On 2011-06-27, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-06-27)
Just a formal notice: When sending meeting report as reply to meeting
plan, please change Subject: header to reflect the fact. It will help
people to orientate in the thread.
-- Petr
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists
Le Lun 27 juin 2011 15:12, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :
> Placing trust in the manufacturer of the hardware puts the user in no
> worse position than they were before.
I don't call placing absolute vetting power in bios writer hands "no worse
position". I don't thing anyone can point to a "good" bi
I orphaned the gnet2 package as workrave does not depend on it anymore.
Feel free to take it - especially if your package depends on it. Even
better would be to drop it as upstream is dead and GIO should be used
instead.
However these packages still depend on it in Rawhide:
gcompris-0:9.5-4.fc15.
Now that the revised orphaning procedure allows me to pick this up without
a re-review, I've just claimed onesixtyone in the pkgdb.
onesixtyone is a tiny SNMP tool that spews multiple simultaneous SNMP
requests and reports the results. It has been unloved since F12, but I use
it fairly frequently,
> I orphaned the gnet2 package as workrave does not depend on it anymore.
> Feel free to take it - especially if your package depends on it. Even
> better would be to drop it as upstream is dead and GIO should be used
> instead.
>
> However these packages still depend on it in Rawhide:
>
> gcompri
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:46 PM, nodata wrote:
> Anyone know?
Maybe this one:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708543
Regards,
François
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 09:59 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Lun 27 juin 2011 15:12, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :
>
> > Placing trust in the manufacturer of the hardware puts the user in no
> > worse position than they were before.
>
> I don't call placing absolute vetting power in bios writer h
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 09:59 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>> Le Lun 27 juin 2011 15:12, Miloslav TrmaÄ a écrit :
>>
>> > Placing trust in the manufacturer of the hardware puts the user in no
>> > worse position than they were before.
>>
>> I don't call placing absolute vetting power in bios
Am 27.06.2011 20:03, schrieb Ankur Sinha:
> Hello,
>
> I've recently been packaging applications for the fedora medical
> initiative. There are quite a few of them. If you have some time to
> spare, please review a few (or just one). Even if you're not a sponsored
> packager, I encourage you to pl
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=603230
--- Comment #6 from Michael Ekstrand 2011-06-28 14:16:12
EDT ---
With respect to the OCaml dependencies, it mostly surprised me
commit 3e86e7e1dafb84cff6da8862818ff3344b9d1872
Author: Marcela Mašláňová
Date: Tue Jun 28 20:21:29 2011 +0200
Perl mass rebuild
add macro perl_bootstrap
perl-Test-EOL.spec |8 +++-
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Test-EOL.spec b/perl-Tes
JB gmail.com> writes:
> ...
> Btw, TPM, or TXT exactly, can be hacked too (that has been done already).
> ...
... and she is cute too :-)
http://theinvisiblethings.blogspot.com/search/label/trusted%20execution%20technology
and some more ...
http://siblog.mcafee.com/data-protection/tpm-undres
JB wrote:
> ... and she is cute too:-)
[snip]
Seeing that Trusted Boot is not going to be a F16 feature I don't think
we have to worry about any security implications for the time being.
That is... until next time.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 08:21:23PM +, JB wrote:
> JB gmail.com> writes:
>
> > ...
> > Btw, TPM, or TXT exactly, can be hacked too (that has been done already).
> > ...
>
> ... and she is cute too :-)
Which is irrelevant to the discussion and also inappropriate for this
list.
--
Matthew
On 06/23/2011 10:21 AM, JB wrote:
> The Intel Trusted Platform consists of two components:
> - Trusted Platform Module (TPM) chip
>A hardware component, consisting of cryptographic processor and secure
>memory.
> - Trusted Boot
>A software component, open-source and partially close-sou
It's getting late here, and currently I'm at a loss.
Today's Rawhide build of xulrunner does:
%global nss_version 3.12.9
BuildRequires: nss-devel >= %{nss_version}
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=250684
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/xulrunner/5.0/4.fc16/data
On 28/06/11 14:44, fkoo...@tuxed.net wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:46 PM, nodata wrote:
>> Anyone know?
>
> Maybe this one:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=708543
>
> Regards,
> François
Thanks. I'll follow there.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 11:09:02PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> It's getting late here, and currently I'm at a loss.
>
> Today's Rawhide build of xulrunner does:
>
> %global nss_version 3.12.9
>
> BuildRequires: nss-devel >= %{nss_version}
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?
On 06/25/2011 04:13 AM, Camilo Mesias wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 22:21 +0200, nodata wrote:
>>> 2. This seems like Trusted Computing, which got shot down in flames.
>>
>> Who shot it and why ?
>
> I don't know about Trusted Computing but th
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:23:33 -0400, ND (Nalin) wrote:
> Builds for a given target don't always use packages from the tag with
> the same name:
>
> koji list-targets --name=dist-f16
>
> will show that builds for dist-f16 use a buildroot populated with
> packages from the dist-f16-build tag, and
On 6/28/11 2:31 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Mon Jun 13 05:10:51 2011 nss-3.12.10-1.fc16 untagged from dist-f16 by oscar
Who is oscar and why is (s)he repeatedly untagging nss builds from dist-f16?
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
devel
On 6/28/11 2:31 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> $ koji list-history --tag=dist-f16-build --package=nss
> Wed Feb 16 16:27:44 2011 nss-3.12.9-11.fc16 tagged into dist-f16-build by
> emaldonado [still active]
Also suspect. Nobody should be tagging things into dist-f16-build
directly, especially peo
On 6/28/11 2:40 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Who is oscar and why is (s)he repeatedly untagging nss builds from dist-f16?
I'm a dork. oscar (the grouch) is the garbage collection bot that
untags old builds.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
On 06/28/2011 03:44 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 6/28/11 2:31 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> $ koji list-history --tag=dist-f16-build --package=nss
>> Wed Feb 16 16:27:44 2011 nss-3.12.9-11.fc16 tagged into dist-f16-build by
>> emaldonado [still active]
>
> Also suspect. Nobody should be tagging
On 06/28/2011 03:25 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 06/25/2011 04:13 AM, Camilo Mesias wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 22:21 +0200, nodata wrote:
2. This seems like Trusted Computing, which got shot down in flames.
>>>
>>> Who shot it
On 6/28/11 2:49 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> perhaps bodhi build override feature go amok?
Would have been pretty far amok, since overrides aren't needed for f16
work, let alone the override feature would be using dist-f16-override
not dist-f16-build.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² i
On Tue, 28 Jun 2011, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> the processor serial number (PSN) wasn't shut down---every post-PIII CPU
> has it. The access is often disabled by the BIOS, but it's there:
>
> http://pcworld.about.net/magazine/1903p198id38601.htm
>
> I think that TPC requires that PSN are enabled,
2011/6/27 John Reiser :
>> I would like to note that I am aware of that 32 bit systems will not
>> work after 2038. But does that mean that they can not do simple date
>> conversion?
>
> Yes, if "simple date conversion" uses a 32-bit time_t and does not
> check-and-correct for 32-bit wrap-around.
>
On Mon, 2011-06-27 at 21:17 -0700, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On 2011-06-26 12:33, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > And I have no idea what part of our update policy should be violated by
> > this update. Please somebody enlighten me.
>
> This part:
> * Avoid changing the user experience if at all p
On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 10:01 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-28 at 09:59 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >
> > Le Lun 27 juin 2011 15:12, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :
> >
> > > Placing trust in the manufacturer of the hardware puts the user in no
> > > worse position than they were before
Hi Folks,
Join us on Friday to celebrate July with another in our series of VFADs!
This is an awesome opportunity to participate in improving support for
ARM processors, and to learn about architecture bootstrap. Last week, we
successfully added a number of new packages to our bootstrap filesystem
31 matches
Mail list logo
