On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 07:06:30PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> OK, I wrote a really long explanation which is below, but I'll put a
> summary up here: there's some clever stuff that goes on involving the
> Fedora mirror system and the repository metadata, a consequence of
> which is that with a
2 others maintainers don't respond
Craig Barnes (Discount)
Eric Smith (Gsmartcontrol)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Eric Smith recently give me commit rights to gsmartcontrol.
ср, 28 сент. 2016 г. в 11:16, jack smith :
> 2 others maintainers don't respond
>
> Craig Barnes (Discount)
>
> Eric Smith (Gsmartcontrol)
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraprojec
On 09/27/2016 09:32 PM, Roman Tsisyk wrote:
My package uses getprotobyname(3), getaddrinfo(3), getnameinfo(3)
functions which read /etc/protocols, /etc/hosts, /etc/services and
other network configuration files under the hood.
Despite the fact that all these functions is an integral part of
glib
On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 05:11:52PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> I was asked to start this in today's Server meeting. The genesis for
> me was, I have more questions than answers and I'm fairly convinced
> I'm not the only person who's kinda shrugging not knowing what all the
> questions even are. A
BTW openssl changes.
Is it any official Fedora policy/call to move away from openssl?
I'm asking because I've noticed that some packages seems have been switched
from openssl to gnutls.
Examples of those packages is wget:
* Tue Jul 26 2016 Tomas Hozza - 1.18-2
- Switched openssl to gnutls for cry
Hi All, I am posting this for broader distribution, please help us
understand how you work on i18n and l10n, thanks!
http://developers.redhat.com/blog/2016/09/26/survey-what-do-you-care-about-internationalization-and-localization-anyway/
Yu Shao
According to a survey conducted by Common Sense
* Tomasz Kłoczko [28/09/2016 15:13] :
>
> Is it any official Fedora policy/call to move away from openssl?
We had plans to that effect a while back :
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCryptoConsolidation
Emmanuel
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.
On 28 Sep 2016, at 4:13 PM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> BTW openssl changes.
> It would be good to form kind of official guidline about using those
> alternative libraries and start pushing to use only one.
This is not always possible.
I spent a long time debugging 389ds on Ubuntu because someone
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 03:13:34PM +0100, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> Is it any official Fedora policy/call to move away from openssl?
As far as I know, no. There was this attempt:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FedoraCryptoConsolidation
but as the top of the page notes, the effort has been abandoned.
I just got up and run
dnf upgrade --refresh
It still didn't work, then I tried
dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=rawhide
The terminal output is error: no kernel packages were found.
After that I run
dnf upgrade --refresh again. My system start to upgrade.
I found it pretty weird because I t
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 08:15:53 -
"jack smith" wrote:
> 2 others maintainers don't respond
>
> Craig Barnes (Discount)
>
> Eric Smith (Gsmartcontrol)
Feel free to start the process for them.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
kevin
pgpYaRMStgKD0.p
On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 10:43 -0500, Bowen Wang wrote:
> I just got up and run
> dnf upgrade --refresh
> It still didn't work, then I tried
> dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=rawhide
> The terminal output is error: no kernel packages were found.
> After that I run
> dnf upgrade --refresh aga
Missing expected images:
Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Failed openQA tests: 3/102 (x86_64), 1/17 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in 25-20160927.n.0):
ID: 36985 Test: x86_64 universal install_delete_pata@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/36
Missing expected images:
Workstation live i386
Cloud_base raw-xz i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Workstation live x86_64
Failed openQA tests: 3/91 (x86_64), 1/16 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
Old failures (same test failed in Rawhide-20160927.n.1):
ID: 36765 Test: x86_64 Atomic-boot-iso install_default
URL
This is the content of the file /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo on my
laptop:
[fedora]
name=Fedora $releasever - $basearch
failovermethod=priority
#baseurl=http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/$releasever/Everything/$basearch/os/
metalink=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metali
> 1. NSS
> 2. GNUTLS (with nettle as crypto backend, but nettle never used
> directly by applications)
> 3. OpenSSL
> 4. libgcrypt
>
> and it might be reasonable to keep this as a "if possible, please prefer"
policy rather than a mandate.
Seems preferring gnutls over openssl is creati
On Monday, 26 September 2016 at 13:58, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Thursday, 22 September 2016 at 15:41, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I've just pushed (but not built) python-matplotlib-2.0.0b4 to rawhide.
> > I'll be attempting to rebuild all the affected pack
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2016-09-29 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2016-09-29 09:00 Thu US/Pacific PDT
2016-09-29 12:00 Thu US/Eastern EDT
2016-09-29 1
Is it permitted to have a non-numeric Version field?
The guidelines are at best unclear on this topic:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Version_Tag
The lz4 package has version "r131":
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/lz4.git/tree/lz4.spec#n5
Corollary question: If I'm g
You do rsplit() by the '-'. Right part is R.A. you remove arch and get
release.
What exactly you want to do? RPM and DNF have proper --queryformat.
-Igor Gnatenko
On Sep 28, 2016 8:52 PM, "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
> Is it permitted to have a non-numeric Version field?
> The guidelines are
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 09:05:13PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote:
> You do rsplit() by the '-'. Right part is R.A. you remove arch and get
> release.
Ah got it, because the release field can't contain a '-'.
> What exactly you want to do? RPM and DNF have proper --queryformat.
I don't have the RPM
Antonio Trande wrote:
> I'm going to maintain Avogadro.
Thanks!
I see you already addressed all the open bugs, that was quick. :-)
Kevin Kofler
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@
On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 12:31 -0500, Bowen Wang wrote:
> I think maybe it is just a coincidence, after I run the
> dnf upgrade --refrsh
> at the first time, the mirror I am using just got the latest update. So
> I can upgrade my system when running the second time.
To be clear, the mirror system is
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Bowen Wang wrote:
> This is the content of the file /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo on my
> laptop:
> [fedora]
> name=Fedora $releasever - $basearch
> failovermethod=priority
> #baseurl=http://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/$releasever/Everything
On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:52:30 +0800
Christopher Meng wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Bowen Wang
> wrote:
> > This is the content of the file /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo on my
> > laptop:
> > [fedora]
> > name=Fedora $releasever - $basearch
> > failovermethod=priority
> > #baseurl=http:
Hi Chris,
I have clicked the address
https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=fedora-rawhide&arch=x86_64
I got the following stuff:
# repo = rawhide arch = x86_64 country = US country = CA
http://mirror.n5tech.com/fedora/linux/development/rawhide/Everything/x86_64/os/http://mirrors.mit.e
Hi Stan,
I am not sure if I know what you are saying, can you explain it again?
Thanks.
Bowen
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:12 PM, stan wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2016 09:52:30 +0800
> Christopher Meng wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Bowen Wang
> > wrote:
> > > This is the content of t
Could someone with sufficient access please spin up an update of bind
for F-24 and other flavours of Fedora. That CVE looks like a pretty
serious DoS. This has already been fixed in RHEL.
Thanks,
--
Bojan
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproj
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:43:21 -0500
Bowen Wang wrote:
> Hi Stan,
> I am not sure if I know what you are saying, can you explain it again?
> Thanks.
I wasn't really paying attention to the conversation, but it sounded
like you wanted to have rawhide on your machine. But rawhide uses its
own repo,
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 09:52 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Bowen Wang
> wrote:
> > This is the content of the file /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo on my
> > laptop:
> > [fedora]
> > name=Fedora $releasever - $basearch
> > failovermethod=priority
> > #baseurl=http:/
These are all the files in /etc/yum.repos.d/
fedora-cisco-openh264.repo
fedora-rawhide.repo
fedora.repo
fedora-updates.repo
fedora-updates-testing.repo
Is this correct?
Bowen
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 10:36:53PM -0700, stan wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 21:43:21 -0500
> Bowen Wang wrote:
>
> > Hi
On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 00:56 -0500, Bowen Wang wrote:
> These are all the files in /etc/yum.repos.d/
>
> fedora-cisco-openh264.repo
> fedora-rawhide.repo
> fedora.repo
> fedora-updates.repo
> fedora-updates-testing.repo
>
> Is this correct?
Yes, that's fine. If you look in fedora-rawhide.repo you
Thanks for being so patient and explaining so much stuff to me!
Bowen
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 11:10:33PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-29 at 00:56 -0500, Bowen Wang wrote:
> > These are all the files in /etc/yum.repos.d/
> >
> > fedora-cisco-openh264.repo
> > fedora-rawhide.repo
Starting with version 0.3.6, jeromq package changes license from
"LGPLv3" to "MPLv2.0".
As far as I can tell, GPL compatibility is retained because
"Incompatible With Secondary Licenses" is not used.
See also: http://zeromq.org/area:licensing
--
Mikolaj Izdebski
Software Engineer, Red Hat
IRC:
35 matches
Mail list logo
