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