fltk blocked?

So it seems fltk has been blocked from F-21. This in and of itself is fine but there's been no bugs filed against packages that built against it, no announcement that I can see and the package itself hasn't been retired in git, nor can I see a rel-eng ticket. Is this an oversight? Peter -- devel

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Optional Javadocs

On Tue 18 Mar 2014 07:03:31 PM CET Miloslav Trmač wrote: > 2014-03-18 15:31 GMT+01:00 Jaroslav Reznik : >> = Proposed System Wide Change: Optional Javadocs = >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OptionalJavadocs > > I suppose shipping API documentation for end-user applications really > doesn

Re: Five Things in Fedora This Week (2014-03-18)

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 06:09:09PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 16:50 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > Is someone going to fix the TLS certificate? > https://register.flocktofedora.org is trying to use a certificate that > is only valid for rhcloud.com . https://fedorahosted

policy on pkg-config?

Hello, Is there some policy for package maintainers and pkg-config? My issue is that a package (libev) used pkg-config for some time, but later dropped it (for legitimate reasons as upstream didn't like that). However, should we really care about upstream in cases like that? I was making a packag

Re: Five Things in Fedora This Week (2014-03-18)

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:38:27PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > One benefit of posting it on devel@ rather than news@ is that people > notice it. I had never even heard of Fedora Magazine before. I'm not surprised -- we have communications gaps across the whole project. This effort is my smal

Re: Five Things in Fedora This Week (2014-03-18)

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:12:34PM -0500, Mukundan Ragavan wrote: > I like the fact that info about Fedora magazine is posted here. While > I knew about Fedora magazine, I do not always remember to check it. It > would be very nice if links are also included. It would make it easier > to go to spec

Re: Five Things in Fedora This Week (2014-03-18)

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 08:31:06PM -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > > Reposting from , for those of you who > > prefer email to the web. :) > Perhaps these should be syndicated to Planet Fedora, for those of us > who don't mind the web? Actually, I swear I've s

Re: fail2ban + firewalld suggestions needed

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:09:31PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > - Do we do this by default, because firewalld is the default firewall in > Fedora? I would not want to require firewalld though because fail2ban > can work perfectly fine without it, so it would be broken by default on > systems wi

What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ? The Workstation WG, looks like a Gnome only thing, will there be at place of users of other DE's in Fedora.next ? Best Regards Tim -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo

Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 7:52 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote: > What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ? They still exist. > The Workstation WG, looks like a Gnome only thing, will there be at place of > users of other DE's in Fedora.next ? Workstation uses GNOME as the default D

Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 03/19/2014 07:52 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote: > What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ? > > The Workstation WG, looks like a Gnome only thing, will there be > at place of users of other DE's in Fedora.next ? > Fedora Products

Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:52:07PM +0100, Tim Lauridsen wrote: > What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next ? We had a big discussion about this last month. General consensus is that we don't see spins going away, at least in the near future. The Fedora products are intended to

Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

On 03/19/2014 01:09 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > There is also a proposal for a "Fedora Plasma" product based around KDE. I'm > personally a little skeptical but listening -- I think want a technology > showcase masquerading as a product would miss the point, and I'd like to be > convinced that this

Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 01:29:24PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: > KDE should be release blocking. It's strongly represented in Fedora, > both in terms of users and available developer resources. We should make > sure KDE is fully functional before rolling out a Fedora release. Should this (the relea

Re: [HEADS UP] Update to Django-1.6

devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote on 03/18/2014 08:11:04: > From: mru...@matthias-runge.de > To: > Date: 03/18/2014 08:11 > Subject: [HEADS UP] Update to Django-1.6 > Sent by: devel-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > Hey there, > > now that we can have python-django15 in f21, I'll up

Re: rfc: EFI System partition, FAT32, repair and non-persistent mount

On Tue, 18.03.14 21:39, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote: > > Combining x-systemd.automount + noauto however is a way to establish a > > mount point and only lazily triggering it on access. And that's what you > > want to use here. > > That does work. It's automounted on any command I

Re: rfc: EFI System partition, FAT32, repair and non-persistent mount

On Wed, 19.03.14 15:01, William Brown (will...@firstyear.id.au) wrote: > Why not also extend this to /boot also? It's "rarely" used in day to day > on a system, really only for yum updates that include a kernel. > > [root@strawberry ~]# lsof | grep /boot > [root@strawberry ~]# To establish the

Summary of accepted Fedora 21 Changes - week 11

Greetings! This is a summary of FESCo's accepted Fedora 21 Changes for week 11 (2014-03-12 meeting). Reminder: the Change Submission deadline for System Wide Change is due in less than three weeks! = System Wide Changes = * cron to systemd time units URL: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/

Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

On 03/19/2014 01:35 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 01:29:24PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: >> KDE should be release blocking. It's strongly represented in Fedora, >> both in terms of users and available developer resources. We should make >> sure KDE is fully functional before ro

Re: What will happen to XFCE, LXDE, Mate, Cinnemon in Fedora.Next

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 02:27:45PM +0100, Kalev Lember wrote: > I would like to see more focus in Fedora. And to me, having these 3 core > Products is a good way of doing that. Instead of saying that everything > in Fedora is equal, we would now say that these 3 products are the main > deliverable.

Re: fail2ban + firewalld suggestions needed

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > fail2ban doesn't work out of the box with firewalld. However, we can > drop a config file at /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/fedora-firewalld.conf to > enable it. Where is this configuration file available? I'd love to have a copy until this get's

Re: fltk blocked?

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 08:05:40 + Peter Robinson wrote: > So it seems fltk has been blocked from F-21. This in and of itself is > fine but there's been no bugs filed against packages that built > against it, no announcement that I can see and the package itself > hasn't been retired in git, nor

Re: fail2ban + firewalld suggestions needed

On 03/19/2014 07:42 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Orion Poplawski mailto:or...@cora.nwra.com>> wrote: fail2ban doesn't work out of the box with firewalld. However, we can drop a config file at /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/fedora-firewalld.conf to enable it. Whe

Re: Five Things in Fedora This Week (2014-03-18)

On 18 March 2014 22:50, Matthew Miller wrote: > Reposting from , for those of you who > prefer email to the web. :) > > Fedora is big project, and it’s hard to follow it all. This new Fedora > Magazine feature will highlight interesting happenings in five differe

Fedora Present and Future: a Fedora.next 2014 Update (Part I, “Why?”)

I promised a while ago that I would provide a text version of my talk at DevConf, for people who couldn't make it and because sitting through a video of me standing up there going on and on doesn't really make for good followup discussion. Because it grew rather long, I think it works best as a we

AppStream Logs and False Positives

Quite a few people have asked me how the AppStream distro metadata is actually generated for their package. Since F20 we're also doing things like supply missing AppData files for some key apps, and replacing some upstream screenshots on others. In order to make this more transparent, I'm going to

Re: fltk blocked?

On 03/19/2014 04:05 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: fltk has been blocked from F-21 Huh? What are you refering to? indeed there are no recent builds for 21 in the main koji (last one is from August) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?buildOrder=nvr&packageID=1740&tagOrder=name&tagStart=0

Re: fltk blocked?

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > On 03/19/2014 04:05 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > > fltk has been blocked from F-21 > > Huh? What are you refering to? indeed there are no recent builds for 21 in > the main koji (last one is from August) See Kevin's response. > http://ko

Re: Five Things in Fedora This Week (2014-03-18)

On Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:34:41 -0400 Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 08:31:06PM -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > > > Reposting from , for those of > > > you who prefer email to the web. :) > > Perhaps these should be syndicated to Planet Fedora,

Re: policy on pkg-config?

2014-03-19 11:30 GMT+01:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos : > Hello, > Is there some policy for package maintainers and pkg-config? My issue > is that a package (libev) used pkg-config for some time, but later > dropped it (for legitimate reasons as upstream didn't like that). > However, should we reall

Re: rfc: EFI System partition, FAT32, repair and non-persistent mount

2014-03-19 5:31 GMT+01:00 William Brown : > On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 21:39 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:> RFE: Do not > persistently mount EFI System partition at /boot/efi > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1077984 > > > > It's still better to remove the on-going writing of configuration f

Re: rfc: EFI System partition, FAT32, repair and non-persistent mount

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 03:01:27PM +1030, William Brown wrote: > On Tue, 2014-03-18 at 21:39 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > >>> Fedora takes a different approach though, and will mount an explicit > > >>> boot partition to /boot and the ESP to /boot/efi, and do so > > >>> unconditionally without

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Ruby on Rails 4.1

Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said: > * Other developers: Update Rails dependent packages to be working with Ruby > on > Rails 4.1 Looking at the repo, the only toplevel 'app' that this would appear to cover would be OpenShift Origin, which is already called out on the feature page? Bi

Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2014-03-20 17:00 UTC) (US still on DST)

Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at -MM-DD 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. NOTE: US is on DST, so it's an hour later for them than "normal". Local time information (via. rktime): 2014-03-20 10:00 Thu US/Pacific

Re: rfc: EFI System partition, FAT32, repair and non-persistent mount

On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:02 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > > It's one of the reasons why I really really dislike the invention of > /boot/efi as the mount point for the ESP… I agree, although I go farther. The EFI System partition doesn't scale, isn't resilient, can neither be mirrored nor e

Re: fail2ban + firewalld suggestions needed

Am 19.03.2014 20:14, schrieb Jonathan Underwood: > On 19 March 2014 15:10, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046816 >> You are going to need fail2ban-0.9-2 - f20 build is here >> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6651548. More testing >>

Re: fail2ban + firewalld suggestions needed

Am 19.03.2014 20:21, schrieb Jonathan Underwood: > On 19 March 2014 19:16, Reindl Harald wrote: >> but with not take care of it you would end in having firewalld as mandatory >> dependency which is the main point of that thread - there are still way >> too much circular dependencies making it hard

Re: fail2ban + firewalld suggestions needed

On 19 March 2014 19:23, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 19.03.2014 20:21, schrieb Jonathan Underwood: >> On 19 March 2014 19:16, Reindl Harald wrote: >>> but with not take care of it you would end in having firewalld as mandatory >>> dependency which is the main point of that thread - there are still w

Summary/Minutes of today's FESCo Meeting (2014-03-19)

=== #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2014-03-19) === Meeting started by nirik at 18:00:02 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-03-19/fesco.2014-03-19-18.00.log.html . Meeting summary

Re: fail2ban + firewalld suggestions needed

On 19 March 2014 19:16, Reindl Harald wrote: > Am 19.03.2014 20:14, schrieb Jonathan Underwood: >> On 19 March 2014 15:10, Orion Poplawski wrote: >>> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046816 >>> You are going to need fail2ban-0.9-2 - f20 build is here >>> http://koji.fedoraproject

Re: fail2ban + firewalld suggestions needed

On 19 March 2014 15:10, Orion Poplawski wrote: > See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046816 > You are going to need fail2ban-0.9-2 - f20 build is here > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6651548. More testing > would be much appreciated. On a default F20 install w

Re: rfc: EFI System partition, FAT32, repair and non-persistent mount

I think dynamically mounted /boot is a separate conversation. It's only relevant here in that if x-systemd.automount,noauto behavior is desired for /boot, then for sure that means we need "a better way" for the EFI System partition because we can't have nested automounts. As for resources, the

Re: fail2ban + firewalld suggestions needed

On 03/19/2014 05:38 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:09:31PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: - Stick it in a fail2ban-firewalld sub-package that requires firewalld. Downside is that people need to figure out that they really should install this for default installs. Upside

Re: fail2ban + firewalld suggestions needed

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 02:32:40PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Hmm, I like this alternative a lot. I'm probably taking this too > far, but I'm thinking of: > > fail2ban-server - core components with minimal deps > > fail2ban-firewalld - firewalld support/configuration - requires firewalld >

Re: rfc: EFI System partition, FAT32, repair and non-persistent mount

On Wed, 19.03.14 13:13, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote: > I agree, although I go farther. The EFI System partition doesn't > scale, isn't resilient, can neither be mirrored nor easily sync'd > (multidevice boot). It should be considered a pre-boot and OS > installer domain only. You

Re: rfc: EFI System partition, FAT32, repair and non-persistent mount

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 19.03.14 13:13, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote: > >> I agree, although I go farther. The EFI System partition doesn't >> scale, isn't resilient, can neither be mirrored nor easily sync'd >> (multidevice boot). It sh

Re: GCJ [was: pdftk retired?]

- Original Message - > On 03/08/2014 03:37 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > >>> > >>> Sorry I am missing something. Why can't we keep the old pdftk that > >>> works with itext2? > >> > >> Check the whole thread - because of GCJ dependency

Re: rfc: EFI System partition, FAT32, repair and non-persistent mount

On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 15:57 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Lennart Poettering > wrote: > > On Wed, 19.03.14 13:13, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote: > > > >> I agree, although I go farther. The EFI System partition doesn't > >> scale, isn't resilient

Re: GCJ [was: pdftk retired?]

Hi > And JDK5 might be good enough for the use required. It doesn't claim > to be anything more than that, so I don't see the harm in leaving it there. We don't orphan or retire packages based on harm. We do it when there is noone volunteering to maintain it. If you care about GCJ, step up Ra

Re: fail2ban + firewalld suggestions needed

Ok using Jonathan's suggestion for the settings from a clean install I'm getting an error whether I use the systemd backend or not... 2014-03-19 22:06:57,956 fail2ban.server.server[12698]: INFOChanged logging target to /var/log/fail2ban.log for Fail2ban v0.9.0 2014-03-19 22:06:57,961 fail2ban.

Re: rfc: EFI System partition, FAT32, repair and non-persistent mount

On Mar 19, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 19.03.14 13:13, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote: > >> I agree, although I go farther. The EFI System partition doesn't >> scale, isn't resilient, can neither be mirrored nor easily sync'd >> (multidevice boot). It sho

Re: fail2ban + firewalld suggestions needed

On 03/19/2014 09:10 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > Ok using Jonathan's suggestion for the settings from a clean install I'm > getting an error whether I use the systemd backend or not... > >[12698]: ERROR ipset > create fail2ban-sshd hash:ip timeout 600 > firewall-cmd --direct --add-rule ipv4 filter

Re: fail2ban + firewalld suggestions needed

On 03/19/2014 02:56 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 02:32:40PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: >> Hmm, I like this alternative a lot. I'm probably taking this too >> far, but I'm thinking of: >> >> fail2ban-server - core components with minimal deps >> >> fail2ban-firewalld - fir

Re: rfc: EFI System partition, FAT32, repair and non-persistent mount

On Mar 19, 2014, at 7:51 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2014-03-19 at 15:57 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> >> More complex than trying to mirror a FAT ESP partition across multiple >> boot disks, keeping it properly synchronized, because RAID isn't >> supported? > > You can in theory