that you certainly can. Even Via Samuel is MMX enabled. Actually
> any processor built after the original Pentium (i.e.>= "Pentium MMX")
> is, AFAIK
On that note, I see we have no pentium2 arch in rpmrc, which would be
useful in this situation.
--
Garrett Holmstrom
University o
//csrc.nist.gov/groups/STM/cmvp/standards.html if you're
interested.
I have no idea if it actually requires them to be alongside the
executables, but hopefully the link will help.
--
Garrett Holmstrom
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
owned by other users than root);
> in the unusual case where making the executeable not writeable did case
> some problems, the packager could override the change by explicitly
> specifying the required permissions using %attr in the %files section of
> the spec file.
>
> What do
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> It's cute isn't it? I had the biggest grin the day I realised that '['
> was just another command..
That's the reason [[ can use special characters like < and > without
escaping, while [ can't:
root, but whether he has the
> dac_override capability. If you read the original mail (1st paragraph)
> again with this in mind, you will understand the reason for the change.
Does a lack of the dac_override capability prevent root from chmod'ing
its own files?
--
Garrett Hol
that
doesn't get one any sort of parallelism when downloading packages, but
it answers one of your complaints by rating actual data rates.
--
Garrett Holmstrom
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
pci.so, which is in
/usr/lib. Thus /sbin/lspci will fail to load in the absence of /usr.
This is exactly the same as the case you describe for /bin/rpm and
/sbin/setpci.
Maybe I'm just misinterpreting your post...
--
Garrett Holmstrom
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> True, but if necessary.
> You can always yum downgrade x
> Especially if you just need to check out package x.
In such scenarios you might find the ``yum history'' command useful
since it can easily undo upgrades that include dependencies.
--
On 8/12/2010 9:16, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> I'm currently in process of automatic enlisting of all ~10K Fedora Git
> repos at Ohloh.
Do you have some way of automatically adding new packages as they are
added to Fedora in the future?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://adm
Joachim Backes wrote:
> having the following question: What does the DVD/CD media check exactly
> if booting a Fedora DVD/CD? Is it the sha256sum? If yes, why this media
> check, because it could be done after having burned the DVD?
>
> If not, is it possible to perform this media check immediatel
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> * This policy of sticking religiously to upstream means we are not shipping
> KDE integration for Firefox, despite patches from openSUSE existing. This
> makes Firefox suck under KDE. Our Firefox maintainers refuse to do anything
> about it.
What reason does upstream give
Paul Howarth wrote:
> No changes: the heads of the f12, f13, f14 and master branches all
> point to the "dist-git conversion" commit.
In case it matters, these branches point to two completely separate
commits; f12 has an entirely different history from f13, f14, and master
as far as git is conc
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
> you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
> to do so.
That behavior might be fine, but don't add filesystems marked "noauto"
to the list of filesystems to be mounte
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Well, we took the liberty to interpret noauto a little bit differently
> than you: everything marked "auto" will be mounted at boot, and boot
> will not proceed until all devices listed as auto appeared and are fully
> mounted (or things timed out). File systems marked a
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>> * fstab(5) documents the "noauto" option
>
> Well, what it says is that noauto results in "the -a option will not
> cause the filesystem to be mounte
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Reading this - I'm not sure all Fedora notifications should go through system
> notification system. Why? I understand it for urgent/priority notification
> like
> "Close your desktop, nuclear war out there" (or just a security update
> combined
> with some steps how t
Matthew Miller wrote:
> The service command has a syntax like this:
>
> service servicename action
>
> where as systemctl has a syntax like this:
>
> systemctl action servicename.service
>
> This is inconvienient for the common case where more than one action is
> performed in sequence on the
Why are bluecurve-gdm-theme and fedoraflyinghigh-gdm-theme still in the
distribution? The other gdm theme packages were deprecated after F12
(!?!), and I was under the impression that none of them work with
new-style gdm at all.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> We probably need to attack this trend more aggressively, like putting
> expiration dates into the installer after which it'll just refuse to
> install, stuffing fedora-release-n+1 into the Fedora n updates repository at
> Fedora n's EOL date etc.
Not only is this disingenu
On Aug 26, 2010, at 13:50, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 20:30 +0200, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
>> Jon Masters writes:
>>
>>> What's the benefit of having no default MTA at all? Is it that Desktop
>>> users don't care about MTAs being installed? what about those of us who
>>> care
On 8/26/2010 11:53 PM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> On Thursday 26 of August 2010 21:21:53 Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
>> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> We probably need to attack this trend more aggressively, like putting
>>> expiration dates into the installer after which it&#x
On 8/27/2010 2:03 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> In accordance with the normal process, the following packages have been
> orphaned for Fedora 14 and rawhide.
Will packages with untouched FTBFS bugs also be removed like the normal
process dictates?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FTBFS#.28Proposed.2
Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Matt McCutchen writes:
>> I propose that fedpkg should consider a --dist option, a "branch"
>> file, and the name of the current git branch in that order.
>
> Or make it a branch config (eg. git config branch.$branch.dist f14).
This, please. Using magical branch names or
On 01-Sep-10 20:43, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> Taking the dist value from the branch name is "magical" in the sense
> that it imposes a new interpretation on an existing datum. Taking it
> from a file in the working tree designated for that specific purpose
> (which I suppose should really be named "
Roman Rakus wrote:
> On 09/16/2010 04:21 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
>> Updating igraph to 0.5.4. Success for devel and f14. Then for f13 I get:
>>
>>> fedpkg switch-branch f13
>> Branch f13 set up to track remote branch f13/master from origin.
>>
>>> git merge master
>> CONFLICT (rename/delete): Re
On 9/19/2010 9:40, Christoph Höger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> since I keep offlineimap the same version for the latest stable (that I
> got my hands on) + devel versions, my fedpkg workflow looks like:
>
> 1. master> build package
>
> 2. f14> git pull origin master&& fedpkg push&& fedpkg build ...
>
On 9/20/2010 16:41, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Fedora Koji Build System
> wrote:
>> Package: Miro
>> NVR: Miro-3.0.3-2.fc13
>> User: bodhi
>> Status: failed
>> Tag Operation: untagged
>> From Tag: dist-f13-updates-testing-pending
>>
>> Miro-3.0.3-2.fc13 uns
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 09/22/2010 08:08 AM, Paul F. Johnson wrote:
>> I know I can do the likes of
>>
>> export CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -blah" and it will pass whatever CFLAGS is plus
>> the argument "-blah" to the compiler.
>>
>> How do I do this with LDFLAGS. I'm trying to pass --build-id using
>
On 10/7/2010 12:04, Mike McGrath wrote:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastruture/Yubikey
^^
Typo alert! ;)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Oct 2010, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote:
>> After made some changes in origin/master and commit is I also must do
>> for each available branches something similar:
>> fedpkg switch-branch el5;
>> git pull
>> git merge origin/master
>> git push
>> fedpkg bu
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Somewhere in the recesses of my memory I remember a UNIX where /bin, /lib,
> and so on were just symlinks to /usr/bin, /usr/lib, and so on.
Tru64 (Yes, it's still supported!) does:
gho...@seraph ~ % uname -a
OSF1 seraph.tetraforge.com V5.1 2650 alpha
gho...@seraph ~ % ls
On 10/24/2010 9:45, Mark Bidewell wrote:
> Sorry if this has been discussed, but has there every been discussion
> of a dual 32/64-bit install media? I realize that the default package
> selection would be reduced but with a high speed connection it
> shouldn't be too big of an issue. Having a si
On 10/24/2010 10:17, Branched Report wrote:
> Broken deps for x86_64
> --
> qtgpsc-0.2.3-6.fc12.x86_64 requires libgps.so.18()(64bit)
> rakudo-0.0.2010.08_2.7.0-1.fc14.x86_64 requires
> libparrot.so.2.7.0()(64bit)
Any chance thes
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> But a combo x86-32/x86-64 install media OTOH would be very interesting
> for magazines that want to ship Fedora on a enclosed DVD, as that's
> cheaper than two and makes way more readers happy than a x86-32 only
> DVD. Ohh, and a combo install media might be interesting a
Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:52 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 17:55 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) said:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> Unfortunately we didn't notice this dependenc
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Tom spot Callaway said:
>> Also, it is worth noting that the new website makes heavy use of
>> Javascript, so if you have NoScript (or equivalent) running, you'll not
>> get a good view of the site. :)
>
> Yeah, apparently that was the problem I was seeing.
On 10/29/2010 14:37, David Cantrell wrote:
> (1) For VGs<= 50 GB, we will continue to make swap and / as normal.
> (2) For VGs> 50 GB, / will cap at 50 GB and /home will consume the
> rest.
>
> 50 GB is fairly arbitrary, and was based on the fact that an Everything
> insta
On 11/1/2010 9:32, Jean-Francois Saucier wrote:
> I just put my package review template on my wiki space at :
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jfsaucier/Review_Template
[ ] SourceX is a working URL.
[ ] SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[ ] Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -
On 11/6/2010 11:28, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> As for the "if all apps are ported to Wayland I will not be able to use
> them remotely anymore" I think this is bogus. Nowadays virtually all
> application aren't X application but gtk/qt applications and the toolkits
> tend to support different b
On 2011-07-20 9:18, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Benjamin Lewis wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, how does this affect existing systems which have human
>> UIDs of 500, 501, etc..?
>>
>> Do they suddenly become system UIDs or is login.defs left alone then
>> (and consequently
On 2011-07-30 9:44, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> I tried using
> %global gccver %(gcc -dumpversion)
> %if %{gccver}>= 4.6.0
>foo here
> %endif
>
> to conditionalize usage of quadruple precision support in a spec file
> that ships on multiple distros, but the comparison gives the error
>
> par
On 2011-08-19 20:41, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Updates can be pulled out of updates-testing at any moment, which makes a
> lot of sense, but which means that users with updates-testing enabled will
> end up with the EVR going backwards, something that's not even allowed in
> Rawhide.
>
> Enabling updat
Neither bodhi nor mash appears to consider systemd to be in the critical
path. Why is this? Is that the way we want it to be?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Given the grub1/grub2 discussion that is going on, I could use some info
about the state of grubby's support for grub1. The virtual machine
images that the Cloud SIG publishes on Amazon EC2 do not require
bootloaders, but they do require valid grub1 *configuration files* to
start. So while th
On 2011-09-28 14:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Sep 2011 22:00:40 +0100
> "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>> I was thinking of something slightly simpler: a single 'unison'
>> package that contained several binaries, like /usr/bin/unison227,
>> /usr/bin/unison (symlink to latest).
>
> That does h
On 2011-10-04 12:01, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> So my solyution:
> foo-0-1.20110120git.fc16 vs
>
> Your solution:
> foo-20110120-1.20110120git.fc16
>
> (Since it's a snapshot, the date has to go into the release string anyway)
> Which is uglier?
>
> Also, since these are snapshots, a date in the upst
On 2011-10-10 12:05, David Nalley wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Adam Miller
> wrote:
>> Do any of those cloud providers ever run the stock image or do they roll
>> their own with a custom built kernel anyways? I don't have a lot of
>> insight into this but was just curious what the la
On 2011-10-25 15:17, Adam Williamson wrote:
> It's not just the updates-testing list, though. When I go to the web
> interface, search for updates to, say, grub2, get a list, and click on
> one of the results, I get an ID-based URL, not a package name-based one.
> I then paste that into an email, I
On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Or perhaps even:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA--N/package1-1.1.fc16,package2-1.1.fc16
>
> where anything after the FEDORA--N doesn't matter, but could
> contain all the current packages in the update.
This
On 3/25/2011 17:38, Branched Report wrote:
> Compose started at Fri Mar 25 13:15:31 UTC 2011
>
An empty list? Quick, ship it!
In all seriousness, did something go wrong with the compose or are there
actually no depsolving problems?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://ad
On 4/6/2011 11:11, Jeffrey Ness wrote:
> As I'm new to the community and RPM Package Review (and development), I
> figured a tool to assist with reviews would be a nice time saver.
>
> With that said I have a simple Python tool (still in early beta stages) which
> does just that.
>
> Keeping with
On 4/28/2011 13:25, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> EPEL now has a 'Package Review' component in bugzilla. If you've got an
> EPEL-only package you'd like to get reviewed, feel free to file it there.
How is this any different, given that process-git-requests creates a
rawhide branch without regard to wh
On 4/29/2011 9:12, Jesse Keating wrote:
> It is somewhat difficult, and odd, to create a git repo that does not
> have a master branch. It would be a little more odd to potentially at
> some point in the future create the master branch for a package should
> it find a home within Fedora.
As you s
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 20:04 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> reserved/system IDs are supposed to be once that has been done we can
>> start looking at what is the best approach to implement and or fix
>> things that might break because o
On 2011-06-06 11:17, Tom Callaway wrote:
> As usual, I will swap reviews or favors (within limits) for reviews on
> some new packages for me:
>
> mono-reflection:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711181
>
> pyrit:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=691894
>
> gambas3:
> http
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Customers ask us to make the changes they want -- for server use and
> scalability -- and KVM is absolutely the best in that area as a
> result. See many recent benchmarks.
>
> Usability on single desktops is, well ... we do our best.
On 2011-06-11 12:11, Lucas wrote:
> Actually it does relabel by it self after boot with option "selinux=0"
That sounds rather useful. How does it know whether or not it was
previously booted with selinux=0?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mail
On 2011-06-26 12:33, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> And I have no idea what part of our update policy should be violated by
> this update. Please somebody enlighten me.
This part:
* Avoid changing the user experience if at all possible.
Specifically, the update breaks a number of user-installed ext
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Nicolas's argument is that rpm does not automatically detect when he wants
> to end his %description and therefore he should be excluded from the
> requirement.
Would it make sense to have %end available to terminate spec file
sections like
On 2/25/2010 21:59, Colin Walters wrote:
> I fairly strongly think we should have a default "Fedora Virt Server"
> image. Rather than asking the internets to make it as I have in the
> past, recently I needed to install one so I looked at what's out
> there.
>
> There is: https://fedoraproject.org
On 2/26/2010 7:26, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
> "Notes" field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unknown
> reason. Any update with less than a specified number of characters
> (~40) in the Notes should also be banned.
What if
On 2/26/2010 6:16, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> at the FESCo meeting on Tuesday, everyone except me seemed to be set on
> wanting to disable the possibility to queue updates directly to stable in
> Bodhi. The only reason this was not decided right there (with no outside
> feedback) is that Matthew Garrett
On 2/26/2010 10:55, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
>> On 2/26/2010 7:26, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>>> Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
>>> "Notes" field in bodhi that many people
On 2/26/2010 11:07, Jesse Keating wrote:
> It'll require some enhancements to how bodhi is used for people
> consuming testing updates, and it may require a more active role on part
> of the maintainer to seek out somebody to at least give the update a
> smoke test. Instead of treating updates-tes
On 3/3/2010 2:27, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
>
> Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
>
> At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
> attention.
Right now Fedora releases are either "Supported" or "Unsupported." [1]
If we wan
On 3/3/2010 2:51, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> only updates repo enabled by default.
Splitting the u
On 3/27/2010 12:19, xinglin wrote:
> The fact is Emulab does not have Fedora12 now. We just have Fedora8 and
> Fedora10. :(
> I will talk with the Emulab administrators about this.
If the lab can't keep up with updates to Fedora releases it should
seriously try going with a distribution with long
On 3/29/2010 7:33, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> I am trying to reposync updates, but reposync seems to be having troubles:
>
> ...
> [updates: 2742 of 6885 ] Downloading
> kde-l10n-Korean-4.4.1-2.fc12.noarch.rpm
> Could not retrieve package kde-l10n-Korean-4.4.1-2.fc12.noarch. Error
> was failure: kde
On 3/31/2010 14:18, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 09:07 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> I'm asking for a sketch of a policy that would do better at accurately
>> portraying what deficiencies are alive while still allowing
>> maintainers to efficiently track which issues they've resol
On 4/12/2010 16:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
> meeting tomorrow at 19:00UTC (3pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net.
>
> NOTE: The Meeting Time has CHANGED. See above.
Is the "NOTE" still necessary?
--
devel mailing list
d
On 4/13/2010 14:07, James Laska wrote:
> I see, thanks for the clarification. Is there a better way you would
> recommend to locate a sponsor for the packager of beakerlib (pmuller)?
Before anyone will sponsor a prospective packager the person should
first do some informal package reviews to dem
On 16 Apr 2010, at 17:11, João Neto wrote:
> I wonder if this really is the best method to customize a LiveCD or if
> there is another way!
> My interest is not only to create or remove packages, but some system
> settings too!
There is a much easier way: Revisor.
http://revisor.fedoraunity.org
On 2011-11-10 8:35, Tom Lane wrote:
> (And why is glibc ignoring the convention to use %{?dist} in
> Release:?)
There is a bug open for this. Note that dist tags are still optional.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=676755
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://ad
On 2011-11-09 18:48, Adam Williamson wrote:
> thanks both of you; I hadn't really thought about the consequences of
> merging vs. cherry-picking, I think I'd just cargo-culted from somewhere
> the idea of using git merge instead of manually re-doing changes without
> considering cherry-picking inst
On 2012-01-27 5:10, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Any files with conflicting names, which the conversion could not resolve, will
be backed up to files named *.usrmove~ residing in /usr/lib, /usr/lib64,
/usr/bin and /usr/sbin.
To which file does the conversion script append this suffix when it
resolves a
On 2012-02-23 10:20, John5342 wrote:
It is possible that they don't match but they are more or less
required to though. Last i checked the bugzilla "editbugs" permissions
and the like are set from fas by email address so if the addresses
don't match up then the user won't be able to manage bugzil
On 2012-02-24 4:22, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
So I installed the official Fedora version of cloud-init but the
service startup ordering is broken there too:
[root@342 ~]# dmesg | grep cloud | grep About
[ 91.668396] systemd[1]: About to execute: /usr/bin/cloud-init start-local
[ 91.993238] syst
2 at 12:02 PM, Michal Schmidt
> wrote:
> > On 02/26/2012 07:37 AM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2012-02-24 4:22, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> >>>
> >>> So I installed the official Fedora version of cloud-init but the
> >>> service sta
On Mar 7, 2012 7:54 AM, "Stanislav Ochotnicky"
wrote:
> - Remove mention of maven2 in guidelines since all supported versions
>have maven-3.x. Some other small cleanups as well perhaps
Is there already a separate set of java guidelines for EPEL? If there isn't
does this mean we should create
On 11/13/2010 18:15, Christopher Stolzenberg wrote:
> yum install mock
> useradd mockbuild
> usermod -G mock mockbuild
Unless you want to ``su'' to a dedicated mockbuild account every time
you want to build you should add your usual account to the mock group
instead.
> mock rebuild -r epel-6-x8
On 11/18/2010 8:09, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Monday, 15 November 2010 at 12:29, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> [...]
>> This is a silly straw-man. No one[1] formats external HDs with
>> anything other than MS-DOS FAT. Fedora changing the default for the
>> main hard disk will not m
On 11/21/2010 17:51, Björn Persson wrote:
> Andre Robatino wrote:
>> My feeling is that it would be better for Bodhi to always require a login.
>> Even Bugzilla does that. I suspect that a lot of people who give anonymous
>> karma don't realize that it doesn't count, and would have created an
>> ac
On 12/3/2010 18:34, Jesse Keating wrote:
> The original thought was to have top level branches that are named after
> distribution releases, eg "f14", "f15", "el5". Then we would force
> branches of those branches use a naming structure of "f14/topic". The
> reason was so that our tooling could l
On 12/6/2010 23:01, Matt Domsch wrote:
> I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
> lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state
Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> So, when a package
> - contains some example scripts
> - the packager thinks that such scripts are useful and many people actually
> want to execute them
> - but such scripts need additional dependencies
> then the packager actually may want to add additional dependencies.
On 12/13/2010 7:37, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 07:49:27PM -0800, John Reiser wrote:
>> How did /dev/shm get noexec in Fedora 15 rawhide?
>> $ grep /dev/shm /proc/mounts
>> tmpfs /dev/shm tmpfs rw,seclabel,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime 0 0
>> $ grep -srl noexec /etc
>>
On 12/14/2010 21:28, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Tue, 14.12.10 12:08, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> Thanks, Bill, for replying in so much detail.
>
> Here are a few other points:
>
>> - systemd mounts API filesystems without them needing to be in
>>/etc/fstab. This is for a
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> What sort of attack would this enable?
>
> Wait... any unprivileged process can create sockets in the abstract
> namespace? Uh-oh.
Any unprivileged process can prevent you from running X on a given
display by using up the socket name that
It seems that the "core" yum group pulls in X11 libraries, at the very
least on x86_64, via the following dependency chain:
policycoreutils
dbus-glib
gobject-introspection
cairo
libX11
Does that much seriously need to be in what we consider a bare minimum
Fedora install?
--
devel mailing list
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Thomas Spura wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:46:34 -0500
> Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
>> rversion=2.1
>> subversion=400
>>
>>
>> Spec file extract:
>> Version: %{rversion}.%{subversion}
>> Release: 2%{?locmark}
>> Source: ./%{na
On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Jean-Marc Pigeon wrote:
> Ok, this means having an uptodate "sources" file is not
> mandatory. I pushed the tar file in
> same time as spec to GIT, koji was smart enough to forgive
> my error.
>
> So I can work one way or the other...
> right?
While it will techn
On 1/27/2011 23:26, Julian Sikorski wrote:
> I have just run into an issue with gcc-4.6, namely RPM Fusion's mame
> failed to compile [1]. I was told that #include was missing.
> So I have two questions: why did including this header directly became
> necessary (code builds fine with 4.5) and are
On 1/28/2011 0:11, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Care to share details? Of course there were many changes in the C++ FE,
> especially for C++0x, and maybe some warnings changed into errors, but
> nothing I'd describe as a lot. We haven't still written
> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/porting_to.html so if y
On 2/24/2011 8:14, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Some people have been asking us to extend the systemd unit file header
> to include information about whether a service should be on or off by
> default (Michal!), like chkconfig had it. But after thinking about this
> we came to the conclusion that th
On 2/25/2011 7:19, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> I've got an interesting idea - why not to provide a git repository
>> with the sources of current Fedora kernel? This could simplify the
>> maintenance of patches, allows other to easily backport stuff from
>> kernel.org's master and greatly improves t
On 5/6/2010 4:16, Thomas Spura wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 05.05.2010, 21:34 -0500 schrieb Eric Sandeen:
>> Matt McCutchen wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-05-05 at 16:51 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
See the 'debugmode' package.
>>>
>>> Neat, I wasn't aware of that package.
>>
>> which is why I still li
On 5/10/2010 15:46, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 01:10:18AM +0200, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
>> Long time ago, all *redhat* packages were renamed to "system*".
>> But three of them are still alive: redhat-lsb, redhat-menus and
>> redhat-rpm-config
>>
>> Should they switch to "syst
On 5/10/2010 22:23, Jesse Keating wrote:
> (our?) Bugzilla already has a method for proposal and acceptance. This
> is done via flags. We currently use this for package reviews and CVS
> admin tasks. What I propose is that we introduce a new flag once we've
> branched a release and created a bug
On 5/12/2010 0:00, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> - After a week, if more than 3 (three) sponsors provide positive
>feedback, the candidate is approved.
This disagrees with the ticket. Is it supposed to be "three" or "more
than three?"
> - If the candidate has any negative or veto votes, then FESCo l
On 7/9/2010 12:32, Ian Weller wrote:
> I got to thinking (uh oh) after reading a few threads on devel about
> there being far too many review requests and not enough packagers
> interested in reviews. I know that one thing that makes package reviews
> bearable for me is a checklist to go through. I
1 - 100 of 131 matches
Mail list logo
