I am sorry for the inconvenience.
We usually rebuild entire ABRT stack (satyr/libreport/abrt) at once
, however, I'm not able to build abrt for Rawhide because of
some strange auto* error.
The build works on my Rawhide VM but the koji build fails.
I will be more careful next time.
Regards,
Ja
On 2014-01-08 13:16, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2014 18:09:32 +0400
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Matthias seems to stop his participation in Fedora ~1 year ago:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/tasks?owner=thias&state=all
Dave, I think you should be granted a primary maintainer status for
Dear guys and ladies,
So it seems like livecd-creator is silently disabling selinux.
Proof: vim $(which livecd-creator) ; line 150
Fact, that it's re-enabled afterwards doesn't ease silent disablement of
security feature.
I'd love to know the reason and if it's possible to do something about it.
On 09.01.2014 08:34, Vratislav Podzimek wrote:
> I really hope we will, that's how big steps in innovation happen in this
> fast-moving world. And we don't want to be limping behind, do we?
http://youtu.be/so9DBHCo64Q
poma
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fed
On 01/02/2014 11:32 PM, Jean François Martinez wrote:
> I have a nice booter setup and a nice _main_ Linux installation. Last thing
> I would want is a distribution I am _testing_, that is Fedora 20 forces on
> me it will be my main installation and forces me to choose between installing
> Grub
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/09/2014 05:32 AM, Maros Zatko wrote:
> Dear guys and ladies, So it seems like livecd-creator is silently disabling
> selinux. Proof: vim $(which livecd-creator) ; line 150 Fact, that it's
> re-enabled afterwards doesn't ease silent disablement of
Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi said:
> Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the kernel
> rather than protecting the kernel if some other package chooses to protect
> something else.
The magic "don't delete the running kernel" can't be done with just a
config file. Somethi
Hello,
New DNF release is out. See the blog [1], the release notes [2] and the
F20 update [3]. Rawhide build went smooth this time too!
Ales
[1] http://dnf.baseurl.org/2014/01/09/dnf-0-4-11-released/
[2] http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/release_notes.html#id22
[3] https://admin.fedoraproject.org
On Jan 7, 2014 4:53 AM, "Frank Murphy" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:28:59 +0100
> Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> > look like it starts to happen again: a replacement which is not ready
> >
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
>
> It seems the majority want the current dnf default
On 01/09/2014 03:56 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Jan 7, 2014 4:53 AM, "Frank Murphy" mailto:frankl...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 02 Jan 2014 16:28:59 +0100
> Reindl Harald mailto:h.rei...@thelounge.net>> wrote:
>
> > look like it starts to happen again: a replacement which is not ready
On Jan 9, 2014 6:26 AM, "Chris Adams" wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi said:
> > Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the
kernel
> > rather than protecting the kernel if some other package chooses to
protect
> > something else.
>
> The magic "don't delete the runn
This appears to have also broken Fedora 19 updates-testing, which is
even less acceptable than breaking rawhide.
--> Running transaction check
---> Package abrt.x86_64 0:2.1.11-1.fc19 will be an update
--> Processing Dependency: satyr >= 0.13 for package: abrt-2.1.11-1.fc19.x86_64
--> Processing D
Am 09.01.2014 16:03, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
>> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
>>
>> After asking on the bugzilla it seems that ales would like people who
>> want this change to cc themselves on the bug report. If the cc reaches
>> 40 he'll reconsider. Kinda a strange wa
On 01/09/2014 04:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.01.2014 16:03, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
After asking on the bugzilla it seems that ales would like people who
want this change to cc themselves on the bug report. If the cc reaches
40 he
Am 09.01.2014 16:37, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
> On 01/09/2014 04:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 09.01.2014 16:03, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
After asking on the bugzilla it seems that ales would like people who
want this
Again, I am sorry for the inconvenience and I promise that I'll be more careful
in the future.
This issue was fixed at 11:27:10 CET (2014-01-09)
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-0437/satyr-0.13-1.fc19,abrt-2.1.11-1.fc19,libreport-2.1.11-1.fc19
Regards,
Jakub
- Original M
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:03:06 +0100
Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> And what would be the right way to decide? And please stay assured
> that this is not a trolling, I would really like to see some
> agreement in Fedora on how to decide these kind of things.
As we always have I think...
If the maintain
On 01/09/2014 04:40 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.01.2014 16:37, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
On 01/09/2014 04:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 09.01.2014 16:03, schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049310
After asking on the bugzilla it seems that ales would
On Thu, 09 Jan 2014 16:56:31 +0100
Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
>
> Well, I can use dnf in it's current shape quite fine and it works
> faster than yum which I take as an improvement, so for me it's ok. So
> what now?
>
> --Jirka
>
>
Then add your voice to the bz to keep it as is.
___
Regards,
PAPI-5.3.0 came out at the beginning of December 2013
(http://icl.cs.utk.edu/papi/news/news.html?id=331). I would like to rebase
Fedora rawhide PAPI to PAPI-5.3.0 January 16, 2014. openmpi build is
definitely dependent on papi-devel, but I don't know if there are any other
packages dependent
The KDE SIG is considering moving qt(4)'s default header prefix path from
/usr/include
to
/usr/include/qt4
Primary reasons for doing this is to help minimize conflicts between
anything qt5-based.
When/if this is implemented, Qt4-based library packages, those that provide
-devel subpkgs at leas
Once again there are some packages, which haven't been retired completely
yet. Check out this Wiki page for the steps that are necessary to get packages
retired properly:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life
"Dead" in below output means the packages are marked
On 01/09/2014 10:48 AM, William Cohen wrote:
> PAPI-5.3.0 came out at the beginning of December 2013
> (http://icl.cs.utk.edu/papi/news/news.html?id=331). I would like to rebase
> Fedora rawhide PAPI to PAPI-5.3.0 January 16, 2014. openmpi build is
> definitely dependent on papi-devel, but I
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 10:13 -0500, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> This appears to have also broken Fedora 19 updates-testing, which is
> even less acceptable than breaking rawhide.
Eh, I'd suggest not. updates-testing is actually explicitly meant as a
place to catch this kind of problem, whereas we're tr
On 9 January 2014 15:13, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> On Jan 9, 2014 6:26 AM, "Chris Adams" wrote:
>>
>> Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi said:
>> > Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the
>> > kernel
>> > rather than protecting the kernel if some other package chooses to
>>
Am 09.01.2014 19:58, schrieb Ian Malone:
> On 9 January 2014 15:13, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>
>> On Jan 9, 2014 6:26 AM, "Chris Adams" wrote:
>>>
>>> Once upon a time, Toshio Kuratomi said:
Just have yum drop a config file in there that protects the
kernel
rather than protecti
Hi,
On 01/09/2014 12:09 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 01:14:08PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
/usr/bin/Xorg is, and has been, setuid-root just about forever. I'm
wondering whether there's any good reason for it t
Hi,
I maintain the uwsgi package for fedora, which optionally builds a bunch
of modules to integrate with several other languages. One of the plugins
got recently removed upstream but it hasn't got any replacements yet (see
the top of http://uwsgi-docs.readthedocs.org/en/latest/Erlang.html)
Curre
On 01/09/2014 01:29 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 01/09/2014 10:48 AM, William Cohen wrote:
>> PAPI-5.3.0 came out at the beginning of December 2013
>> (http://icl.cs.utk.edu/papi/news/news.html?id=331). I would like to rebase
>> Fedora rawhide PAPI to PAPI-5.3.0 January 16, 2014. openmpi bu
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 12:08:49 -0800, Jorge Gallegos wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I maintain the uwsgi package for fedora, which optionally builds a bunch
> of modules to integrate with several other languages. One of the plugins
> got recently removed upstream but it hasn't got any replacements yet (see
> the
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 01/09/2014 12:09 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Peter Hutterer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 01:14:08PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
/usr/bin/Xorg is, and has been, se
On 01/09/2014 01:23 PM, William Cohen wrote:
> On 01/09/2014 01:29 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> On 01/09/2014 10:48 AM, William Cohen wrote:
>>> PAPI-5.3.0 came out at the beginning of December 2013
>>> (http://icl.cs.utk.edu/papi/news/news.html?id=331). I would like to rebase
>>> Fedora rawhid
On 01/09/2014 01:58 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
Latest installed is almost exactly not what you want, I've had plenty
(where plenty in this case is probably >5) of cases where a kernel
update broke something, in quite a few of those cases to a state where
the system wouldn't boot. If the most recent on
Yes, still it's an interesting issue... perhaps one count how many which
actually are installed, but many problems also here: users privacy/opt-in,
easily spoofed, infrastructure.
In any case it would be great to have some estimate on this.
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 9:40 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:20:10 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> Yes, still it's an interesting issue... perhaps one count how many which
> actually are installed,
"Installed and used actively" would be more interesting.
Especially with regard to optional plugins, which perhaps are not
loaded/executed at
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:45:44PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:20:10 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
>
> > Yes, still it's an interesting issue... perhaps one count how many which
> > actually are installed,
>
> "Installed and used actively" would be more interesting.
>
> Es
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 02:38:50PM -0800, Jorge Gallegos wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 10:45:44PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:20:10 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, still it's an interesting issue... perhaps one count how many which
> > > actually are instal
On Thu, 9 Jan 2014 14:38:50 -0800, Jorge Gallegos wrote:
> The package may not come back any time soon, and I actually have no idea
> if patching it back from the old sources would be feasible (I haven't
> looked to what extent it is broken.) If it does come back in the future
> I understand it sh
Chris Adams wrote:
> The rescue kernel is another option, right there on the boot menu; if
> you actually removed all running kernels, it would be the _only_ Fedora
> option (and the only option at all on a system without multiple OSes
> installed, so booted by default).
Not going to happen here,
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
>> I'm a little lost in the thread, but do you mean that yum's protected
>> packages functionality is undocumented? If that is what you mean, check
>> the man page. It says:
>>
>> protected_packages This is a list of pa
Am 09.01.2014 22:16, schrieb Przemek Klosowski:
> By the way, currently the protected list seems to be 'yum, systemd and
> running kernel'.
> I don't have a system to try it on
what about the machine you sitting in front of?
without -y flag yum asks if you mean your input serious
> so I just
On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:52:46PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > On 01/09/2014 12:09 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Peter Hutterer
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:52:46PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >
>> > On 01/09/2014 12:09 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM,
On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 00:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> > In case of 3 you would never update an container you would replace it
> > with a new container ( or App image rather ) which contains the
> > update/upgrade and delete the old container or in case of Gnome wit
On Thu, 2014-01-09 at 19:58 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm coming to the conclusion that at some point distros have to give up
> swimming against the tide and just say, look, if this is the way this
> ecosystem wants to go, then it's your problem. Fedora's job for such
> ecosystems would simp
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 00:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>> > In case of 3 you would never update an container you would replace it
>> > with a new container ( or App image rather ) which contains the
>> > updat
46 matches
Mail list logo
