Re: Webapps denying all outside access by default?

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > It's a vastly safer initial setup than leaving it wide open, by > default. this applies to many tools such as Nagios and cacti, that may > share information about your system that you really should review > before exposing. Right. Cacti'

Re: Mean machinery...

On 07/20/2013 06:36 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: When a shutdown task isn't proceeding as planned on Fedora 19/rawhide, am I the only one that feels like I'm staring down the monocle of a Cylon and should be preparing to die? That or it's the hood from Kit off of Knight Rider... Hi Doug, The Cylon'

Re: Self Introduction

On 20/07/13 17:30, Lars Kiesow wrote: > As first package I submitted the python-xmp module. You can find the > review request at: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986550 That said, I'm > seeking a sponsor for this. > > Regards, Lars A warm welcome here. When looking through your bugz

Porting some packages from Russian Fedora

Looking at Koji from Russian Fedora, I noticed some plugins for Gimp missing in the current Fedora repository. I am interested to port them which bring some questions, do I keep the original changelog and notify ported from Russian Fedoraor do I start the new spec with the statement based from R

Re: F20 Self Contained Change: Apache OpenOffice

On 21 Jul 2013 16:07, "Andrea Pescetti" wrote: > > No problem. OpenOffice 4 is already on mirrors and will be announced in a couple of days, so I've put the exact release date on the wiki page, thus revealing a very badly kept secret... > Nice to see a release at long last - I'll be very interest

Re: Porting some packages from Russian Fedora

Hello A;;. 2013/7/22 Luya Tshimbalanga : > Looking at Koji from Russian Fedora, I noticed some plugins for Gimp missing > in the current Fedora repository. > I am interested to port them which bring some questions, do I keep the > original changelog and notify ported from Russian Fedoraor > do I s

Re: Multirelease effort: Moving to Python 3

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 03:21:12PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Daniel P. Berrange (berra...@redhat.com) said: > > I don't think we're anywhere near the point in time where such an > > approach is worth the pain it will inflict on people. As above, > > I'm pretty sceptical that maintainence of

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On 07/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: = Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The term "asset" seems to scare some people. -- Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team --

Grepping through all Fedora specfiles?

Hello, I'd like to grep through all specfiles (and preferably also patches and sources in git) for rawhide, this time related to the unversioned docdirs F20 feature, and sometimes for other reasons. Hopefully there's a better way than to fedpkg clone all packages one at a time... does anyone know

Re: Grepping through all Fedora specfiles?

On 07/22/2013 11:39 AM, Ville Skyttä wrote: I'd like to grep through all specfiles (and preferably also patches and sources in git) for rawhide, this time related to the unversioned docdirs F20 feature, and sometimes for other reasons. Hopefully there's a better way than to fedpkg clone all pack

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

Florian Weimer wrote: > On 07/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > = Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets = > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets > > Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The term "asset" > seems to scare some people. At least the direct

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer wrote: > Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The term "asset" seems > to scare some people. Huh? It's a pretty common industry term for "static bits used as dependencies for websites". I've never heard of anyone being scared of it. "webdata

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Björn Persson wrote: > Florian Weimer wrote: >> On 07/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: >> > = Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets = >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets >> >> Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The ter

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 12:31, T.C. Hollingsworth a écrit : > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer wrote: >> Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The term "asset" >> seems >> to scare some people. > > Huh? It's a pretty common industry term for "static bits used as > dependencies

Re: Porting some packages from Russian Fedora

On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 00:40 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > Looking at Koji from Russian Fedora, I noticed some plugins for Gimp > missing in the current Fedora repository. > I am interested to port them which bring some questions, do I keep > the > original changelog and notify ported from Rus

Re: Review Swaps

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 9:57 PM, Christopher Meng wrote: > SkyX is taken, too. > > Swap again with sstp-client, Microsoft Secure Socket Tunneling > Protocol (SSTP) Client > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976770 > I've taken sstp-client, I'll get started on it later today. Rich --

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On 07/22/2013 12:31 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer wrote: Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The term "asset" seems to scare some people. Huh? It's a pretty common industry term for "static bits used as dependencies for websites". I've ne

dnf-0..3.10

Hello, I've pushed new DNF version to F19 [1] and Rawhide today. There's only little changes but the default value for repos' skip_if_unavailable has changed and is enabled now. This is because recently an ailing Dropbox repo has made many fine DNF processes end too soon for no good reason [3]

Re: Multirelease effort: Moving to Python 3

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 11:24:22AM -0400, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: >> Hi all, >> as a new Fedora Python maintainer, I have set myself a goal of moving Fedora >> to Python 3 as a default. This is going to be a multirelease effort that is

Re: Multirelease effort: Moving to Python 3

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > Far better to encourage people to explicitly use /usr/bin/python2 and > /usr/bin/python3 explicitly and discourage any use of plain /usr/bin/python, > but definitely not change the semantics of the latter. Right, treating the existence

RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

This is a draft of the proposal I'm presenting at Flock, "An Architecture for a More Agile Fedora" (). It represents a big change to how we as the Fedora project put together our distribution. I've gone through several drafts of this and talked to a few people, and I'd real

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/22/2013 01:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: So there we have it. Comments and discussion, please! It does not mention which components the core is made out of, no dropping the defaults or even moving epel out of Fedora and into their own infrastructure bits downstream distribution to us u

Re: Mesos Packaging

Thanks Igor!   Currently we'll need to bundle their dependencies prior to the main package. I'm just about done with stout, but I could use some help with their (libprocess https://github.com/3rdparty) library prior to mundging the mesos package.   && of course the main mesos package too, but

Re: Webapps denying all outside access by default?

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 01:16:30AM -0600, Ken Dreyer wrote: > I do agree that the .rpmnew thing is annoying, and I wish there was a > better way to handle that. I think in general, packaging webapps into RPM is of low value. I've tried to use these packages in production several times over the yea

Re: Mesos Packaging

Thanks Mikolaj, That is good to know, b/c I know some folks in their community would like to bring it to EPEL, but my first step will be Fedora, then let the community drive. Cheers, Tim - Original Message - > From: "Mikolaj Izdebski" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Mond

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 9:20 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 04:09:32PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: >> the problem i see is when things like MTA and rsyslog are >> removed from the defualt install many pakcgers will less >> care about them in the future nor test how well it wor

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Le 22/07/2013 15:38, Matthew Miller a écrit : > > Wait, did you just say Fedora _Core_? > > Yes I did. > > But, this is not a return to the old Core + Extras, because the line is > drawn based on _what_ and _how_ rather than on who works for what company. Whatever explanation which can

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 01:49:08PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >So there we have it. Comments and discussion, please! > It does not mention which components the core is made out of, no Correct; that is to be determined, and not just by me. At Flock, I will include pictures of a couple

Re: Webapps denying all outside access by default?

Am 21.07.2013 19:39, schrieb drago01: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Jared K. Smith > wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Adam Williamson >> wrote: >>> >>> I'm not sure if I'm missing anything here, but is it intended that >>> webapps should not be accessible from anywhere but local

[Owner-change] Fedora packages ownership change

Change in ownership over the last 168 hours === 0 packages were orphaned 4 packages unorphaned - cheeselee unorphaned : perl-Net-ARP [EL-5,EL-6,devel,f17,f18,f19] dvratil unorphaned : akonadi [devel

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:38:54AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > * E.g.: Everything in @standard, plus the toolchains to build it How about, like RHEL, the "toolchains to build it" goes into an RHEL-Optional-like separate place? If it has to be in the core ring then either the core ring has to

EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:28:52PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > What better time to move epel out of Fedora since is really not > related to Fedora et all but is strictly for downstream distribution > based upon us to use ( like RHEL and it's clones ) > I'm not sure what you think ne

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:38:54 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: Obviously, no-bundled-libs is a crucial part of the packaging guidelines today. As a sysadmin, I know why it's important. This is not just a noble goal, but also something that pragmatically makes systems better. But, it's also kee

Re: Proposal: ReadOnlyDirectories /etc and /usr for network-services

Am 22.07.2013 16:37, schrieb Michael Scherer: > Le lundi 22 juillet 2013 à 00:02 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit : >> has anybody considered to put the following as default in systemd-units of >> network services? cross-posting to users-list intented because i think it >> is a good idea to bring it

Re: Proposal: ReadOnlyDirectories /etc and /usr for network-services

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > has anybody considered to put the following as default in systemd-units of > network services? cross-posting to users-list intented because i think it > is a good idea to bring it to a broader userbase! > > ReadOnlyDirectories=/etc > ReadOn

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:43:36AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:14:04PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I suspect this would be better if we made it much easier to automate > > "cpan2spec"-style mass importing of packages to RPM. So that, for > > example, you didn

If you want Fedora to be a platform...

1) Please participate in the 'Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" discussion. 2) Please stop using the word "platform" and say very precisely what you mean. I've seen at least the following meanings recently. - "a platform for applications" = "deployment target" = "API": e.g. when saying "Th

Re: Grepping through all Fedora specfiles?

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:39:06 +0300 Ville Skyttä wrote: > Hello, > > I'd like to grep through all specfiles (and preferably also patches > and sources in git) for rawhide, this time related to the unversioned > docdirs F20 feature, and sometimes for other reasons. Hopefully > there's a better way

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:06:12PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote: > > But, this is not a return to the old Core + Extras, because the line is > > drawn based on _what_ and _how_ rather than on who works for what company. > > Whatever explanation which can be given, "Core" is just the worst name > t

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > This is a draft of the proposal I'm presenting at Flock, "An Architecture > for a More Agile Fedora" (). It represents a big > change to how we as the Fedora project put together our distribution. I've > gone through

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:29:20PM +0200, Michael Scherer wrote: > > And third, by increasing our engagement upstream, we can reduce our own > > work. For example, right now RubyGems.org doesn't do any validation of > > licenses, basic review for malware, or gem signing. If we knew that this > > ba

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On 07/22/2013 02:06 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 01:49:08PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: So there we have it. Comments and discussion, please! It does not mention which components the core is made out of, no Correct; that is to be determined, and not just by me.

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Remi Collet wrote: > [...] Ex : I'm so disgusted that I don't ever have desire to read > the rest of the doc. Please don't - that part is easily renamed ("Fedora Kernel", or "Fedora Standard Base" or "Fedora Platform" or something) if people are still offended by some aspect of the the core/ext

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:14:04PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:38:54AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > * E.g.: Everything in @standard, plus the toolchains to build it > How about, like RHEL, the "toolchains to build it" goes into an > RHEL-Optional-like separat

Re: Proposal: ReadOnlyDirectories /etc and /usr for network-services

Le lundi 22 juillet 2013 à 00:02 +0200, Reindl Harald a écrit : > Hi > > has anybody considered to put the following as default in systemd-units of > network services? cross-posting to users-list intented because i think it > is a good idea to bring it to a broader userbase! > > ReadOnlyDirector

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Hello, (more technical / process questions below; high-level comments will be sent separately.) On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup > company, their developers are inevitably using a different (usually > pro

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Le lundi 22 juillet 2013 à 09:38 -0400, Matthew Miller a écrit : > And third, by increasing our engagement upstream, we can reduce our own > work. For example, right now RubyGems.org doesn't do any validation of > licenses, basic review for malware, or gem signing. If we knew that this > basic di

Re: Multirelease effort: Moving to Python 3

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 05:15:50PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/22/2013 03:25 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > > > If python3 could just finally fix outputting text with > > surrogateescaped bytes then it would finally clean up the last > > po

[389-devel] please review: Ticket 47427 - Overflow in nsslapd-disk-monitoring-threshold

Fixed a casting issue when reading the dse https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47427 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/47427/0001-Ticket-47427-Overflow-in-nsslapd-disk-monitoring-thr.2.patch -- Mark Reynolds Red Hat, Inc mreyno...@redhat.com -- 389-devel mailing list 389-de...@lis

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:27, Matthew Miller a écrit : > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:51:37AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> I'm a bit worried about this. We really want bundled libs to >> eventually go away (for any particular bundled lib). This seems like >> it could encourage permanently bundle

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > This proposal is for a solid core which can be targeted by software stacks, > which can be targeted by developers. Oh, initially I understood you were aiming for a fast-moving, highly integrated core, following systemd's lead. Maybe I am

Re: [AutoQA] #438: repoclosure test is failing due to change in behavior upstream

#438: repoclosure test is failing due to change in behavior upstream +-- Reporter: tflink | Owner: Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Package Update Acceptance Test Plan Component:

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

Am 21.07.2013 21:20, schrieb Matthew Miller: > On Sun, Jul 21, 2013 at 04:09:32PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: >> the problem i see is when things like MTA and rsyslog are >> removed from the defualt install many pakcgers will less >> care about them in the future nor test how well it works > > Th

Re: F20 Self Contained Change: Plasma-nm

On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 13:25 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Plasma-nm = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Plasma-nm > > Change owner(s): Jan Grulich , Lukáš Tinkl > > > Replace current network applet in KDE with a new one and bring the latest > news >

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:51:37AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > I'm a bit worried about this. We really want bundled libs to > eventually go away (for any particular bundled lib). This seems like > it could encourage permanently bundled libs. That is going to make Upstream code is full of bundl

Re: AutoQA Testcase Stats

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 06:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Kamil Paral wrote: > > depcheck > >363 runs ( 167 GOOD, 196 ERROR ) > > - 84 fc17 runs ( 84 GOOD, 0 ERROR ) > > - 151 fc18 runs ( 75 GOOD, 76 ERROR ) > > - 128 fc19 runs ( 8 GOOD, 120 ERROR ) > > > > repoclosure > >48 runs ( 27 GOOD

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:49, Stephen Gallagher a écrit : > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/22/2013 10:51 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:38:54 -0400, Matthew Miller >> wrote: >>> >>> Obviously, no-bundled-libs is a crucial part of the packaging

Re: Proposal: ReadOnlyDirectories /etc and /usr for network-services

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 4:53 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Reindl Harald > wrote: >> has anybody considered to put the following as default in systemd-units of >> network services? cross-posting to users-list intented because i think it >> is a good idea to bring

Re: Grepping through all Fedora specfiles?

2013/7/22 Ville Skyttä : > I'd like to grep through all specfiles (and preferably also patches and > sources in git) for rawhide, this time related to the unversioned docdirs > F20 feature, and sometimes for other reasons. Hopefully there's a better way > than to fedpkg clone all packages one at a

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Jul 22, 2013, at 7:38 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > * We need to be more than that Why? > * Not widely used by RHEL users RHEL and Fedora could hardly be more different from each other. It's not an apple vs orange, it's fruit fly vs tortoise. In some ways RHEL seems way too far behind

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:07, Robert Marcano a écrit : > Fonts has licenses, some of them require the license to be shown or the > copyright displayed, some fonts has the copyright added to their > metadata, I don't find for example that gnu-free-serif-fonts says on > it's metadata that is GPL+3

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:28:52PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >>Should be made less RHEL we want people to use Fedora not RHEL > >Candidly, we want people to use both. > We being you and the rest of the Red Hat's employees working in the > project? "We" being Fedora. -- Matthew Mi

File Wx-GLCanvas-0.09.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by churchyard

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Wx-GLCanvas: 4f6475010bd6e4231e2dbb3fb52bc642 Wx-GLCanvas-0.09.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailm

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2013 11:37 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > 3. lack of clearly defined LAN infra : Windows comes with AD and > local network sharing, our desktop comes with facebook clients. > Guess which one is actually useful to produce code. Linux for > workg

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2013 11:32 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:30:32PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >>> How do I package and ship an application that depends on two or >>> more s

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:27 PM, Martin Langhoff wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Miller >> wrote: >>> This is a draft of the proposal I'm presenting at Flock, "An Architecture >>> for a More Agile Fedora" (

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > This proposal doesn't seem to make rings 0 or 1 particularly more > integrated - just smaller; and it places a higher barrier to entry to > adding useful functionality to the core. I didn't intend to say that. > Want to add new a

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2013 10:51 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:38:54 -0400, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> >> Obviously, no-bundled-libs is a crucial part of the packaging >> guidelines today. As a sysadmin, I know why it's important. This >

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:35:38AM -0400, Martin Langhoff wrote: > > This proposal is for a solid core which can be targeted by software stacks, > > which can be targeted by developers. > Oh, initially I understood you were aiming for a fast-moving, highly > integrated core, following systemd's lea

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2013 11:53 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:27, Matthew Miller a écrit : >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:51:37AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >>> I'm a bit worried about this. We really want bundled libs to >>> eventua

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:14PM +0200, drago01 wrote: >> > Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup >> > company, their developers are inevitably using a different (usually >> > proprietary) desktop OS, plus a

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/22/2013 03:38 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:13:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 07/22/2013 02:52 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:28:52PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: What better time to move epel out of Fedora since is r

[perl-Wx-GLCanvas/f19] Initial import (#978010)

Summary of changes: 6212170... Initial import (#978010) (*) (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraprojec

Re: Proposal: ReadOnlyDirectories /etc and /usr for network-services

Am 22.07.2013 16:53, schrieb Miloslav Trmač: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Reindl Harald > wrote: >> has anybody considered to put the following as default in systemd-units of >> network services? cross-posting to users-list intented because i think it >> is a good idea to bring it to a

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/22/2013 02:52 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:28:52PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: What better time to move epel out of Fedora since is really not related to Fedora et all but is strictly for downstream distribution based upon us to use ( like RHEL and it's c

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Jul 22, 2013, at 7:38 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > The Idea > --- > Focus core distro as platform, include layers of modular enabling > technologies, and provide room for special interest groups to create > solutions within the Fedora circle. OK, but I don't know exactly how this propo

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:37, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit : > Desktop selection logic is no different. It's all about "time/cost to be > operational". If you reduce this (perceived) time/cost, you'll see > startups adopting Fedora in droves, because startups only care about > getting profitable/bough

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:30:32PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >> How do I package and ship an application that depends on two or more >> stacks (e.g. uses a database, has a web frontend and perhaps also a >> local GUI) if the stacks the ap

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On 07/19/2013 01:13 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: Not all fonts installed had the same licensing requirement, people install fonts from other places that are not as careful as Fedora with the licenses. It is problematic if someone install a

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/22/2013 10:51 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:38:54 -0400, Matthew Miller >> wrote: >>> >>> Obviously, no-bundled-libs is a crucial part of the packaging

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:18 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> This is a draft of the proposal I'm presenting at Flock, "An Architecture >> for a More Agile Fedora" (). > (The more high-level comment.) > > This essent

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:27:08 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: Running two instances to get two sets of services has been the best practice since about 1995. :) When you have money. For hobbiests that may not always apply. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fed

[perl-Wx-GLCanvas] Initial import (#978010)

commit 62121700b7021760de0f5187caaed121865caa88 Author: Miro Hrončok Date: Mon Jul 22 17:38:06 2013 +0200 Initial import (#978010) .gitignore|1 + perl-Wx-GLCanvas.spec | 66 + sources |1 + 3 files change

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:53:19PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > Well, obviously Someone is doing that quite a lot anyway. Fedora needs > > to continue to avoid that. Here is where "work with upstream" comes in > > -- if we put the same effort into reviewing packages in Fedora into > > revie

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:56, Stephen Gallagher a écrit : > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/22/2013 11:37 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > >> 3. lack of clearly defined LAN infra : Windows comes with AD and >> local network sharing, our desktop comes with facebook clients. >>

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:11 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:30:32PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >> > Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup >> > company, their developers are inevitably using a different (usually >> > proprietary) desktop OS,

Re: Proposal: ReadOnlyDirectories /etc and /usr for network-services

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:53:36PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:02 AM, Reindl Harald > wrote: > > has anybody considered to put the following as default in systemd-units of > > network services? cross-posting to users-list intented because i think it > > is a good id

Proposal: ReadOnlyDirectories /etc and /usr for network-services

Hi has anybody considered to put the following as default in systemd-units of network services? cross-posting to users-list intented because i think it is a good idea to bring it to a broader userbase! ReadOnlyDirectories=/etc ReadOnlyDirectories=/usr http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

On Sun, 2013-07-21 at 18:55 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Where is the desktop notification solution in Fedora? There is none able > to even remotely approach the capabilities of the cron + MTA bits you so > dislike. You're ascribing emotions to a proposal where none exist. No-one said they 's

Re: Proposal: ReadOnlyDirectories /etc and /usr for network-services

Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 00:02, Reindl Harald a écrit : > Hi > > has anybody considered to put the following as default in systemd-units of > network services? cross-posting to users-list intented because i think it > is a good idea to bring it to a broader userbase! > > ReadOnlyDirectories=/etc >

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 05:39:33PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >> This proposal doesn't seem to make rings 0 or 1 particularly more >> integrated - just smaller; and it places a higher barrier to entry to >> adding useful functionality to t

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:30:32PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > > Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup > > company, their developers are inevitably using a different (usually > > proprietary) desktop OS, plus a non-Fedora distribution on their code. > > We're being

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

On Fri, 19.07.13 19:37, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote: > However, having the /usr/sbin/sendmail API available to applications > is valuable - it brings a significant system administration benefit of > centralizing the SMTP configuration. Sure it is valuable. However, it's also a pretty bad

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2013 11:58 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > Our Fedora infrastructure team should be using Fedora it's an > disgrace to the community for them not doing so. > That's something else that this policy could potentially addresses, frankly. T

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 15:38, Matthew Miller a écrit : > Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup > company, their developers are inevitably using a different (usually > proprietary) desktop OS, plus a non-Fedora distribution on their code. And the main reason has not

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:08:32 -0400 Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 07/22/2013 11:58 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > Our Fedora infrastructure team should be using Fedora it's an > > disgrace to the community for them not doing so. So, fir

Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk)

Lots of interesting things here. But I just had a few things that triggered off of Kevin's message so: On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:21:39AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:38:54 -0400 > Matthew Miller wrote: > > > Some approaches may even move beyond RPM packaging. This can mea

Re: EPEL (was Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile "Fedora.next" (draft of my Flock talk))

On 07/22/2013 04:34 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:08:32 -0400 Stephen Gallagher wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 07/22/2013 11:58 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: Our Fedora infrastructure team should be using Fedora it's an disgrace to the community

Re: Webapps denying all outside access by default?

On Sun, 2013-07-21 at 09:47 -0700, Jared K. Smith wrote: > On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: > I'm not sure if I'm missing anything here, but is it intended > that > webapps should not be accessible from anywhere but localhost > by default?

Re: F20 System Wide Change: No Default Sendmail

On Fri, 19.07.13 13:17, Billy Crook (billycr...@gmail.com) wrote: > Sendmail stays in Default unless there is compelling reason to switch to > postfix, exim, meta1, etc. Those users who wish to remove it are welcome > to do so. Nobody is stopping them. The default configuration of sendmail > pos

  1   2   3   >