On 01/15/2010 08:17 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:00:50AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> The following 30 packages, with respective FTBFS bugs, have been open
>> since the Fedora 11 time frame, and continue to fail to build. These
>> are the oldest non-building packages in the
On 01/16/2010 03:50 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:13:32AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> With nobody handling the incoming bugzilla tickets. With some bug
>> reports having been killed in an automated way at dist EOL. And
>> worse if it turns out that packages which do bui
On 01/18/2010 10:36 PM, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Monday 18 January 2010 08:07:44 am Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
>> should be possible, we have an (old but we have one) apt
>
> I thought apt-rpm was broken since the rpm 4.7.x (or is that the right
> version) changes?
It was broken for quite a while
On 01/22/2010 12:19 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Hello,
> In Fedora 12 several daemons (e.g. dhclient) were modified to drop
> unnecessary capabilities, most importantly the "dac_override"
> capability, allowing the daemon to ignore file permission bits. This,
> in combination with removing some pe
Hi,
On FC12 I found this:
# ls /usr/bin/.*.hmac
/usr/bin/.fipscheck.hmac
/usr/bin/.ssh.hmac
# rpm -qf /usr/bin/.*.hmac
fipscheck-1.2.0-4.fc12.x86_64
openssh-clients-5.2p1-31.fc12.x86_64
Could somebody provide some insight what these files are (I guess some
checksums) and why they are being ins
On 01/22/2010 01:22 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-22 at 12:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On FC12 I found this:
>>
>> # ls /usr/bin/.*.hmac
>> /usr/bin/.fipscheck.hmac
>> /usr/bin/.ssh.hmac
>>
>> # rpm -qf /usr/bin/.*
On 01/22/2010 04:24 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 01/22/2010 07:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 01/22/2010 01:22 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>
>>> These are checksums required by FIPS-140-2 integrity verification checks
>>> of the fipscheck and ssh bin
On 01/27/2010 02:17 PM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> in Fedora we have pciutils binaries (lspci and setpci) in /sbin, both of them
> use pciutils-libs (/usr/lib/...) and afaik this is how it works for "ages".
> I'd like to move them from /sbin to /usr/sbin to have them with the same
> pref
On 01/28/2010 04:06 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius said:
>> On 01/27/2010 02:17 PM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
>>> Do you think moving this is a bad idea?
>> Yes.
>>
>> The pciutils are valuable tools when trying to recover from situati
On 01/29/2010 07:19 AM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 11:35 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Consider taking out /usr from your fstab and to check how far you can get.
>> With /sbin/lspci you will be able to check your pci setup, with
>> /usr/sbin/lspci, yo
On 02/01/2010 05:01 PM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> On Friday 29 January 2010 06:35:21 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> Should setpci be used somewhere in bootup scripts, you likely won't be
>> able to boot up your system at all.
>
> and because libpci is in /usr for a long
On 02/01/2010 10:23 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 11:16:54AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius said:
>>> IMO, you are facing a hen-and-egg problem: You've never seen such a
>>> complaint, because using a separate
On 08/12/2010 03:34 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>> Luckily Remi got a list:
>>
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-August/140708.html
>
> Unfortunately, Remi's list only covers php-*, I think there are other
> affected packages too. He links to pkgdb for the ful
On 08/12/2010 10:03 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> It was easy to build whole list of upstream projects available in
> Fedora - anyone could just look over the contents of this page:
>
> http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/
>
> Now it doesn't look that easy.
I use
https://admin.f
On 08/13/2010 01:23 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
> On 08/12/2010 07:12 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
>>> - Minimum time-in-testing requirements
>>> - Every day bodhi will look for updates that have been
>>> in testing for
On 08/13/2010 05:10 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>> I think, for packages that are modified during the testing period,
>>>> this N should be calculated from the day the last push was made to
>>>> testing.
>>
>> This wo
On 08/13/2010 06:45 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
> On 08/13/2010 01:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 08/13/2010 01:23 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
>>> On 08/12/2010 07:12 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Luke Macken wrote:
>>>>>
On 08/25/2010 09:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
>> How many users use "at" or "bc" (well, I use "dc" all the time)?
>
> Well, at least "at" is a nice command and some people use it, but…
>
>> What about "ed"?
>
> … it's time we drop such legacy junk!
What you offend as "legacy jun
On 08/25/2010 03:05 PM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius writes:
>
>> On 08/25/2010 09:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Chris Adams wrote:
>>>> How many users use "at" or "bc" (well, I use "dc" all the time)?
>>&g
On 08/27/2010 10:28 AM, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) wrote:
> $ rpmdev-newspec -t perl
> produce template where, inter alia we have such lines:
> %{__perl} Makefile.PL INSTALLDIRS=vendor
> OPTIMIZE="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS"
>
> make %{?_smp_mflags}
>
> I'm wonder why there used mix of macros %{__per
On 09/01/2010 12:41 PM, David Howells wrote:
>
> Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms
> for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need to
> compile kernels for arches other than the x86_64 boxes I normally use, and I
> keep borrowing pr
On 09/01/2010 01:53 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 09/01/2010 12:48 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 09/01/2010 12:41 PM, David Howells wrote:
>>> Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms
>>> for cross compilers for all the Linux arche
On 09/01/2010 02:21 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 02:06:37PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>> - Fedora's rpm and some components the build-infrastructure have serious
>>>> issues related to cross-building.
>>>>
>>>> -
On 09/01/2010 03:02 PM, Rich Mattes wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 8:46 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>>
>> There's a reason the 'crosstool' and similar scripts are so bloody sick.
>>
>>
> Speaking of which, it looks like there's a stalled review of crosstool-ng in
> the works [1]. Perhaps it'd b
On 09/01/2010 04:37 PM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>>> b) To equippe the rpm/yum/mock etc. infrastructure with a mechanism to
>>> pull-in "foreign binaries" into a sys-root (E.g. to install Fedora
>>> *.ppc.rpm rpms into /usr/ppc-redhat/sys-root). So far, such mechanism
>>> doesn't exist.
>>
>> No need f
On 09/22/2010 08:32 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was trying to find out why is coin3d version 3.1.3 (latest stable
> version) and its python binding (pivy) not in fedora. All I managed to
> get was a bugzilla thread
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?format=multiple&id=458975
> which
On 09/22/2010 10:38 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote:
> On 22 September 2010 13:29, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 09/22/2010 08:32 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I was trying to find out why is coin3d version 3.1.3 (latest stable
>>> version) and i
On 09/22/2010 11:06 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote:
> On 22 September 2010 14:24, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 09/22/2010 10:38 AM, Prasad H. L. wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22 September 2010 13:29, Ralf Corsepiuswrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 09/22/2010 08:32 AM, Pr
On 09/22/2010 02:08 PM, Paul F. Johnson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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.
Depends on a build-system's internals.
> I'm trying to pass --
On 10/04/2010 02:52 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> However, Mozilla says that distributing a modified product with their
>> name violates Trademark law.
>>
>
> We have been through this before. If you take Fedora and modify it, you are
On 10/05/2010 12:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:08 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>
>> That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you
>> change the name, in which case you may loose brand recognition.
>> Imagine if Linus forbid people from calling their
On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius, Tue, 05 Oct 2010 06:01:09 +0200:
>> Close source school of thinking - Trademarks exist to protect an
>> enterprise's product and to close out "copyiers". FLOSS exists to enable
>> people "to s
On 10/06/2010 04:08 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2010 15:26:59 +0200 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 10/06/2010 02:49 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
>>> Nonsense, trademarks exists to protect users and to avoid living off
>>> somebody else brand recognition.
>>
&g
On 10/12/2010 02:16 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 10/12/2010 10:28 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Striving for usability and pleasantness for the untechnical users certainly
>>> is
>>> a good thing. It gets problematic when you choose to make things technically
>>> inferior ju
On 10/12/2010 03:56 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> On 10/12/2010 02:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 10/12/2010 02:16 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>>> On 10/12/2010 10:28 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>> Striving
On 11/04/2010 03:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 22:12 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-11-03 at 21:02 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>>>
Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I thi
On 11/04/2010 07:15 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> I
>> guess what I'm asking is what actual harm/damage are these reports
>> causing, beyond the time it takes to look at the report and figure out
>> whether you can fix it? Why is the fact that
On 11/04/2010 07:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 07:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> I'm not sure SNR is the be-all and end-all, really.
When it comes to efficiency, it is.
In other words, as far as I am concerned, abrt has reduced efficiency of
bug-hunting
On 11/05/2010 05:41 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil, Wed, 03 Nov 2010 21:02:02 -0400:
>> Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think
>> that it is a great idea for commercial products such as RHEL, but it
>> obviously did not fit Fedora as is.
>>
>> From what I have
On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote:
>
>> ABRT
>
>> It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are
>> worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports
>
> Parts of the Fedora user base "abuse" ABRT in that they refus
On 11/05/2010 08:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-11-04 at 17:49 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>>> 2010/11/4 Orcan Ogetbil :
Maybe it is time to discuss the usefulness of ABRT to Fedora. I think
that it is a great idea for
On 11/05/2010 10:06 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote:
>
>> On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a
>> maintainer on a component they have reported against I not only ask the
>> ABRT maintainers to block any reports against
On 07/27/2011 12:20 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 27/07/11 10:47, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 12:02:14PM -0700, Josh Stone wrote:
>>> On 07/26/2011 09:49 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 08:45:11AM -0430, Robert Marcano wrote:
> In /etc/skel/.ba
On 07/28/2011 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> The source of /usr/local was NFS-mounted /usr, with /usr/local being on
> the local system.
This only partially applies - The source of /usr/local was to override
system programs and system libraries in /usr with locally installed
files (below /usr/lo
Hi,
Seems as if the f16 split wasn't reflected to the mirrorlists:
http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=fedora-16&arch=x86_64
returns references to "development/rawhide"
instead of "development/16"
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproj
On 08/09/2011 07:19 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2011 19:14:27 +0200, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> If you're volunteering to fix and/or paper over all the spurious
>> warnings gcc and glibc introduce with every phase of the moon, then
>> sure.
>
> Yes, I do it for my component, GDB has -Wer
On 08/13/2011 10:51 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Whether to invest in enabling -Werror for all packages in a mass rebuild
> however is another question.
Pardon, but this is not a question, this is beyond reason and foolish.
> There will be many build failures, and
> some will be unwarranted.
Exact
On 08/26/2011 12:17 AM, Nathan O. wrote:
> I am looking at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text .
>
> It sounds to me that upstream must provide the COPYING file.
No, this is a misinterpretation and overinterpretation
Upstreams need to license their works prop
On 08/29/2011 05:00 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 08:47:40AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> That may be (both are human constructs, it's like say "hey, that's made up
>> word!", but no, I don't. My point is simply that while it is extremely
>> silly code, it is in fact code provided
On 09/14/2011 04:31 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 01:03:04AM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>> Hi
>>>
>>> 2011/9/13 Tom Lane:
(This isn't new with 9.1, btw --- the last version or so of 9.0
for F16 was the sam
On 09/14/2011 06:23 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> My netbook boots up F14 in ca. 60 secs, while F15 boots up in 62 secs.
>> I'd call this "below measurement accuracy".
>
> What kind of disk is that?
It'
On 09/15/2011 11:03 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jan F. Chadima wrote:
>> [...]
>> . When watching the load of the virtual machine that starts with systemd it
>> is clear to me that the total CPU consumption is significantly greater than
>> in the case of upstart one.
>
On 09/15/2011 09:42 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 05:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> In general, there are other factors coming into play, such as parallel
>> startup using more memory, parallelization not providing many advantages
>> on sys
On 09/15/2011 06:11 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 05:54 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 09/15/2011 09:42 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>> On 09/15/2011 05:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>> Anyway, some more figures: On the same machine, boo
On 09/20/2011 03:01 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 13:53 +0200, Johannes Lips wrote:
>> What's wrong with all that broken deps? Is this just a missing rebuild
>> against opencv and other libs or what's the reason for all this
>> "mess". I mean the release of F16 is not that far
On 09/20/2011 03:47 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 15:01:06 +0200,
>Nils Philippsen wrote:
>>
>> I'd like to see a discussion about how we can ensure -- within
>> reasonable limits -- that e.g. bumping a library's SONAME is followed by
>> dependent components being rebuil
On 09/20/2011 04:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On 9/20/11 9:19 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>>> Currently
>>> I only see mails of maintainers who plan updating the library, but the
>>> rest of it pretty much depends on the maintainers of the depending
>>>
On 09/20/2011 04:16 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:13:27PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 09/20/2011 04:03 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>> I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into
>>> the OS so close to a rel
On 09/20/2011 04:37 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 04:35:16PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> That said, a reasonable QA would cherry-pick such "solution
>> candidates" from *-testing and integrate them. Simply flooding
>> maintainers &
On 09/20/2011 05:52 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:19 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> When you have a closer look, you'll notice that such "mass rebuilts"
>> were being delayed by QA's "delay queue" and now are stuck.
&
On 09/20/2011 05:30 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> I'd like to see a rationale for jamming a soname-changing update into
>> the OS so close to a release. In the absence of a very good
>> motivation,
>> that's not good engineering practice, and it's not consistent with
>>
On 09/20/2011 04:33 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> Of course, you had the option of not pulling the new OpenSceneGraph back
> to F16, or simply not doing so yet.
Correct. I could have opted to ship the "distro which embraces novelty"
with outdated, upstream unmaintained and upstream dead packages, no
On 09/21/2011 01:25 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 22:25 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 09/20/2011 05:52 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 15:19 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>>> When you have a closer look, yo
On 09/21/2011 04:43 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 15:51 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 09/21/2011 01:25 PM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-09-20 at 22:25 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>> On 09/20/2011 05:52 PM, Nils Philippsen wrot
On 09/20/2011 01:12 PM, Branched Report wrote:
> Compose started at Tue Sep 20 08:15:41 UTC 2011
>
> Broken deps for x86_64
> --
This breakage is weird:
> hosts3d-1.13-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libglfw.so.2.6()(64bit)
In Fedora < 16, lib
On 09/22/2011 11:31 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 09/22/2011 12:05 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 09/20/2011 01:12 PM, Branched Report wrote:
>>> Compose started at Tue Sep 20 08:15:41 UTC 2011
>>>
>>> Broken deps for x86_64
>>>
On 09/22/2011 01:11 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 09/22/2011 12:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 09/22/2011 11:31 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
>>> Depends on how you want to resolve this. If you are going for
>>> resurrecting the packages, then fix them up to build again
On 09/22/2011 05:58 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:15:38AM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>
>> I hope you don't suggest for every rebuild of few dependent packages one
>> FESCo ticket.
>
> This is what is currently required to ask FES for help. It is certainly
> a lot better and
On 10/03/2011 06:01 PM, Michael Ekstrand wrote:
> On 10/03/2011 10:48 AM, Camilo Mesias wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> A daft question perhaps, but I thought...
>>
>>> I'm not sure how we can make DPI magically be correct in gazillions of
>>> broken displays' EDID.
>>
>> How do other OS' do it?
>
> I don't kn
On 10/04/2011 08:04 AM, Eric Smith wrote:
> I wrote:
>> What should I use for the release number in a spec when upstream does
>> not have releases, and *only* has git hashes? It's not a prerelease
>> since it is not clear that there will ever be any official release.
>
> I meant "version number",
On 10/04/2011 09:01 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 05:58:33PM +0200, Matej Cepl wrote:
>> On 4.10.2011 16:38, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>> The date should not go there
>>> as you cannot tell if upstream will someday switch to an actual version
>>> string (which will then need an
On 10/05/2011 04:35 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 06:53:50AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 10/04/2011 09:01 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>
>>> Now do we want to put the git hash into the version
>>> field too?
>> Yes,
On 10/12/2011 09:59 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Henrik Nordström wrote:
>
>> ons 2011-10-12 klockan 13:04 -0500 skrev Mike McGrath:
>>
>>> Lots of people use and share keys across different projects.
>>
>> There is no security issue in sharing kes across different projects,
>> ot
On 10/13/2011 11:13 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 10:59 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 10/12/2011 09:59 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2011, Henrik Nordström wrote:
>>>
>>>> ons 2011-10-12 klockan 13:04 -0500 skrev Mike McG
On 10/25/2011 09:02 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 08:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>>> ===
>>> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-10-24)
>>> ===
>>> * Discussion about https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
>>> (t8m,
On 10/25/2011 08:33 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> 2011/10/25 Chris Adams:
>> Once upon a time, Michał Piotrowski said:
>>> I created feature page
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F18MorePortableInterpreters
>>
>> I strongly object to this "feature". /bin/sh is a Unix standard back to
On 10/26/2011 03:18 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> On 10/26/2011 03:07 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones said:
>>> Having said that, the split between /sbin and /bin is not a truly
>>> historical one, ie. it didn't exist in V7. I think it was added by
>>> System V which d
On 10/26/2011 03:40 PM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> On 10/24/2011 08:05 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>>> ===
>>> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-10-24)
>>> ===
>>> * Discussion about https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove
>>> (t8m,
On 10/27/2011 07:52 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:23:55PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>> Besides this, one may have the opinion, that no binaries should be
>> allowed in /usr/lib/. Fedora never enforced this rule, because RH has a
>> traditio
On 03/25/2011 12:38 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 24.03.2011, 14:48 -0700 schrieb Henrique Junior:
>
>> It may sound a little off-topic to this thread, but since we are
>> talking about bring new stuff into F14 I would like to know the
>> opinion of you, guys, about the new open
On 03/25/2011 05:07 PM, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:16:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>>> We do have a rolling release, it's called rawhide.
>>
>> You are mixing up "rolling release" with "development" dump
On 03/27/2011 11:22 AM, gia...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'm trying to rebuild a package with an autotools based toolchain and
> it's failing because they use -Werror and gcc 4.6 spits out few new
> warnings on the code.
Packages adding -Werror by themselves are poorly designed. Contact their
upstreams
On 03/27/2011 05:27 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 03:58:06PM +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 15:48:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote
>>> NM supports static IPs these days. So I think that rather than
>>> hacking around NM, you should just fix the IP in
On 03/28/2011 12:48 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Sergio Belkin wrote:
>
>> 2011/3/27 Ralf Corsepius:
>>> Packages adding -Werror by themselves are poorly designed.
>>
>> Just to learn: Ralf, Why do you say that? :-)
>
> Using -Werror by default is a very bad id
On 03/28/2011 04:58 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> In libguestfs we have some pretty complex autotools magic to deal with
>> all this:
>>
>> http://git.annexia.org/?p=libguestfs.git;a=blob;f=configure.ac;h=f1b56d2dbe9a118901f7426bcc176f624d841f63;hb=HEAD#l67
>
> CHASM has si
On 03/28/2011 07:40 PM, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:08:33 +0200
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> On 03/28/2011 04:58 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
>>> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>> In libguestfs we have some pretty complex autotools magic to dea
On 03/29/2011 07:35 AM, Jeff Raber wrote:
> On 03/27/2011 10:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> And how to tweak /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-* (and/or
>> /etc/sysconfig/network) for static IPs such that NM sets
>> hostname/domainname correctly?
>>
>> I have
On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Heya,
>
> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
> directory /run in the root directory. Most likely you'll sooner or later
> stumble over it, so here's an explanation what this is and why this is.
>
> It's a fairly
On 03/30/2011 02:10 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> 2011/3/30 Ralf Corsepius:
>> On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>> Heya,
>>>
>>> I just uploaded a new version of systemd into F15, which establishes a
>>> directory /run in the root
On 03/30/2011 02:42 PM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
> On 03/30/2011 01:11 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/30/2011 02:10 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>> 2011/3/30 Ralf Corsepius:
>>>> On 03/30/2011 01:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>>>> Heya,
>>
On 03/30/2011 02:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 01:54:30PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> The actual code changes we needed to implement this scheme were trivial
>> (basically, just bind mount /var/run and /var/lock instead of mounting two
>> new tmpfs' to them.), which
On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Also, can somebody point me to the place where the FHS would say "no
> other directories below / are allowed"? I can't find that. And hence
> this change is perfectly FHS comp
On 03/30/2011 03:20 PM, Alasdair G Kergon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 03:05:35PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/30/2011 02:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> It is outside of the FHS,
>> It's a clear violation of the FHS.
>
> Indeed, but there really is
On 03/30/2011 03:21 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 30.03.11 15:08, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
>
>>
>> On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30.03.11 18:04, Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>>
>&
On 03/30/2011 04:12 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 30, 2011 04:05:27 PM Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30.03.11 15:08, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>> On 03/30/2011 02:30 PM, Lennart
On 03/31/2011 07:28 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-03-27 at 17:57 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/27/2011 05:27 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
>>> On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 03:58:06PM +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
>>>> Hi.
>>>>
>>>>
On 03/31/2011 01:22 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 31.03.11 13:13, Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Applications must never create or require special files or
>>>> subdirectories in the root directory. Other locations i
On 04/01/2011 03:17 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> Just a find on my Fedora 15 system for .la files, results in the
> following. Do we run any routine tests for things like this? is AutoQA
> meant to improve packaging?
I sense a misunderstanding. Though it's right, in general *.la's should
On 04/19/2011 04:50 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> The clock is ticking. The days are counting down. The release of
> Fedora 15, codenamed "Lovelock," is scheduled for release in late
> May. Fedora is the leading edge, free and open source operating
> system that continues to deliver innovative featur
On 04/21/2011 03:29 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 04/21/2011 05:36 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>> I presume, I am supposed to love the broken deps, these anaconda dumps
>> and this silly Win95-ish "Oh no!,..." screens of death?
>>
>> All three happe
1 - 100 of 1056 matches
Mail list logo
