Re: Langpacks

On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 00:36 +0200, Alessio Ciregia wrote: > I was wondering why, if I install Fedora Workstation in a language other > than English, I can find langpacks-en.noarch installed, but not the one > related to the language selected during the installation process. > > In fact, while

Langpacks

I was wondering why, if I install Fedora Workstation in a language other than English, I can find langpacks-en.noarch installed, but not the one related to the language selected during the installation process. In fact, while many applications are in the language selected during the installation

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 16:52 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > For this particular Firefox example, what is the core problem that you're > trying to fix here? Is it the fact that Firefox excluded many arches from > builds? From my QA POV, since it excluded arm, it's a blocker, since arm is > primary.

Re: Samba with Active Directory Domain Controller enable

On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 14:23 +0200, Dario Lesca wrote: > A (OT?) question. > > For enable Samba Active Directory Domain Controller mode on Fedora 25, > peoples must modify the spec file (see attached patch) and rebuild the > samba.src.rpm package. > > But this generate a version problem, solved

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > I don't really understand this, and I haven't read the meeting log, so I > apologize if my questions are dumb. I was in the meeting, and I was confused - so your questions aren't dumb. :) > Why would we dictate that Editions/Spins

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

I agree with you that Firefox is an important resource that Fedora should deliver, but think a criterion that failure to supply the same default package set for all (blocking) architectures will do more harm than good. Release criteria should focus on the quality of what is delivered in a

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > For a little background, yesterday we had a very long discussion of a > bug[1] during the blocker bug meeting. The quick overview of that bug is > that Firefox failed to build on some non-x86 architectures, so the >

Samba with Active Directory Domain Controller enable

A (OT?) question. For enable Samba Active Directory Domain Controller mode on Fedora 25, peoples must modify the spec file (see attached patch) and rebuild the samba.src.rpm package. But this generate a version problem, solved only by the epoch parameter Yes, I know the Heimdal / MIT Kerberos

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On 05/09/2017 08:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 19:39 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> However, it seems that our >> blocker criteria do not describe one institutional guideline that we've >> been trying to follow: that alternative architectures should be >> delivering

Fedora 24 updates-testing report

The following Fedora 24 Security updates need testing: Age URL 140 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-26f9817b08 squid-3.5.23-1.fc24 134 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-eaaa9c4a08 exim-4.87.1-1.fc24 96

Fedora 25 updates-testing report

The following Fedora 25 Security updates need testing: Age URL 134 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d79ba708cb exim-4.87.1-1.fc25 32 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-e2d17af41e python-XStatic-jquery-ui-1.12.0.1-4.fc25 13