Re: Need Little IT advice Here...

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 8:58 PM, Manuel Escudero wrote: > Hi, I was Wondering if there was a tool for Linux in general > that let me undo the system changes at reboot or something > like that, For example: > > I want to set a standard configuration in a machine and then > let that machine to be us

Re: tcplay: BSD-licensed alternative to TrueCrypt

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 3:37 AM, Eric Smith wrote: >> There was discussion back in 2007 of TrueCrypt, and the conclusion was >> that the license was non-free, with several major problems. > > Just an FYI, unless you specifically want to stay aw

Re: slim

On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 7:53 PM, solarflow99 wrote: > It looks as if SLIM has been abandoned, with no package in F-16 it makes me > wonder what the chance it could be included again slim has only been orphaned, and is still present in F16: $ cat /etc/fedora-release Fedora release 16 (Verne) #

SRPMs for EPEL 5

Do you need to do anything special to produce a SRPM that will mock build on EPEL 5 on modern Fedoras? I just tried to build two different SRPMS [1][2] that work fine on F15-16 and EPEL6 and got different errors out of each: DEBUG util.py:307: Executing command: ['rpm', '-q', '-a'] DEBUG util.py

Re: SRPMs for EPEL 5

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 5:40 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth > wrote: >> Do you need to do anything special to produce a SRPM that will mock >> build on EPEL 5 on modern Fedoras? > > I believe you need a MD5 checksum inste

Re: rpmbuild for arachni (ruby-package)

On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > install -d -m0755 %{buildroot}%{ruby_sitelib} > install -d -m0755 %{buildroot}%{ruby_sitearch} It isn't installing anything! Just creating empty ruby library directories. You need "rake install DESTDIR=%

Re: Bad coding practices in Fedora packages

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM, mike cloaked wrote: > I also discovered that three different tracker processes were running > in my xfce desktop!  However since I don't see a need for them for me, > nor do I want them, it was relatively easy to prevent them from > executing on desktop startup by g

Re: Bad coding practices in Fedora packages

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 1:50 PM, mike cloaked wrote: > I think tracker can be turned off centrally for KDE and XFCE by going to > > /etc/xdg/autostart/tracker-store.desktop > > Find the line: > OnlyShowIn=GNOME;KDE;XFCE; > > Remove the KDE and XFCE bits. > > Similar for the other two tracker files

Re: Bad coding practices in Fedora packages

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote: > On 01/03/2012 02:00 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: >> >> I feel like I'm the only Fedora user on the planet who actually does >> like desktop search.  I love that I can press ALT+F2 and play a movie >> o

Re: F16 how to install "less" ruby gem?

2012/2/22 Michał Piotrowski : > I need lessc with --compress option to build bootstrap framework. I'm > not sure if "less" gem is appropriate for this task, but I wanted to > try it. The canonical version of lessc is written for node.js. Looks like the ruby gem just runs that through some sort of

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: io.js Technology Preview

On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 12:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > So this was discussed at today's FESCo meeting[1]. Basically, we're not > sure that it makes sense to have both interpreters in the distribution, > particularly since they are merging back together in the future. > > Would you be willing

Re: F23 System Wide Change: jQuery

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Stef Walter wrote: > I think that as described, this change will cause more harm than good. > As both an upstream and a packager of Cockpit I am against it in its > current form. Please note that this Change has already been implemented as approved by FESCo for a

Re: F23 System Wide Change: jQuery

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > That doesn't really help, since the main advantage to this Change > Proposal is having a single package to update when fixes are needed, > but nearly all web applications take pieces of jQuery out and minify > them (taking only the parts

Re: F23 System Wide Change: jQuery

On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 7:37 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > If web client had a chance to say "hey, i have a /jquery.js in the > cache from application A with checksum 'bla', I can reuse it for > application B, since it request /jquery.js with the same checksum". > Actually just checking checksums coul

Re: JavaScript SIG?

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Hello, > is there a JavaScript SIG or a mailing list? I've been forced to package > several JavaScript code/libraries and I have some questions. > > However, I couldn't find any trace of a JavaScript SIG or a mailing > list.

Re: JavaScript SIG?

On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > Hello, > is there a JavaScript SIG or a mailing list? I've been forced to package > several JavaScript code/libraries and I have some questions. There is now: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/web-devel Pleas

Re: JavaScript SIG?

On Jun 14, 2015 1:54 PM, "Pierre-Yves Chibon" wrote: > On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 01:45:53PM -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski > > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > is there a JavaScri

Re: JavaScript SIG?

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 11:48 PM, Matthias Runge wrote: > There are quite a few programs out there, solely made for fetching tarballs, > zips, git snapshots to place those to a location in file system. A different > program for a different target language[...] ...even programs for whole operating

Re: DNF vs YUM, $pkg, $pkg-mpi, $pkg-openmpi having same provides

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Sandro Mani wrote: > Having had a go at this: if bar{-openmpi} requires foo-{openmpi}, filtering > the provides from foo-openmpi and adding an explicit requires to bar-openmpi > on foo-openmpi, this all will result in bar-openmpi depending both on > foo-openmpi as

Re: DNF vs YUM, $pkg, $pkg-mpi, $pkg-openmpi having same provides

On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 2:43 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > On Friday, 19 June 2015 at 01:10, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: >> # a regular expression that paths in an RPM >> # must match to trigger the generator >> %__openmpi_path ^%{_prefix}/lib(64)/(o

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: io.js Technology Preview

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > Why are we even bothering with this when io.js is merging back into > node.js so from what I can see is that io.js won't really be around > for much longer That's exactly why we're bothering with it. Everything in it will be in the nodejs

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: io.js Technology Preview

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 6:16 AM, Josef Stribny wrote: > Exactly my thoughts. Plus also introducing another v8 package because of > that? Having io.js' v8 as well should actually be a good thing for the distribution. Unlike node.js, which sticks with the same v8 released with a particular version

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: Node.js 0.12

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > What the version of v8 will be? I am asking, since rubygem-therubyracer > is using system version of v8 and I am bit afraid what impact it will have. 3.28.73 for nodejs 0.12, 4.2.77.13 for iojs. Looks like rubygem-therubyracer is still on 3.1

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: Node.js 0.12

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:16 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 9:05 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Dne 24.6.2015 v 01:37 Jan Kurik napsal(a): >>> -- Update v8 >>> >> >> What the version of v8 will be? I am asking, since rubygem-therubyracer >> is using system version of v8 and I am

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: io.js Technology Preview

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:56 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: >> Why are we even bothering with this when io.js is merging back into >> node.js so from what I can see is that io.js won't really be around >> for much

Re: F23 Self Contained Change: npm 2

On Jun 24, 2015 2:21 PM, "Mat Booth" wrote: > > > On 24 June 2015 at 00:48, Jan Kurik wrote: >> >> While npm 2 is a major version number update, it contains little in the way of major changes. > > > Why is this worth more than a sentence or two in the release note beats? You must enjoy the extra

Re: Logwatch - looking for testers

Hi! On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Jan Synacek wrote: > Hello list, > > I'm looking for as many logwatch runs in Fedora 16 as possible. I need to test > the F17 package so I know if there are any problems with compatibility. > > Please, consider installing the new build [1], running it, sending

Re: yum upgrade creates /var/run/nologin

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > This has happened twice now. I run 'yum upgrade' and, all of a > sudden, /var/run/nologin exists. It contains a message telling me > that my system is still booting. This is, of course, a lie -- the > system has been up for quite a whi

fedpkg new-sources not working

Something seems to be wrong with 'fedpkg new-sources' here. :-( % fedpkg new-sources libuv-v0.10.25.tar.gz Uploading: 329a61fa3c30acf46efef1a9221b2054 libuv-v0.10.25.tar.gz Could not execute new_sources: Lookaside failure: (60, "Peer's certificate issuer has been marked as not trusted by the use

Re: fedpkg new-sources not working

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > I've seen this a few times and it was something wacky in ~/.pki/ > > can you try a 'mv ~/.pki ~/.pki.sav' and see if it works? That did the trick. Thanks for the _very_ quick help. :-) -T.C. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.

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

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 1:50 PM, Matthew Miller 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 seen Fedora Magazine

Re: JavaScript bundling (was Re: F21 System Wide Change: Cockpit Management Console)

On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Peter MacKinnon wrote: > Is there circumstances whereby new reviews can be approved without FPC > exception if those assets have not yet been packaged under the new web asset > packaging guidelines and layout? There's currently a blanket exception for jQuery: http

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Ruby193 in SCL

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:16 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > Rails depends on exact v8 > version, which means v8 3.14 must have also their own SCL as part of the SCL. Stupid question: what in rails depends on v8 exactly? The only thing that Requires v8 in Fedora besides nodejs and mongodb is rubyge

Re: Need instructions with packaging

On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Adrian Soliard wrote: > I really don't understand the situations of the packages Fedora has a policy prohibiting the inclusion of emulators in the package collection: "Most emulators (applications which emulate another platform) are not permitted for inclusion in

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:45 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > This is usefully detailed, but it’s not always clear what parts need to be > done by “other developers” (to use the template wording), particularly the > two “will need to be modified” references to Ruby/Java/Node.js . The known affected pa

Re: Correct way to unpush an update?

On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Richard Shaw wrote: > Ok, so I don't get bit again by bodhi letting me do something I shouldn't... > > Do I just unpush the update but NOT delete it? > > I have a newpackge update and one of the three packages has a problem so > obviously I don't want to push it to

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:39 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Is it true actually? Last time I was checking the Ruby packages contained > different/modified version of upstream JS files. AFAICT they're both fine. rubygem-uglifier includes the main uglify-js via git submodules: https://github.com/lautis/

mock error in koji: No such file or directory: '%{buildroot}/etc/mtab'

A koji rawhide build [1] just failed with: INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.39 Start: chroot ['fedpkg', 'sources'] Start: device setup Finish: device setup Finish: chroot ['fedpkg', 'sources'] ERROR: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/var/lib/mock/f21-build-2179813-398918/root/etc/mtab' Traceback (most

Re: Packages in need of new maintainers UPDATED LIST

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: > On 10/03/2012 02:23 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote: >> As a result of FESCO ticket 952*, Lubomir Rintel's 200+ packages are >> in need of new maintainers. Under normal circumstances we'd simply >> orphan them all, but given the large number we want to ha

Re: Packages in need of new maintainers UPDATED LIST

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:58 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote: > On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 18:15:52 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: >> Because I haven't entirely run kicking and screaming from attempting to >> package nodejs, I (FAS: "patches") will take: > > Do you think

Re: Packages in need of new maintainers UPDATED LIST

On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 1:00 AM, Matthias Runge wrote: > On 10/09/2012 09:55 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: >>> >>> Do you think you would be able to make somewhere buildable packages of >>> nodejs (before you can manage to push it to Fedora proper)? I haven't >>> managed to build the stack on F18 (https://

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On 7/16/13, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 16/07/13 13:21, Björn Persson wrote: > >>> Additionally the following symlinks will be provided: >>> >>> * /usr/share/javascript -> /usr/share/assets/javascript >>> * /usr/share/fonts -> /usr/share/assets/fonts (so any Fedora font >>> package can be used as a web

Re: More unhelpful update descriptions

On 6/29/13, T.C. Hollingsworth > Perhaps the real fix here would be to just remove that placeholder > text (and double-check that the bodhi CLI rejects updates with blank > descriptions)? Personally I just find it really annoying to have to > backspace that out and fill in proper

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: > Not all fonts installed had the same licensing requirement, people install > fonts from other places that are not as careful as Fedora with the licenses. > It is problematic if someone install a non free font to be used on their > desktop ap

Re: How to create a new mailing list at lists.fedoraproject.org

Hi! On Jul 19, 2013 7:12 AM, "Vivek Goyal" wrote: > > Hi, > > I want to create a new mailing list for kexec/kdump related discussions > in fedora. How do I go about it. > > I try to create one here but it asks for List creator's password. I don't > have any such password. > > So who is authorized

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > Minor comment: This copy of the text uses /assets ; the wiki page and > the proposed policy uses both /assets and /_assets ; this should be > cleared up. > > More importantly, is it OK to just take over a part of the server's > URI namespac

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer wrote: > Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The term "asset" seems > to scare some people. Huh? It's a pretty common industry term for "static bits used as dependencies for websites". I've never heard of anyone being scared of it. "webdata

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Björn Persson wrote: > Florian Weimer wrote: >> On 07/16/2013 12:54 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: >> > = Proposed System Wide Change: Web Assets = >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Web_Assets >> >> Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"? The ter

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On 7/22/13, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 15:23 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> On 07/22/2013 12:31 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: >> > On Mon, Jul 22, 2013, Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> Can we please use a different name, like "webdata"

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 17:07, Robert Marcano a écrit : >> Fonts has licenses, some of them require the license to be shown or the >> copyright displayed, some fonts has the copyright added to their >> metadata, I don't find for example that

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > Historically it was quite widespread. The only bit of font metadata one > could rely on was the font name, and then not always. A font author would > widely announce the relicensing of his font and not change the metadata in > the font fil

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:45 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > There are additionally 252 fonts in 128 packages that don't set the > "license description" field while setting the "copyright" field. [2] > These are probably fine, but we might want to take a look ov

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > So, this change has FPC guidelines and also some redhat-rpm-macros > changes? Yup, we just need to add a macro so it's available during createSRPMfromSCM in Koji. (The conditionalized syntax we'd need otherwise is just awful.) > Do those nee

Re: Following MPI packaging guidelines

Hi! On Jul 24, 2013 9:04 AM, "Antonio Trande" wrote: > I'm editing .spec file of MUMPS package to conform it to the MPI > packaging guidelines (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MPI). I > have a modest experience in this particular case so I need some > suggestions. > > This is initial .spe

Re: Following MPI packaging guidelines

On 7/26/13, Antonio Trande wrote: > 'examples' directory contains arch dependent programs, I can't > packaging them in /usr/share. In that case you could consider shipping them in an "-examples" subpackage if most consumers of the main package won't find them useful. Also, you could use %{_libex

npm license change

npm, the Node.js package manager, has changed license [1] from a modified version of the MIT [2] to the Artistic 2.0 [3] license effective with version 1.3.6. This version is now in Rawhide and queued for updates-testing in Fedora 19 and 18 as well as EPEL 6. Fedora Legal believes both licenses t

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Robert Marcano wrote: > On 07/26/2013 12:30 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 21:58, Robert Marcano a écrit : >> >>> The real problem with publishing things is that if I distribute binaries >>> of many things I must follow the license, some say I

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 1:44 AM, Till Maas wrote: > The guideline should be to ask upstream to fix the meta data. In case of > missing license text (e.g. source code with a GPL header but no copy of > the GPL itself), it is also upstream's task to fix it and the packager's > to ask for it. And if u

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: > Do you know there are GNOME JavaScript applications? And that JavaScript is > being encouraged as a language for desktop applications? So all those > libraries that can be used on desktop and web clients will be shared by > default if I insta

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Till Maas wrote: > Please provide actual recommendations about how to run the ttname > command to the guidelines before filing bugs. And get the guideline > approved to avoid unnecessary changes. Also this does not seem to be > really a MUST guideline as long as it

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > If you are going to file a bunch of bugs, PLEASE see: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing I definitely will follow that, thanks! You might want to shout about that a little more widely, I think every mass bug filing I'm aware of

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Petr Vobornik wrote: > Hello, > > Many web apps use an optimization technique where they try to minimize the > number of httpd request by concatenating minified versions into one file. > Example: app uses 20 tiny jQuery plugins. > > Similar use case is when app is u

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Robert Marcano wrote: > And I don't see a problems with those examples, because they share only > their contents, by installing them you don't share content from other > packages. > > Lets make an example of the mess this will create if I want to share a web > appl

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: > The directory is not called /usr/share/web-javascript, it is called > /usr/share/javascript, and the packaging guidelines draft explicitly says > that the intention is to avoid duplication of libraries, so it is calling to > move all JavaScr

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 11:34 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 5:23 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth > wrote: >> Debian already uses /usr/share/javascript for this purpose, and it >> would be really nice if we both could coordinate on getting some >> upstream sup

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: > This is a better explanation of why the use /usr/share/javascript: We want > to be compatible with others distribution that have the legacy idea that > JavaScript is a browser only thing, so in this directory we will only store > JavaScript

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: > On 08/12/2013 03:23 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: >> >> >> This is a better explanation of why the use /usr/share/javascript: We >> want to be compatible with others distribution that have the legacy idea >> that JavaScript is a browser only thi

Bundled Flash

It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf) files, but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these files. :-( It has never been permissible to included prebuilt files of this

Re: Bundled Flash

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Thanks. Turns out ckeditor also had a raw .fla file. I don't know if any > package would have a .fla without a .swf, but it might be worth checking > for. Thanks for pointing that out! .fla files are source files, so it's not strictly a

Re: Bundled Flash

On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Dan Mashal wrote: > Forgive me if I sound rude and correct me if I'm wrong, but arent the > free versions of Flash pretty useless as well? We're talking about SWF compilers here, not players. There are free compiler tools that work just fine for certain applicati

Re: Bundled Flash

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: > I just fixed these and gallery3, no need to file BZs, unless you'd like to > for tracking. Additional testers welcome! Nah, I'll rerun the query in the script that files BZs later on. Although if one of you ends up crippling your package by d

Re: Bundled Flash

On 8/22/13, Adam Williamson wrote: > Looked into this a bit further this afternoon. Both swfupload and > plupload are open source projects, but Wordpress ships compiled binaries > in its 'source tarball', there is no build system in there for them at > all. Wordpress posts the sources for them on

Re: Bundled Flash

On 8/15/13, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf) > files, > but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash > toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these > fil

Re: Bundled Flash

Thanks for tackling this! On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > So, tinymce has a 'media' plugin which lets you embed media in HTML > you're editing with it. If it thinks the media might need playing with > Flash, it'll generate HTML that tries to use a Flash player - > moxiep

Re: Bundled Flash

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > All the upstream projects I found seemed to consider jumping to tinymce > 4 a rather large move. Debian packages 3 and 4 as separate packages. I > rather think we should do the same rather than just pretend they're the > same thing and we'l

Re: Bundled Flash

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Just to cover my ass, this kind of symlinking is explicitly allowed by > the draft new JavaScript policy: > > "Regardless, web applications may want to make subdirectories of > %{_jsdir} available under their own directory via aliases or sy

Re: Bundled Flash

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 06:36 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: >> Any chance you could just use an Alias in the apache config? Then you can >> just >> delete the directory and not muck around with making yum happy

Re: Bundled Flash

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Michael Scherer wrote: > So what we found on irc : > > Since rpm first create the files for the new rpm that is installed, then > remove the files that should be removed still present from old rpm and > not in the new one, we fix the issue by waiting until the dire

Re: Bundled Flash

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > And, T.C., we probably need the Web Assets policy to set some > rules/guidelines on how best to achieve unbundling: should we always try > to patch the upstream to find the 'official' location of the shared > resource on Fedora? Should we a

Review swap request: web-assets

Hi! Would someone be willing to trade me a review for: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=997678 It's dead simple at the moment: it just provides a couple directories and RPM macros. Later on it will grow some httpd magic but that's on hold until Fedora 21 since we're still sorting that

Re: Bundled Flash

On 8/23/13, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 17:12 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: >> One further thought here: >> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:JavaScript#Static_Inclusion_of_Libraries >> >> Taking a static library approach is also allowed. This can save packa

Re: Bundled Flash

On 8/23/13, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > It's for case #2 that the exception got expanded to be allowed for > webapp packages, but it's really not intended to just permit bundling > to continue when you can just as easily unbundle. I'll look at > tightening Bah, tha

Re: F20 System Wide Change: Web Assets

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: > Where's the code? The github link seems to be broken. Sorry for the delay on that. The code is now here: https://github.com/tchollingsworth/ttname And it's already in Rawhide, F20, and F18-19 updates-testing. See the announcement here

Retiring libeio

I adopted libeio back when Node.js still bundled it to aid in the unbundling effort, but upstream "fixed" the bundling problem here by no longer using libeio for anything. It's now conflicting with a different eio, used by Enlightenment. Since most other distros ship the Enlightenment version as

Re: Retiring libeio

What a mess! I sure do seem to be attracted to bundled library issues, like insects are attracted to shiny lights. :-( On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 12:48 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sat, 7 Sep 2013 18:03:48 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > >> I adopted libeio back when Node.js s

Re: Retiring libeio

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Paul Howarth wrote: > I'd be quite happy if someone would take perl-IO-AIO off my hands. My only > interest in it is as an (optional) backend and test dependency of > perl-AnyEvent, which I co-maintain - I picked it up when a previous > maintainer orphaned it. > > I

Re: Review swaps: perl-Parse-DebControl, devscripts, debian-keyring, ubuntu-keyring, jetring + question: where to install keyrings?

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > This has the downside that it'll add the dependency on gnupg, > which is not great. Maybe simply create a keyrings-filesystem > package with this directory and have whoever installs keyrings > depend on it. If gnupg owns the di

Re: Retiring libeio

On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 6:03 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote: > Please shout if you need it for anything and would like to take it over, > otherwise I'll retire it in a week or so. Nobody even so much as whispered, except to say "not me either!", so libeio is now retired. -T

Re: Review swap

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Lokesh Mandvekar wrote: > I'd like to offer a review swap. I've taken both. In return, you may choose from: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894724 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921847 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=953699 h

Re: audacity

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > Neither of which address the existing MP3 patent issues, only software > copyright issues. Mind you, Most of these patents are finally > expiring, and the existing court cases have been oddm and usually > settled out of court. But the

Re: audacity

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: > I just packaged soxr... Anyone willing to review if I submit a review > request? Since nobody else jumped up, I'll take it. I probably won't have time to review it until Wednesday, so take your time. :-) BTW, it looks like Hans de Goede h

Re: Do you think this is a security risk and if not is it a bad UI decision?

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > The vast majority of other software that accepts > passwords for any reason hides the passwords as they are typed, so the > general expectation is that passwords are not displayed on the screen. More to the point, the vast majority of the othe

Re: Q: webfonts:

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > I think spot will agree there is no way we'll ever ship a font consisting > of company logos, it's trademark hell We ship *lots* of trademarked logos. In Firefox alone there are trademarked logos from Mozilla, Google, Amazon, Yahoo!, Micr

Re: Do you think this is a security risk and if not is it a bad UI decision?

On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 11:06 AM, T.C. Hollingsworth > wrote: >> More to the point, the vast majority of the other software *in Fedora* >> that accepts passwords for any reason hides the passwords as they are >> t

Re: Review swap (4 slots available)

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Alex G. wrote: > On 05/05/2013 02:45 AM, Alex G. wrote: > Hi, > > Billy Mays here with a special ml offer: >> >> I have 4 packages I'd like to get in before the Release of F19. For each of >> these >> slots, I'm offering to review a package of your choosing. >> >>

Re: when startup delays become bugs (dmraid)

On May 17, 2013 6:43 AM, "Chris Adams" wrote: > Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said: > > I also filed this bug against anaconda, so that for the non-livecd > > installs we don't even get dmraid installed... > > I know there's always a goal of shrinking the base install, but I'm > afraid we'

Re: when startup delays become bugs (dmraid)

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 7:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > You could transfer the install to a system which contains a dmraid > array, or add a dmraid array to an existing install (I think this thread > has been considering only the case of the installed system itself being > on the RAID array). Of

Re: Daily package ownership changes?

On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, 28 May 2013 16:02:17 -0400 > Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> >> 11) automatic period rebuilds in rawhide to highlight FTBFS issues >> >> aren't done as often anymore >> > Can you expand on this? Not sure what you mean? >> >> What Matt Domsch

Re: Daily package ownership changes?

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Michael Scherer wrote: > The way we could do it for Fedora is to see if there is a build on koji > ( using fedmsg ), see if that a library, see the abi has changed ( using > some kind of filter and a database ), and so run some script that > rebuild and bump the s

Re: More unhelpful update descriptions

On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > I can't personally conceive of a case in which it would make sense to simply > have some kind of changelog as the update description. That is not what the > description is for. Well, this is what I do for nodejs updates. I figure since th

  1   2   >