Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:52:58PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote: > On 12/10/2013 02:20 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > > >> So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, > >> but don't > >> forget to report how you did it afterward) and if you have any problem/RFE > >>

Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE

* Dan Mashal [10/12/2013 11:29] : > > Can we get a "my packages" button? Or am I blind and not seeing one? There's a "Restrict to owner:" form where you can enter your FAS username. Emmanuel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/deve

Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE

On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 09:55 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > * Dan Mashal [10/12/2013 11:29] : > > > > Can we get a "my packages" button? Or am I blind and not seeing one? > > There's a "Restrict to owner:" form where you can enter your FAS username. Also works if you just click on your nick on th

F-20 Branched report: 20131211 changes

Compose started at Wed Dec 11 07:15:02 UTC 2013 Broken deps for armhfp -- [avro] avro-mapred-1.7.5-1.fc20.noarch requires hadoop-mapreduce avro-mapred-1.7.5-1.fc20.noarch requires hadoop-client [blueman] blueman-1.23-7

pacemaker in Fedora and RHEL

Hi all, I wonder if there are some reasonable explanations of package "pacemaker" in the repo. I checked the package and the result returned is: Fedora: pacemaker-1.1.9-3.fc20 in rawhide. RHEL: pacemaker-1.1.10-14.el6. The latest version is 1.1.11RC1(1.1.10 Final stable). Why is the package i

Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'

On 6.12.2013 10:56, Jakub Filak wrote: I'd like to add abrt-cli package to the comps group 'standard'. Regarding the discussion, there are two main concernes about adding abrt-cli to Standard comps group: 1) There will be some notifications popping up which can confuse users. Not true. Noth

Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard'

- Original Message - > From: "Václav Pavlín" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Cc: "Bill Nottingham" > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:54:27 PM > Subject: Re: ABRT in the comps group 'standard' > > > On 6.12.2013 10:56, Jakub Filak wrote: > > I'd like to add

Self-introduction

Hi! I've been using Fedora for about two years now, and I appreciate both its technical and political choices, among which the policy of following closely upstream (and especially GNOME -- you know what I mean... :-). Regarding to my free software activities, I've been involved in GNOME developm

Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE

On 12/11/2013 09:19 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:52:58PM +0100, Matthias Runge wrote: >> On 12/10/2013 02:20 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: >>> So please, have a look at it, play with it, break it (no seriously, do, but don't forget to report how you did

Re: Self-introduction

On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 06:56:15PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > I've been using Fedora for quite a few years as my main desktop OS, > and I think it's time I contributed back by writing some packages. > (Also, there are packages I want -- I might as well create them.) Hi Andrew, and welcome t

[Maniphest] [Created] T27: Irrelevant "phantom" updates are not purged from active update list

tflink created this task. tflink added a subscriber: tflink. tflink added a project: blockerbugs TASK DESCRIPTION Currently, there are two anaconda updates displayed in the blocker tracking app. One is current, one is a phantom update that no longer exists in bodhi. The phantom update appe

Re: Review Request 57: Multiple builds fixing a bug show confusing status label

> On Dec. 10, 2013, 5:58 p.m., Tim Flink wrote: > > blockerbugs/models/update.py, line 55 > > > > > > Why is this sort order change an improvement? If an older update is > > pending while a newer update is stable,

missing on bodhi: gcc-c++-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64

Hi http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=483733 [root@testserver:~]$ rpm -qa | grep gcc gcc-c++-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 libgcc-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 gcc-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 are these packages are missing on bodhi? http://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/ i would like to give positive karma afte

[Bug 1039710] perl-ExtUtils-Typemaps-Default-1.05 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039710 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #2 from Fedo

Re: Review Request 57: Multiple builds fixing a bug show confusing status label

> On Dec. 10, 2013, 5:58 p.m., Tim Flink wrote: > > blockerbugs/models/update.py, line 55 > > > > > > Why is this sort order change an improvement? If an older update is > > pending while a newer update is stable,

Re: missing on bodhi: gcc-c++-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:42:16 +0100 Reindl Harald wrote: > Hi > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=483733 > > [root@testserver:~]$ rpm -qa | grep gcc > gcc-c++-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 > libgcc-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 > gcc-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 > > are these packages are missing on bo

New release of Copr

New release of Copr is available at: http://copr.fedoraproject.org It has: * nicer URL - http://copr.fedoraproject.org/ which is alias for http://copr-fe.cloud.fedoraproject.org/ * extended API. See: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/api/ * faster builds - previously builds for various chroot

Re: missing on bodhi: gcc-c++-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64

Am 11.12.2013 17:46, schrieb Kevin Fenzi: > On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:42:16 +0100 > Reindl Harald wrote: > >> Hi >> >> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=483733 >> >> [root@testserver:~]$ rpm -qa | grep gcc >> gcc-c++-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 >> libgcc-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 >> gcc-4.8.2

Re: missing on bodhi: gcc-c++-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 05:42:16PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=483733 > > [root@testserver:~]$ rpm -qa | grep gcc > gcc-c++-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 > libgcc-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 > gcc-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 > > are these packages are missing on bodhi

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-12-12 17:00 UTC)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2013-12-12 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. rktime): 2013-12-12 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PST 2013-12-12 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EST 2013-12-12 1

Re: missing on bodhi: gcc-c++-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64

Am 11.12.2013 17:50, schrieb Jakub Jelinek: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 05:42:16PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: >> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=483733 >> >> [root@testserver:~]$ rpm -qa | grep gcc >> gcc-c++-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 >> libgcc-4.8.2-5.fc19.x86_64 >> gcc-4.8.2-5.fc1

Re: Self-introduction

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 06:56:15PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> I've been using Fedora for quite a few years as my main desktop OS, >> and I think it's time I contributed back by writing some packages. >> (Also, there are packages I wa

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-12-12 17:00 UTC)

On 12/11/2013 06:09 PM, James Antill wrote: Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2013-12-12 17:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Due to other obligations, I'll likely not be able to attend. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lis

Shared System Certificates followup: Packaging Guidelines?

Last night someone asked me about a package that they were working on that had a pem file in it. Looking closer, it seems that the pem file is a cacert bundle. Looking around, there's not currently documentation on what to do with these. I did find some information on the wiki, though: https:

Re: Shared System Certificates followup: Packaging Guidelines?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/11/2013 12:59 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: * Should we allow packages to ship automatically trusted certificates? We need to be cognizant of the potential risk inherent in allowing packagers to drop new trusted CA certificates onto the system.

Re: Shared System Certificates followup: Packaging Guidelines?

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > I'm by no means an expert in this area but my impression is that the > PackagingDraft is made obsolete by the Shared System Certificates Feature. Shared system certificates are unrelated to application-specific certificates and private keys

Re: Shared System Certificates followup: Packaging Guidelines?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 12/11/2013 01:07 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 6:59 PM, Toshio Kuratomi > wrote: >> I'm by no means an expert in this area but my impression is that >> the PackagingDraft is made obsolete by the Shared System >> Certificates F

Re: Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2013-12-12 17:00 UTC)

Dne 11.12.2013 18:09, James Antill napsal(a): If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fpc, e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may

ecryptfs alternatives

Hi, I have read in RHEL 7 beta release notes that ecryptfs will be deprecated in this release. The problem is that I've got a system on Fedora19 (which I want to move to EL7 after release) with some encrypted data. I'm looking for realiable alternative to ecryptfs that will work on EL7 out of box

Re: ecryptfs alternatives

2013/12/11 Michał Piotrowski : > Hi, > > I have read in RHEL 7 beta release notes that ecryptfs will be deprecated in > this release. The problem is that I've got a system on Fedora19 (which I > want to move to EL7 after release) with some encrypted data. I'm looking for > realiable alternative to

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2013-12-11)

=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2013-12-11) === Meeting started by mattdm at 18:00:46 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-12-11/fesco.2013-12-11-18.00.log.html . Meeting summary ---

Re: ecryptfs alternatives

Hi, 2013/12/11 Peter Lemenkov > 2013/12/11 Michał Piotrowski : > > Hi, > > > > I have read in RHEL 7 beta release notes that ecryptfs will be > deprecated in > > this release. The problem is that I've got a system on Fedora19 (which I > > want to move to EL7 after release) with some encrypted da

Re: FTBFS if "-Werror=format-security" flag is used

Brendan Jones wrote: > What is the best way to handle this case: > > qWarning(QObject::tr("Client name '%1' occupied.").arg(name).toUtf8()); > > something like, or can I make it simpler: > > qWarning("%s",qPrintable(QObject::tr("Client name '%1' > occupied.").arg(name).toUtf8())); Use one of: q

Re: Shared System Certificates followup: Packaging Guidelines?

Can be also extended for Mono snk key file stored in /etc/pki. We should also let packagers to use the system shipped key file instead of using the bundled anymore. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: h

Fedora 20 Final status report

Sorry I didn't do more of these, but mostly, the people who've had work to do have known about it, and we've just been trying to get it all done... We have an RC1 compose running at the moment. Go/No-Go is tomorrow (12-12), and RC1 is substantially different from TC5, so we really need to run thro

Re: Fedora 20 Final status report

On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 17:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > Sorry I didn't do more of these, but mostly, the people who've had work > to do have known about it, and we've just been trying to get it all > done... > > We have an RC1 compose running at the moment. Go/No-Go is tomorrow > (12-12), and

Re: [pkgdb2] call for testers, bug reports and RFE

On Wed, 2013-12-11 at 17:18 +0100, Matthias Runge wrote: > The idea behind is: > > you have some application with an issue/error. You'll do rpm -qf > and will get a package name, not necessarily the source > package name. > When filing a bug against a package, you'll need to know the source > pac

Re: pacemaker in Fedora and RHEL

On 11/12/13 06:36, Christopher Meng wrote: > Hi all, > > I wonder if there are some reasonable explanations of package > "pacemaker" in the repo. > > I checked the package and the result returned is: > > Fedora: pacemaker-1.1.9-3.fc20 in rawhide. > > RHEL: pacemaker-1.1.10-14.el6. > > The late

[Test-Announce] Fedora 20 Final Release Candidate 1 (RC1) Available Now!

NOTE: The 32-bit Install DVD is over its size limit. As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Final Release Candidate 1 (RC1) is now available for testing. Content information, including changes, can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5808#comment:15 . Please see the following