Re: Moving lspci and setpci from /sbin to /usr/sbin?

On 01/29/2010 07:19 AM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote: > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> Consider taking out /usr from your fstab and to check how far you can get. >> With /sbin/lspci you will be able to check your pci setup, with >> /usr/sbin/lspci, you wouldn't. > > False.

Re: best practice for packing programs that use strlcpy()?

On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 23:38 -0800, Eric Smith wrote: > Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > You could probably package up libbsd for inclusion: > > http://libbsd.freedesktop.org/wiki/ > > > That's exactly the kind of thing I was hoping to find. I've submitted a > package for review: > > https://bug

Update on packages violating the Static Library guidelines

Bugzilla status for packages violating the Static Library guidelines: acl 556036 -> CLOSED atlas 556037 attr556038 -> CLOSED audit 556039 binutils

Re: abrt not working in current Rawhide?

On 01/28/2010 11:52 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 10:21 -0500, Neil Horman wrote: C'mon do we really need to make this into a fight? The reason why I didn't implement it is that it would be temporary anyway and thus doesn't worth the work, because it's not just that 10 lines

Re: Moving lspci and setpci from /sbin to /usr/sbin?

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:32:15 +0100 Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Presuming /sbin/lspci is supposed to work without having /usr/ > mounted, then libpci.so.X needs to reside in /lib|/lib64. > > Or differently: Everything in /bin and /sbin, must only be > dynamically linked against libraries in /lib|/lib6

Re: Moving lspci and setpci from /sbin to /usr/sbin?

On 1/29/2010 2:38 PM, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:32:15 +0100 > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > >> Presuming /sbin/lspci is supposed to work without having /usr/ >> mounted, then libpci.so.X needs to reside in /lib|/lib64. >> >> Or differently: Everything in /bin and /sbin

Re: abrt not working in current Rawhide?

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 01:26:23PM +0100, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: > On 01/28/2010 11:52 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 10:21 -0500, Neil Horman wrote: > > > >>>C'mon do we really need to make this into a fight? The reason why I > >>>didn't implement it is that it would be tempora

Re: Beware: Thunderbird (ver 3.0.1) CORRUPTS all email state

Sorry for my delayed response... On 01/28/2010 05:58 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Steve Dickson writes: > >> I guess I have a different definition of crap... ;-) >> >> I have been on both sides of these bugs... So I know (the hard way) >> when you push something out that breaks existing configur

Re: Moving lspci and setpci from /sbin to /usr/sbin?

> What if we link the lspci and lsusb as static binaries? That would allow > us not to break the filesystem architecture and have usable tools. You'd still miss pci.ids without /usr, so that would have to move too. Only place remotely suitable for that - not being beneath /usr or /var - would be /

Re: Moving lspci and setpci from /sbin to /usr/sbin?

On 29 January 2010 14:16, Maxim Burgerhout wrote: >> What if we link the lspci and lsusb as static binaries? That would allow >> us not to break the filesystem architecture and have usable tools. > > You'd still miss pci.ids without /usr, so that would have to move too. > Only place remotely suita

rawhide report: 20100129 changes

Compose started at Fri Jan 29 08:15:08 UTC 2010 Broken deps for i386 -- doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1 easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires libboost_serialization-mt.so.5 1:fife-devel-0.3.0-1.fc13

Re: Beware: Thunderbird (ver 3.0.1) CORRUPTS all email state

Adam Williamson wrote: > There was a clear failure in this process, though, which was that the > update was sent straight to updates and did not go through > updates-testing. I can't see any reason why that should be acceptable > for an update to a very popular package which manipulates data that

Re: Purging the F13 orphans

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 03:04:20PM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote: > Colin Walters wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > >> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:01:25AM +0200, Alexander Kurtakov wrote: > >> > >>> How can I take jna-posix? I need it for one of my projects

Re: RFC: Remove write permissions from executables

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 09:43:09AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Richard Zidlicky (r...@linux-m68k.org): > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 11:11:41AM -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > > > > > > All in all I think it's a shame that the original proposal didn't work > > > > out at this time. Havin

Reordering in package changelogs (was Re: rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:45 +, Rawhide Report wrote: [snip] Looks like whatever generates this report is reordering items in the changelog relative to the %changelog in the specfile, but in some surprising ways; is this a known issue? Normally the items in a %changelog are in order most-rece

Re: Reordering in package changelogs (was Re: rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:59 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > Here's where it gets weird: > 0.6.10-1 then 0.6.10-2 then 0.6.9-4 then 0.6.9-2 seems an arbitrary > ordering: It is only weird/inverted when the date are the same. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.f

Re: Reordering in package changelogs (was Re: rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

On 29 January 2010 17:00, Pierre-Yves wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:59 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: >> Here's where it gets weird: >> 0.6.10-1 then 0.6.10-2 then 0.6.9-4 then 0.6.9-2 seems an arbitrary >> ordering: > It is only weird/inverted when the date are the same. > > Pierre > -- > devel

I am an unresponsive maintainer?

Hi, I just heard I might be put through the "unresponsive maintainer process" in Fedora? I'm a little confused as I've never received emails on this, and I'm always on irc and read fedora-devel and still perform very regular package updates. Can someone tell me what's going on, and forward me em

Re: best practice for packing programs that use strlcpy()?

Eric Smith wrote: > What is considered the best practice for packaging a program that uses > strlcpy()? > Is there a Fedora library that provides strlcpy() and friends? > Should I add an implmentation of strlcpy() to the package as an > additional source or patch? > Should I modify the program to n

Re: I am an unresponsive maintainer?

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 12:08 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote: > Hi, > > I just heard I might be put through the "unresponsive maintainer process" > in Fedora? I'm a little confused as I've never received emails on this, > and I'm always on irc and read fedora-devel and still perform very regular > packag

Re: I am an unresponsive maintainer?

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010, Paul Wouters wrote: > Subject: I am an unresponsive maintainer? > I just heard I might be put through the "unresponsive maintainer process" > in Fedora? I'm a little confused as I've never received emails on this, > and I'm always on irc and read fedora-devel and still perfor

Re: Reordering in package changelogs (was Re: rawhide report: 20100129 changes)

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 17:04 +, Mat Booth wrote: > On 29 January 2010 17:00, Pierre-Yves wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:59 -0500, David Malcolm wrote: > >> Here's where it gets weird: > >> 0.6.10-1 then 0.6.10-2 then 0.6.9-4 then 0.6.9-2 seems an arbitrary > >> ordering: > > It is only wei

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On 01/28/2010 10:44 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > We are doing another image drop today for rawhide acceptance testing. A > number of issues were found during the last test run, we may have usable > images this run that we can publish as "last known good". > Am I looking in the wrong place for rawhi

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 10:51 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Am I looking in the wrong place for rawhide install images these days? > They used to be in development//os/images, which would appear when > that part of the build succeeded. As part of No Frozen Rawhide, we no longer make images for

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On 01/29/2010 10:53 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > As part of No Frozen Rawhide, we no longer make images for the rawhide > tree. Rawhide is just a repo of packages. When we branch for Alpha > we'll publish the release to be in it's own tree path with images > nightly. Rawhide will move on to F14 st

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On 01/29/2010 12:59 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 01/29/2010 10:53 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: >> As part of No Frozen Rawhide, we no longer make images for the rawhide >> tree. Rawhide is just a repo of packages. When we branch for Alpha >> we'll publish the release to be in it's own tree path wi

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On 01/29/2010 10:08 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > On 01/29/2010 12:59 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> On 01/29/2010 10:53 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: >>> As part of No Frozen Rawhide, we no longer make images for the rawhide >>> tree. Rawhide is just a repo of packages. When we branch for Alpha >>>

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 10:59 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 01/29/2010 10:53 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > > As part of No Frozen Rawhide, we no longer make images for the rawhide > > tree. Rawhide is just a repo of packages. When we branch for Alpha > > we'll publish the release to be in it's ow

[Bug 560066] perl-Date-Manip needs to be updated to version 6.05

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=560066 Jonathan Kamens changed: What|Removed |Added ---

Re: RawTherapee now GPLv3 -- anyone else interested?

On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 03:40:52PM +0100, jan.kle...@brandforge.sk wrote: > I'm working on packaging already. How's it going? Any help needed? -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedorapro

Re: Purging the F13 orphans

On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 23:24 -0500, Patrick Dignan wrote: > On 01/28/2010 07:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 09:10 -0500, Patrick Dignan wrote: > > > > > >> I'll take nautilus-python. I spoke with upstream to confirm they had no > >> intention of picking it up. > >>

Re: Moving lspci and setpci from /sbin to /usr/sbin?

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 14:57 +0200, Sergey Rudchenko wrote: > On 1/29/2010 2:38 PM, Hans Ulrich Niedermann wrote: > > On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:32:15 +0100 > > Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > >> Presuming /sbin/lspci is supposed to work without having /usr/ > >> mounted, then libpci.so.X needs to

Re: disk woes: revive w/o-reboot after SATA "START_STOP FAILED"?

Jim Meyering wrote: > Hello, > > I've just returned one relatively new disk drive[*], > and hope I'm not about to return another... > > [*] It was a 1TB Samsung ecogreen, and some strenuous testing > would reliably provoke I/O errors which would apparently > damage the disk enough to

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:03 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > We have attempted to create test images at a few points before Alpha, > when Anaconda team is ready for testing and leading up to the freeze so > that we can identify blockers prior to the freeze. If any of these > happens to work we would

Draft privilege escalation policy for comments

Hi, everyone. Since the big PackageKit brouhaha surrounding Fedora 12, there's been a discussion surrounding the need for a policy about privilege escalation in Fedora. Representing the QA group, we would like for there to be such a policy in order to allow a meaningful review of privilege escalati

update means only runlevel 1

i did an update this morning that took my machine from current rawhide to a few koji updates. included were dracut, udev and i memory serves me right, a minor initscript cleanup. now i can't get any farther than runlevell 1. going to even runlevel 3 hangs. any suggestions of what might be broken?

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On 01/29/2010 02:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 11:03 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> We have attempted to create test images at a few points before Alpha, >> when Anaconda team is ready for testing and leading up to the freeze so >> that we can identify blockers prior to th

Re: update means only runlevel 1

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:11 PM, darrell pfeifer wrote: > i did an update this morning that took my machine from current rawhide > to a few koji updates. included were dracut, udev and i memory serves > me right, a minor initscript cleanup. > > now i can't get any farther than runlevell 1. going t

Re: Draft privilege escalation policy for comments

Hi Adam, On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi, everyone. Since the big PackageKit brouhaha surrounding Fedora 12, > there's been a discussion surrounding the need for a policy about > privilege escalation in Fedora. Representing the QA group, we would like > for there to b

Re: Upcoming Fedora 13 Tasks - install images

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 15:13 -0800, John Reiser wrote: > > The last entry on > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2010-January/date.html > is for 09 January 2010, which is almost three weeks ago. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2010-January/date.html -- Jesse Keat

Re: update means only runlevel 1

On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 15:15, Tom London wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 3:11 PM, darrell pfeifer > wrote: > > i did an update this morning that took my machine from current rawhide > > to a few koji updates. included were dracut, udev and i memory serves > > me right, a minor initscript clean

How about firefox 3.6 in Fedora 12 ?

Hi, I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.5.6 for a rather long time. What about 3.5.7 and the recently 3.6? They are even not in koji. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Draft privilege escalation policy for comments

On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 18:40 -0500, Colin Walters wrote: > > Please do provide any and all feedback on the proposed policy. if we can > > get it into a shape which most people on the list would find acceptable, > > my next step will be to take it back to FESco for them to review. > > Thanks. > > S

Re: Draft privilege escalation policy for comments

Adam Williamson wrote: > Please do provide any and all feedback on the proposed policy. if we can > get it into a shape which most people on the list would find acceptable, > my next step will be to take it back to FESco for them to review. > Thanks. >From the proposal: > Add, remove, upgrade or

Re: How about firefox 3.6 in Fedora 12 ?

Liu Yu Fei Eric wrote: > I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.5.6 for a rather long time. > What about 3.5.7 and the recently 3.6? They are even not in koji. http://blog.famillecollet.com/post/2010/01/22/Firefox-3.6-en Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https:/