Hello,
Le 07/03/2010 20:42, Ville Skyttä a écrit :
>> If I change the path in conf.d/BackupPC.conf ; users who have modified
>> the .conf file will get a conf.rpmnew file ; that's fine.
>>
> If apache.users moves from /usr/share/BackupPC to /etc/BackupPC, it'll break
> these setups because t
On Saturday 06 March 2010 19:38:16 Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> 2010/3/6 Naheem Zaffar :
> > 2010/3/6 Michał Piotrowski
> >
> >> Why I can install KDE 4.4 in F11 and I can't install latest gnome?
> >> (I'm just asking because I'm curious, not because I use Linux on
> >> desktop)
> >
> > I think fo
On Friday 05 March 2010 18:37:06 Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> > As I had expected, breaking up the monolithic
> > packages into individual packages is a whole lot
> > of unnecessary work. Better to provide releases
> > as they occur, than to waste time unnecessarily
> > br
On Saturday 06 March 2010 23:48:23 Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 03/07/2010 12:25 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 5:16 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >> +1, Michał! People who want the latest and greatest have already updated
> >> to F12 months ago anyway, so there is not much use in
Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, it's 34-8 -
> that's over 80% - in favour of 'adventurous' updates.
Advanced users (those most likely to want a more stable rawhide to use it as
primary system) use irc, mailing list
On 03/08/2010 11:20 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Major KDE update was in time of Fedora 9, so it's not an issue today.
>
> And this it the first problem - we should not call major, minor, bugfix
> release
> because it doesn't mean the same for every each app out in the wild!!!
Yes, it can get con
On Monday 08 March 2010 10:41:18 Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 11:20 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > Major KDE update was in time of Fedora 9, so it's not an issue today.
> >
> > And this it the first problem - we should not call major, minor, bugfix
> > release because it doesn't mean the sa
For now in fedora there are 11 packages which contains language
mutations of man-pages (man-pages-{cs,da,de,es,fr,it,ja,ko,pl,ru,uk})
and man-pages package.
Only 2 of them (man-pages-es, man-pages-it) requires man package. I
think man dependences should be consistent in all man-pages*
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> Yes, it can get confusing. I think it was Kevin Kofler who suggested to
>> talk about "feature releases" vs. "bugfix releases" instead
>> to avoid confusion.
>
> Again you can't cut bugfixes from features :(
Again, you can't cut regressions from fea
The latest sos update is not signed:
[hugh...@hughsie-t61 packages]$ rpm -qp sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm
warning: sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature,
key ID 57bbccba: NOKEY
This causes PackageKit to barf. How come this update was pushed
without a signature and all the other a
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:42:00 +, Richard wrote:
> The latest sos update is not signed:
>
> [hugh...@hughsie-t61 packages]$ rpm -qp sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm
> warning: sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature,
> key ID 57bbccba: NOKEY
That means you don't have the key installe
Am Montag, den 08.03.2010, 12:27 +0200 schrieb Juha Tuomala:
> Again, you can't cut regressions from features :(
>
> To name few, your last push comes with:
> - kmail that can't anymore 'Add address to book'.
> - kaddressbook doesn't have 'Merge' feature anymore.
> - kaddressbook View, Edit, Tool
On 8 March 2010 10:59, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> That means you don't have the key installed:
This is a fresh F13 pre-alpha spin, updated last a few days ago.
> $ rpm -Kv sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm
> sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm:
> Header V3 RSA/SHA256 signature: OK, key ID 57bbccba
> Header S
On 7 March 2010 20:18, Neal Becker wrote:
> Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
> 64/215
> libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in module:
> type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
> n_t (No such file or directory).
> libsemanage.semanage_link_sandbo
Past months I spent investigating `gold' - the new GNU linker
and how it now works with stock Fedora packages.
Result is `gold-rebuild', Bash script which automates `gold's
involvement in Mock buildroot. Tarball can be obtained here:
http://mnowak.fedorapeople.org/gold-rebuild/dist/
What it can
- "Michal Nowak" wrote:
> See attachment for complete list. Regarding fails, they are being
Here is comes.
Michal[ GROUP @Base PACKAGES REBUILD ]
ld: CVS snapshot from date: 20100303
gcc: gcc-4.4.3-4.fc12 (likely, just a guess)
kernel: Linux assam 2.6.32.9-67.fc12.x86_64 #1 SMP Sat Feb 27
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 06:44:18AM -0500, Michal Nowak wrote:
> So far when rebuilding Base group: TOTAL: 99 PASS: 84 FAIL: 15
> See attachment for complete list. Regarding fails, they are being
> classified by the script so you can easily figure out, where might
> be the problem (GCC v. gold v. fe
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 11:20:45 +, Richard wrote:
> > That means you don't have the key installed:
>
> This is a fresh F13 pre-alpha spin, updated last a few days ago.
>
> > $ rpm -Kv sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm
> > sos-1.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm:
> > Header V3 RSA/SHA256 signature: OK, key ID 57bbc
Hi,
what kind of karma threshold is set for the kernel?
The page in bodhi says it has a karma of 9, but if you count it, it's
13+ and 10-
And the kernel got -5 since it's pushed to stable. Shouldn't that one
stay out of stable for now?
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/kernel-2.6.32.9-67.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:36:18PM +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>Hi,
>
>what kind of karma threshold is set for the kernel?
>
>The page in bodhi says it has a karma of 9, but if you count it, it's
>13+ and 10-
>
>And the kernel got -5 since it's pushed to stable. Shouldn't that one
>stay out of sta
mercurial and tortoise-hg need (generally) to be pushed in sync. They
are maintained by 2 different people. What are suggested ways to make sure
pushes are synchronized?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:09:43AM -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
>mercurial and tortoise-hg need (generally) to be pushed in sync. They
>are maintained by 2 different people. What are suggested ways to make sure
>pushes are synchronized?
The maintainers should coordinate, and one of them should bu
Hello All!
I just found that many java-related packages have packaging issues,
and one of them draws my attention - explicit "Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}" in some *-javadoc packages. Since my java
experience is rather small, I would like to ask you, dear List,
whether %{name}-javadoc
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 08:20 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> The maintainers should coordinate, and one of them should bundle both packages
> into a single bodhi update. It's the only way to guarantee they get pushed at
> the same time.
>
> josh
They would need commit rights for both packages.
--
leigh scott wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 08:20 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> The maintainers should coordinate, and one of them should bundle both
>> packages
>> into a single bodhi update. It's the only way to guarantee they get
>> pushed at the same time.
>>
>> josh
>
> They would need com
What is the new process to push an update to F-13 between alpha and beta? The
packages I have in mind are out of the set of critical packages.
--
Laurent Rineau
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LaurentRineau
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailma
On 8 March 2010 11:44, Michal Nowak wrote:
> Past months I spent investigating `gold' - the new GNU linker
> and how it now works with stock Fedora packages.
Using gold, I get:
/usr/bin/ld: --no-add-needed: unknown option
/usr/bin/ld: use the --help option for usage information
collect2: ld retu
Le Lundi 8 Mars 2010 11:25:40, Ivana Hutarova Varekova a écrit :
> For now in fedora there are 11 packages which contains language
> mutations of man-pages (man-pages-{cs,da,de,es,fr,it,ja,ko,pl,ru,uk})
> and man-pages package.
> Only 2 of them (man-pages-es, man-pages-it) requires man pa
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:28:29AM -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
>leigh scott wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 08:20 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>>> The maintainers should coordinate, and one of them should bundle both
>>> packages
>>> into a single bodhi update. It's the only way to guarantee they
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:22:48PM +, leigh scott wrote:
>On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 08:20 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> The maintainers should coordinate, and one of them should bundle both
>> packages
>> into a single bodhi update. It's the only way to guarantee they get pushed
>> at
>> the sam
On 03/07/2010 09:48 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
> Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
> 64/215
> libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in module:
> type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
> n_t (No such file or directory).
> libsemanage.semanage_link_sand
Michal Nowak writes:
> Past months I spent investigating `gold' - the new GNU linker
> and how it now works with stock Fedora packages.
> [...]
Do your scripts provide some evidence of exciting speedups with gold?
- FChE
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorap
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:24:29AM -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Michal Nowak writes:
>
> > Past months I spent investigating `gold' - the new GNU linker
> > and how it now works with stock Fedora packages.
> > [...]
>
> Do your scripts provide some evidence of exciting speedups with gold?
O
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:36:18PM +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>what kind of karma threshold is set for the kernel?
>>
>>The page in bodhi says it has a karma of 9, but if you count it, it's
>>13+ and 10-
>>
>>And the kernel got -5 sin
On 08/03/10 13:29, Laurent Rineau wrote:
> What is the new process to push an update to F-13 between alpha and beta? The
> packages I have in mind are out of the set of critical packages.
The same process you would use to push an update to F-12 - Bodhi.
Paul.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fe
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 19:32 +, Branched Report wrote:
>
> Updated Packages:
>
> avrdude-5.10-1.fc12
> ---
> * Fri Feb 19 2010 Bart Vanbrabant - 5.10-1
> - New upstream version. Several new devices and programmers supported. Some
> bugfixes and a new features to apply ext
Josh Boyer wrote:
> 2) Karma after it goes to stable is good for informational purposes, but it
> will not cause an update to get removed from Stable. We don't back out
> updates
> after that are pushed stable except in very rare cases.
I'll ask again:
Why does bodhi accept karma or comments a
A segfaulty version of KDE filelight seems to have been pushed into
F13, F12 and (astonishingly) F11. Just filing a bug about that one ...
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
Fedora now suppo
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:55:34AM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>Josh Boyer wrote:
>> 2) Karma after it goes to stable is good for informational purposes, but it
>> will not cause an update to get removed from Stable. We don't back out
>> updates
>> after that are pushed stable except in ver
My F-13 system produces the following output from yum list extras:
Extra Packages
glibc.i686 2.11.90-14
installed
glibc-common.i686 2.11.90-14
installed
glibc-devel.i686 2.11.90-14
@updates-testing
glibc-headers.i686
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Quentin Armitage wrote:
> The glibc packages (including nscd) were in updates-testing, but have
> been obsoleted, and so 2.11.90-12 is now the current version again. What
> is the mechanism for becoming aware that a package that has been
> installed through updates-testing ha
So I submitted a rebuild for libguestfs in F-13 (just now). This
was built against:
plymouth-core-libs 0.8.0-0.20100114.2.fc13
But the version of plymouth that I get when I install plymouth from
F-13 updates-testing on a local machine (after
'yum --enablerepo=\* clean all') is:
plymouth-core-l
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 03:29:37PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>So I submitted a rebuild for libguestfs in F-13 (just now). This
>was built against:
>
>plymouth-core-libs 0.8.0-0.20100114.2.fc13
Yes, that's what in dist-f13. You can view this with:
koji latest-pkg dist-f13
or for the b
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:37:43AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> The buildroots are populated from packages in the:
>
> dist-f13
> dist-f13-override
> dist-f12-updates
>
> tags. If a package isn't in one of those tags, it's not going to be in the
> buildroot. If you need to build against a newer v
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit :
>
> > The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, it's 34-8 -
> > that's over 80% - in favour of 'adventurous' updates.
>
> Advanced users (those most likely to want a
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=570979
--- Comment #3 from Iain Arnell 2010-03-08 11:07:52 EST ---
Sorry, all, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I know that upstream
Compose started at Mon Mar 8 08:15:10 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
ale-0.9.0.3-2.fc12.i686 requires libMagickCore.so.2
autotrace-0.31.1-23.fc12.i686 requires libMagickCore.so.2
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires l
On Monday 08 March 2010, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> On 03/07/2010 09:48 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
> > Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
> >
> > 64/215
> > libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in
> > module: type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
> > n
Hi All,
I am looking at building a fedora package. I have been over guidelines
and taken a look at the build system. What I am not clear on is how I
maintain spec files for different distributions i.e., F12, F11, F10, or
even EPEL.
Do I have to branch and maintain each spec file separately o
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Matt Ford wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I am looking at building a fedora package. I have been over guidelines
> and taken a look at the build system. What I am not clear on is how I
> maintain spec files for different distributions i.e., F12, F11, F10, or
> even EPEL.
In
Le Lun 8 mars 2010 17:05, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> I don't think that's an assertion you have any kind of evidence to
> support. It's really quite sad that half the people who've responded to
> the poll have done so by attempting to poke holes in it, as it happens
> not to line up with what t
On 03/08/2010 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>> Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit :
>>
>>> The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, it's 34-8 -
>>> that's over 80% - in favour of 'adventurous' updates
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 13:15 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:04:31 -0800
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> > What do people make of this?
>
> I'm no expert on polls/polling, but I suspect that many of the people
> who are more interested in a 'stable/less updates' Fe
On Monday 08 March 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> I just found that many java-related packages have packaging issues,
> and one of them draws my attention - explicit "Requires: %{name} =
> %{version}-%{release}" in some *-javadoc packages. Since my java
> experience is rather small,
Start End Name
Thu 04-Mar Tue 09-Mar Stage & Sync Alpha to Mirrors
Tue 09-Mar Tue 09-Mar Alpha Public Availability
Tue 09-Mar Tue 23-Mar Alpha Testing
Fri 12-Mar Fri 12-Mar Beta Blocker Meeting (F13Beta) #1
Tue 16-Mar Tue 16-Mar Software: Start Rebuild all translated package
From package guideline
Requiring Base Package
Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. Usually, subpackages
other than -devel should also require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:05:12AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> If you think the poll is wrong - provide some data to disprove it.
> Counteracting it with yet more assertions built on precisely no evidence
> is not convincing.
The evidence that it's wrong is that it's a self-selected sample se
I would like to transfer ownership of the libedit package to Kamil
Dudka (kdudka). I am a bit wary of PackageDB transferring not letting
me select the new owner. Could someone please take care of it or
advise what I need to do about this?
I do not want to remain as a co-maintainer.
Thanks,
Debars
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:27:07PM +0200, Juha Tuomala wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >> Yes, it can get confusing. I think it was Kevin Kofler who suggested to
> >> talk about "feature releases" vs. "bugfix releases" instead
> >> to avoid confusion.
> >
> > Again yo
On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Steve Traylen wrote:
>>
> It is true that the separate .spec files are maintained separately. What many
> people try and do is maintain them as identical, at least at the start.
> Have a look at:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/DistTag#Conditionals
> of co
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 20:07 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:14:38AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:27 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > > Especially it needs to be made sure that only bugs created prior to
> > > adding "F13" to RedHat Bugzilla or the
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 10:07:05 -0500, Josh wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:55:34AM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> >Josh Boyer wrote:
> >> 2) Karma after it goes to stable is good for informational purposes, but it
> >> will not cause an update to get removed from Stable. We don't back out
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=569298
--- Comment #1 from Chris Weyl 2010-03-08 13:26:07 EST
---
I'm trying to avoid EPEL at the moment, but I have no problems with
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=569295
--- Comment #1 from Chris Weyl 2010-03-08 13:26:08 EST
---
I'm trying to avoid EPEL at the moment, but I have no problems with
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=569301
--- Comment #1 from Chris Weyl 2010-03-08 13:26:07 EST
---
I'm trying to avoid EPEL at the moment, but I have no problems with
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=569299
--- Comment #1 from Chris Weyl 2010-03-08 13:26:08 EST
---
I'm trying to avoid EPEL at the moment, but I have no problems with
On Monday 08 March 2010, Chen Lei wrote:
> Requiring Base Package
>
> Devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
> dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}. Usually,
> subpackages other than -devel should also require the base package using a
> fully version
Last time I looked at the admin logs for Fedoraforum i.e who's voted ,
there was at least 15 votes from Fedora project members.
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 18:12 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Adam, if you can't realise that the users most likely to haunt a support forum
> are the people most like
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:26 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Quentin Armitage wrote:
>
> > The glibc packages (including nscd) were in updates-testing, but have
> > been obsoleted, and so 2.11.90-12 is now the current version again. What
> > is the mechanism for becoming aware tha
BJ Dierkes wrote:
>
> On Mar 8, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Steve Traylen wrote:
>
>>>
>> It is true that the separate .spec files are maintained separately. What
>> many people try and do is maintain them as identical, at least at the
>> start. Have a look at:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packagin
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Nah. The same way you could consider all bodhi comments "spam". If you
> are the first commenter of a popular package, you receive lots of
> notifications for all subsequent comments (where sometimes people
> even use bodhi to argue about something).
Michael, how is posti
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 20:47 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Then make it 3 months, 4 months... Leave it in testing forever if you
> get too many complaints. But make it available for those who want it.
This is not the purpose of updates-testing, it is not an alternative
update repo. It is there for
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 22:17 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> And as you obviously didn't finish reading my sentence, that is not
> the only solution I proposed. Read again, there is a 0 additional repo
> proposal too.
Having multiple package versions in a single repository is essentially
like having
Compose started at Mon Mar 8 09:15:17 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires lib
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=552616
--- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-03-08 13:41:11 EST ---
Hey Spot. Any news here? Have you had a chance to look at the tests?
On 03/08/2010 06:28 AM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> On 7 March 2010 20:18, Neal Becker wrote:
>
>> Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
>> 64/215
>> libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in module:
>> type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
>> n_t (No
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 09:48 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
> 64/215
> libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in module:
> type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
> n_t (No such file or directory).
> libsemanage
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=571514
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398603&action=diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398603&action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-dev
Hi, Fedora 12 was planned to have installation of packages without
users needing to enter root password.
How do I enable this feature via PolicyKit?
I read this article:
http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/polkit-and-package-kit-and-changing-settings/
but even after doing that it is still the
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:29:23 -0600, Michael wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Nah. The same way you could consider all bodhi comments "spam". If you
> > are the first commenter of a popular package, you receive lots of
> > notifications for all subsequent comments (where sometimes people
> > ev
On 03/08/2010 11:25 AM, Ivana Hutarova Varekova wrote:
> For now in fedora there are 11 packages which contains language
> mutations of man-pages (man-pages-{cs,da,de,es,fr,it,ja,ko,pl,ru,uk})
> and man-pages package.
> Only 2 of them (man-pages-es, man-pages-it) requires man package. I
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 18:54 +, Quentin Armitage wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:26 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Quentin Armitage wrote:
> >
> > > The glibc packages (including nscd) were in updates-testing, but have
> > > been obsoleted, and so 2.11.90-12 is now the
On 03/08/2010 02:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 09:48 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
>
>> Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
>> 64/215
>> libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in module:
>> type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 20:51 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
> Hi, Fedora 12 was planned to have installation of packages without
> users needing to enter root password.
>
> How do I enable this feature via PolicyKit?
>
> I read this article:
> http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/polkit-and-pack
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:29:23 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> u...@radiopresenter.me.uk (unauthenticated) - 2010-03-08 13:36:44 (karma: 0)
> Error Type: Error Value: Error getting
> repository data for installed, repository not foundFile :
> /usr/share/PackageKit/helpers/yum/yumBackend.py
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> There are just too many -devel packages and their dependencies to be ever
> relevant to someone for multi-arch installs. Far more users install i686 on
> 64-bit CPUs, and I have doubts that x86_64 installation users do much
> development with i686 packages. At most they in
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:14 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >>
> >> Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> >>
> >>> The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, i
Subject: subtree search fails to find items under a db containing
special characters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199923
This bug had been reopened due to the regression.
[Proposed Fix]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398612&action=diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:27:48 -0800
Dan Williams wrote:
> > > I have taken over the maintainership from Robert, and the new
> > > usb_modeswitch rpms are in rawhide now.
> >
> > And F-13?
>
> I'm pushing for F13 and F12 at least :) I usually end up getting the
> bugs when modems don't switch, I
On 8 March 2010 19:47, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Is there a sekrit PK mode you can use to get such output, does anyone
> know? Maybe if I just launch it from a console...
No, but I could do such a thing if you file an enhancement bug.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:29:42 -0600, Matthew wrote:
> > There are just too many -devel packages and their dependencies to be ever
> > relevant to someone for multi-arch installs. Far more users install i686 on
> > 64-bit CPUs, and I have doubts that x86_64 installation users do much
> > development
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:33 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I can't find the wiki page documenting buildroot overrides so I can't
> confirm this. I thought that releng was asking for the overrides to be
> removed when the package was pushed to stable but I could be wrong.
>
https://fedoraproject
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 11:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread
> about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and
> controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those,
> right?
>
> Here it is: http://f
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:24:24PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:33 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > I can't find the wiki page documenting buildroot overrides so I can't
> > confirm this. I thought that releng was asking for the overrides to be
> > removed when the packa
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 14:54 +, Quentin Armitage wrote:
> The report lists 3 fc12 packages as updates for F-13. Doing a yum update
> of avrdude shows the new version as 5.10-2.fc13 and not 5.10-1.fc12 as
> listed. For man-pages-it, yum update lists 2.80-5.fc13 and not
> 2.80-5.fc12 as listed.
>
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 21:18 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 8 March 2010 19:47, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Is there a sekrit PK mode you can use to get such output, does anyone
> > know? Maybe if I just launch it from a console...
>
> No, but I could do such a thing if you file an enhancement b
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:34:03PM -0500, Will Woods wrote:
> Adam's poll results are valid *only* for Fedora users who:
>
> a) Are members of the Fedora forum,
> b) Enthusiasts/power-users to the degree that they would notice a new
> threads/poll within a day of its posting, and
> c) Hold a stro
For the 13th Release of Fedora, "Goddard," the Fedora Marketing team
ran an open, community based process of slogan submissions, found at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_slogan_SOP. That process
included guidelines for producing great slogans, and as a result of
our call, we received a large
This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
provide features or purely bugfixes, and I don't see any conflict in
introducing it befor
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 16:32 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:24:24PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:33 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > I can't find the wiki page documenting buildroot overrides so I can't
> > > confirm this. I thought that re
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
