:41 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> WordPress?
>
> Not easy.
Two of the ones in wordpress are both in upload libraries - plupload and
swfupload. Both are present in the source tarball, it doesn't look like
they're built during source compile.
It looks like we could lift
WordPress?
Not easy.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Dan Mashal wrote:
> Forgive me if I sound rude and correct me if I'm wrong, but arent the
> free versions of Flash pretty useless as well?
We're talking about SWF compilers here, not players. There are free
compiler tools that work just fine for certain applicati
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Ananda Samaddar wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:46:36 -0700
> Yes they are. Flash is slowly dying though, only to be replaced by DRM
> in html5. Out of the frying pan...
>
> Ananda
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedorap
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:46:36 -0700
Dan Mashal wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Orion Poplawski
> > wrote:
> >> Thanks. Turns out ckeditor also had a raw .fla file. I don't
> >> know if any package would have a .fla with
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> Thanks. Turns out ckeditor also had a raw .fla file. I don't know if any
>> package would have a .fla without a .swf, but it might be worth checking
>> for.
>
> Thanks for poi
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Thanks. Turns out ckeditor also had a raw .fla file. I don't know if any
> package would have a .fla without a .swf, but it might be worth checking
> for.
Thanks for pointing that out!
.fla files are source files, so it's not strictly a
On 08/15/2013 02:45 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf) files,
but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these files.
:-(
It has never
It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf) files,
but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these files.
:-(
It has never been permissible to included prebuilt files of this
51 matches
Mail list logo
