Am 31.01.2011 22:47, schrieb Martin Langhoff:
> Consider this file from nxt_python package:
>
> cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-lego.rules
> BUS=="usb", SYSFS{idVendor}=="0694", GROUP="lego", MODE="0660"
>
> Is it safe & sane to include an identical udev rule file in the nbc
> package with differen
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 11:04 +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> Am 31.01.2011 22:47, schrieb Martin Langhoff:
> > Consider this file from nxt_python package:
> >
> > cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-lego.rules
> > BUS=="usb", SYSFS{idVendor}=="0694", GROUP="lego", MODE="0660"
> >
> > Is it safe & sane to i
Hi,
I've submitted my first Fedora package for review and sponsoring recently:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673175
I want to submit it for Fedora and EPEL 5. The differences between the two are
minimal, there are just some programs missing in EPEL which need to be
commented out
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Gerd v. Egidy wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've submitted my first Fedora package for review and sponsoring recently:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673175
>
> I want to submit it for Fedora and EPEL 5. The differences between the two
> are
> minimal, there ar
> "GvE" == Gerd v Egidy writes:
GvE> What is the best way to handle this? Can I keep one spec for both
GvE> and use conditionals to always build the right way?
You can. Do keep in mind, however, that the amount of conditional
garbage you have to pile into the spec file can get to be a bit m
Hi Steve,
> > I want to submit it for Fedora and EPEL 5. The differences between the
> > two are
> > minimal, there are just some programs missing in EPEL which need to be
> > commented out in the default config.
>
> This page
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag
> and the buildsys macros RPM
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/31/2011 04:04 PM, Naheem Zaffar wrote:
> There seems to be an SElinux denial for me which stops it from starting
> (I upgraded from Fedora 14 and its NOT a live machine).
>
> I would assume its the same error?
>
> On 31 January 2011 07:22, Brad
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=667935
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=476412&action=diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=476412&action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-dev
Gerd v. Egidy wrote:
> I've seen code like "%if 0%{?rhel}" somewhere on the net, but that didn't
> work for me. I guess the %rhel-macro should be defined in
> /etc/rpm/macros.dist where I usually find stuff like %fedora but that
> doesn't exist on my Centos 5.
%{rhel} is defined in the EPEL build
On 02/01/2011 09:27 AM, Gerd v. Egidy wrote:
> How can I make sure that buildsys-macros is installed?
> BuildRequires: buildsys-macros
> won't work because there is no buildsys-macros on Fedora. And
You don't need to do that as buildsys-macros is part of the buildroot in
koji for EPEL5.
$ koji l
> "MC" == Michael Cronenworth writes:
MC> I don't know why, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to have it in the
MC> repository like a normal package, IMO.
Not that this will really explain anything, but:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563176
- J<
--
devel mailing list
devel@lis
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 17:30UTC (12:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
= Followups =
#topic #516 Updates policy adjustments/change
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> FWIW, I'd really like to see the console user have access to this by
> default. Then, uploading a file to the NXT brick would be plug and
> play.
Yeah. Trouble is - I know nothing about ConsoleKit policy. What's the
trick to change this ud
> I'll approve it as a fesco member. ;) Just ping me in 3 days and we can
> add you to the package.
Sorry got caught up with some other stuff, pinging you as requested.
(trying to get these openid packages to work with yahoo, it's
apparently broken =(.
-Kurt
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fed
On 1/31/11 4:04 PM, Naheem Zaffar wrote:
> There seems to be an SElinux denial for me which stops it from starting
> (I upgraded from Fedora 14 and its NOT a live machine).
>
> I would assume its the same error?
So far, I have not identified an SELinux denial that appears to be
associated with th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/01/2011 05:05 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> On 1/31/11 4:04 PM, Naheem Zaffar wrote:
>> There seems to be an SElinux denial for me which stops it from starting
>> (I upgraded from Fedora 14 and its NOT a live machine).
>>
>> I would assume its the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=668862
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=476498&action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
Agreed with others, I can't see Network Manager having issue with SELinux.
Can you post SELinux reporting details?
--
Chris Jones
PHOTO RESOLUTIONS - Photo - Graphic - Web
C and L Jones - Proprietors
ABN: 98 317 740 240
WWW: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com
@: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au or
18 matches
Mail list logo
