Hi and welcome Chenxiong
- Original Message -
> From: "Chenxiong Qi"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 6:36:08 AM
> Subject: Re: Self Introduction: Chenxiong Qi
>
> Hi all,
>
> Hello everyone, my name is Chenxiong Qi. I'm living in Beijing and
> currently
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20160616.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20160617.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 9
Dropped packages:0
Upgraded packages: 69
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 30.07 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 16 June 2016 at 14:23, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
>> Christopher wrote:
>>
>>> So, I'm trying to understand what's going on with netcat. If anybody can
>>> enlighten me, I'd appreciate it. Here's what I've found so far:
>>
>> Origin
Missing expected images:
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Kde raw-xz armhfp
Minimal raw-xz armhfp
Failed openQA tests: 12/83 (x86_64), 1/17 (i386)
ID: 23096 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/23096
ID: 23098 T
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 08:55:16PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> Also, I'd like to point out that flatpak isn't always open wrt
> sandboxing even now. Its possible to grant an app filesystem access,
> and many currently do, but its also possible to run e.g. games without
> filesystem access, an
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 02:24:26PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote:
> > I think that once the full sandboxing / portal system is in place,
> > there _will_ be a tangible reason to prefer Flatpak.
> Well, assuming that turns out to be the case, should our packaging
> guidelines eventually become "do not mak
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:11:48PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> For atomic workstation, this is the goal. We even need that, because in
> that setup the OS (/usr) would be a read-only image (based on rpms), so
> we could not install new rpms. Instead we'd take our existing rpms and
> create fl
On 17 June 2016 at 09:19, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
>> On 16 June 2016 at 14:23, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
>>> Christopher wrote:
>>>
So, I'm trying to understand what's going on with netcat. If anybody can
enlighten me,
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 02:24:26PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote:
>> > I think that once the full sandboxing / portal system is in place,
>> > there _will_ be a tangible reason to prefer Flatpak.
>> Well, assuming that turns out to be the case, sh
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:25:13AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Yes, is the direction I'm thinking. The Layered Image Build Service we
> > have for Docker can automatically rebuild when there are updates to
> > component RPMs, and it'd be nice if we could channel Flatpak through
> > that. Flatpak d
On Fri, 2016-06-17 at 09:59 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 09:11:48PM +0200, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > For atomic workstation, this is the goal. We even need that,
> > because in
> > that setup the OS (/usr) would be a read-only image (based on
> > rpms), so
> > we could
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '20
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:52:39 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:25:13AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > Yes, is the direction I'm thinking. The Layered Image Build
> > > Service we have for Docker can automatically rebuild when there
> > > are updates to component RPMs, and i
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:56:28AM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > How would non-GUI applications be installed in this picture?
> I'm not entirely sure what you have in mind for a non-GUI applications,
> but options available include.
For _services_, running in a docker container seems like a good
s
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 09:53:05AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Well, it's strongly discouraged currently:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Relocatable_packages
> it's not at all easy to make work right, so not sure this is the right
> tool for this use.
Well, the use case gi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2016-06-17)
===
Meeting started by sgallagh at 16:01:03 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2016-06-17/fes
On 06/16/2016 05:57 PM, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:44:11 -0400, Przemek wrote:
I get that, but as I said, RPM can have sandboxing too, and so far it
looks like the main vulnerability vector is unpatched software. Flatpack
wouldn't have helped with heartbleed, and the right r
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:58 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 02:24:26PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote:
> > > I think that once the full sandboxing / portal system is in place,
> > > there _will_ be a tangible reason to prefer Flatpak.
> > Well, assuming that turns out to be the case
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:40 PM Mat Booth wrote:
> On 16 June 2016 at 20:16, Christopher wrote:
>
>> I'm trying to revive rpms/hadoop, but am running into some failures[1] on
>> i686 in koji that I cannot reproduce locally in x86_64. The thing is... I
>> don't really have any good 32-bit environ
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:20 AM Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
> > On 16 June 2016 at 14:23, Xose Vazquez Perez
> wrote:
> >> Christopher wrote:
> >>
> >>> So, I'm trying to understand what's going on with netcat. If anybody
> can
> >>>
Not sure where to send this, but...
From 1280b78688baaf9a576af5a0a0a658fd0f0ea7e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: DJ Delorie
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 19:27:55 -0400
Subject: Fix FTBFS due to gcc and glibc updates
- comment out tautological asserts that gcc 6 complains about
- replace readdir_r (de
How about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&version=rawhide&component=ltrace
On Sat, Jun 18, 2016 at 12:31 AM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>
> Not sure where to send this, but...
>
> From 1280b78688baaf9a576af5a0a0a658fd0f0ea7e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: DJ Delorie
> Date: F
> How about
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&version=rawhide&component=ltrace
Done, BZ 1347879
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:05:01 -0400, you wrote:
>I still think we, as a distribution, should not be in the business of
>discouraging downstream packaging in favor of *upstream* provided flatpaks,
>though (which was my original objection to the idea).
Which is better for the user:
1) upstream Flat
24 matches
Mail list logo
