Re: *countable infinities only
On 01/06/12 02:22, Peter Jones wrote: > > Next year if we don't implement some form of Secure Boot support, the > majority > of Fedora users will not be able to install Fedora on new machines. Is that actually true though? If Fedora does not implement some form of Secure Boot support, 100% of Fedora users will still be able to install Fedora on new machines, after they disable Secure Boot, if their computer even has it at all (and personally, I think the majority of Fedora users will simply buy hardware which does not have Secure Boot). I know I would. Sure, maybe you can't install Fedora _as easily_ but it's certainly not an "inability to install Fedora, full stop." Now, if there was an inability to disable Secure Boot or manage keys then that would be a different kettle of fish (and in my mind a different argument). This issue seems to be simply about ease of installation out of the box (unless I'm missing something). Currently though, installation out of the box isn't completely straight forward anyway. Users have to download an ISO image, verify it, burn a CD/DVD or create a USB stick, set the boot order and partition their machine in order to install Fedora. Not to mention getting their MP3s to work. Will requiring users to turn off secure boot really by such a big deal I wonder? Bottom line - I'm not convinced that we actually need to support Secure Boot. That aside, as to the argument about loss of freedom if Fedora does support Secure Boot, this interests me given that I'm involved in creating a Fedora remix. To me, it's something like this: If Fedora does _not_ support Secure Boot, then neither Fedora nor remixes boot on computers with Secure Boot enabled (that's obvious). If Fedora _does_ support Secure Boot however, then remixes still can't boot on computers with Secure Boot enabled (loosely speaking). So actually, there's not really any freedom lost downstream is there? You couldn't run on Secure Boot machines anyway, whether Fedora supported Secure Boot or not. The only advantage is that Fedora can (and you could too, if you get a key). -c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Koji: fedora.cert
On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > El Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:04:29 +1000 > Amit Saha escribió: >> Hello: >> >> A part of my GSoC project - On-Demand Fedora Build Service[1] involves >> downloading packages via Koji. The build client can run simulatenously >> on multiple nodes (separate machines). Is it OK to use the same >> fedora.cert on all these? Or, is there any restrictions to >> simultaenously using the same cert ? >> >> [1] https://github.com/amitsaha/gsoc2012_fbs > > you do not need a cert to download builds from koji, none of what you > would do in finding and downloading builds requires authenticated > access. so dont use it. Oh Okay. Should have checked before assuming it needed it. Thanks! -Amit -- http://echorand.me -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Saturday, 9 בJune 2012 00:47:30 Richard Vickery wrote: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Oron Peled wrote: > > > On Friday, 8 בJune 2012 20:07:20 Gerry Reno wrote: > > > On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so > > far > > > > there's been precious little indication. > > > > > > There is a tidal wave of these PC ARM devices coming: > > > > > > http://www.itworld.com/hardware/240039/qualcomm-targets-pcs-takes-aim- > > intels-ultrabooks > > > > Hmmm... we've seen this "Windows-on-non-x86" movie twice before: > > - Remember Alpha's? Digital (RIP) really thought MS would give them the > > keys to the kingdom. There was a released version. It was good enough > > to frighten Intel at the time (which was probably the reason MS did > > it). Linux sold manyfolds more Alpha's than Windows. > > > > - Ahhh, and of course MS found new suckers who bought the same > > used story few years later (yes, I'm talking about Windows/PPC > > that lived a very short life). > > > > So far, MS failed misserably in the cellular space so there's a good > > chance their exclusionary move on ARM will only help convince vendors > > that shipping Androids (and by extension other Linuces) is safer bet. > > I heard (a rumor?) that MS has 100,000 phones in the public. Granted, it's > not much, but it might be a start. If your numbers are correct it means some MS employees and family members were deprived of the right to carry MS phones and still have to use IOS or (shock, horror, awe) Android phones... ;-) -- Oron Peled Voice: +972-4-8228492 o...@actcom.co.il http://users.actcom.co.il/~oron No, You Can't Have My Rights, I'm Still Using Them -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Richard Vickery wrote: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Oron Peled wrote: >> >> On Friday, 8 בJune 2012 20:07:20 Gerry Reno wrote: >> > On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > > That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so >> > > far >> > > there's been precious little indication. >> > >> > There is a tidal wave of these PC ARM devices coming: >> > >> > http://www.itworld.com/hardware/240039/qualcomm-targets-pcs-takes-aim- >> intels-ultrabooks >> >> Hmmm... we've seen this "Windows-on-non-x86" movie twice before: >> - Remember Alpha's? Digital (RIP) really thought MS would give them the >> keys to the kingdom. There was a released version. It was good enough >> to frighten Intel at the time (which was probably the reason MS did >> it). Linux sold manyfolds more Alpha's than Windows. >> >> - Ahhh, and of course MS found new suckers who bought the same >> used story few years later (yes, I'm talking about Windows/PPC >> that lived a very short life). >> >> So far, MS failed misserably in the cellular space so there's a good >> chance their exclusionary move on ARM will only help convince vendors >> that shipping Androids (and by extension other Linuces) is safer bet. >> >> -- >> > > I heard (a rumor?) that MS has 100,000 phones in the public. Granted, it's > not much, but it might be a start. Shocking!! There's over 700,000 Android device activations every day! 250m odd devices... they have a little catch up to do! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Gerry Reno wrote: > On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:07 +0200, Mario Torre wrote: >>> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: >>> that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM system and expect to run Fedora". >>> One should be very, very careful with sentences like this one. >>> >>> With more and more machines turning to ARM, simply dismiss it as a >>> "don't buy a Win8 ARM" *may* possibly work right now, but it will turn >>> against us in the future. >> That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so far >> there's been precious little indication. > > There is a tidal wave of these PC ARM devices coming: > > http://www.itworld.com/hardware/240039/qualcomm-targets-pcs-takes-aim-intels-ultrabooks I don't see why your seeing Microsoft as the problem here, they're a whole lot more friendly of late than Apply has been, they're a whole lot more trust worthy than most companies, they're an issuer of a signing certificate and if the lock it down I have no doubt they'll not only have the US govt and the EU screwing then down so they can't fart without asking. I would sooner MS with their recent warming towards Linux (Bing and other of their products use linux, mass contribution to OSM etc) than Apple or our supposed friends Oracle. I think we need to put some perspective we're dealing with x86 now and for ARM there's not even shipping products yet, and Windows RT is so restricted and it's not like there's not 1000's of ARM devices already on the market not running windows and not under MS control, you also just have to look at organisations like Linaro which are sponsored by ARM SoC manufacturers. Look at the current ARM market income based on platforms currently and lets look at how much of their income comes from Microsoft and how much comes from Linux and ask most of them if they would want to impact their current income? Unlikely. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Oron Peled wrote: > On Friday, 8 בJune 2012 20:07:20 Gerry Reno wrote: > > On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so > far > > > there's been precious little indication. > > > > There is a tidal wave of these PC ARM devices coming: > > > > http://www.itworld.com/hardware/240039/qualcomm-targets-pcs-takes-aim- > intels-ultrabooks > > Hmmm... we've seen this "Windows-on-non-x86" movie twice before: > - Remember Alpha's? Digital (RIP) really thought MS would give them the > keys to the kingdom. There was a released version. It was good enough > to frighten Intel at the time (which was probably the reason MS did > it). Linux sold manyfolds more Alpha's than Windows. > > - Ahhh, and of course MS found new suckers who bought the same > used story few years later (yes, I'm talking about Windows/PPC > that lived a very short life). > > So far, MS failed misserably in the cellular space so there's a good > chance their exclusionary move on ARM will only help convince vendors > that shipping Androids (and by extension other Linuces) is safer bet. > > -- > > I heard (a rumor?) that MS has 100,000 phones in the public. Granted, it's not much, but it might be a start. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: FYI: ocaml 4.00.0 beta going into Rawhide - gnome question
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 12:42:43PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Cross referencing... > Warning: Class or class type OgtkSourceView2Props.source_view_props not found > Ok > ocamlc.opt -I +ocamldoc -pp "camlp4o -I > /usr/lib64/ocaml/camlp4/Camlp4Parsers pa_macro.cmo -D OCAML_308" -c > gtkdoc.ml > File "gtkdoc.ml", line 70, characters 12-26: > Error: Unbound class Odoc_html.html > make[1]: *** [gtkdoc.cmo] Error 2 It turns out that the class Odoc_html.html was renamed in the ocamldoc library. I'll submit a new build, send a patch upstream etc. Thanks, Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Friday, 8 בJune 2012 20:07:20 Gerry Reno wrote: > On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so far > > there's been precious little indication. > > There is a tidal wave of these PC ARM devices coming: > > http://www.itworld.com/hardware/240039/qualcomm-targets-pcs-takes-aim- intels-ultrabooks Hmmm... we've seen this "Windows-on-non-x86" movie twice before: - Remember Alpha's? Digital (RIP) really thought MS would give them the keys to the kingdom. There was a released version. It was good enough to frighten Intel at the time (which was probably the reason MS did it). Linux sold manyfolds more Alpha's than Windows. - Ahhh, and of course MS found new suckers who bought the same used story few years later (yes, I'm talking about Windows/PPC that lived a very short life). So far, MS failed misserably in the cellular space so there's a good chance their exclusionary move on ARM will only help convince vendors that shipping Androids (and by extension other Linuces) is safer bet. -- Oron Peled Voice: +972-4-8228492 o...@actcom.co.il http://users.actcom.co.il/~oron linux/reboot.h: #define LINUX_REBOOT_MAGIC1 0xfee1dead -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: FYI: ocaml 4.00.0 beta going into Rawhide - gnome question
On 06/08/2012 12:42 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: I tried building without gnome-panel-devel and got: Cross referencing... Warning: Class or class type OgtkSourceView2Props.source_view_props not found Ok ocamlc.opt -I +ocamldoc -pp "camlp4o -I /usr/lib64/ocaml/camlp4/Camlp4Parsers pa_macro.cmo -D OCAML_308" -c gtkdoc.ml File "gtkdoc.ml", line 70, characters 12-26: Error: Unbound class Odoc_html.html make[1]: *** [gtkdoc.cmo] Error 2 Any idea? Still get this with the rebuilt gnome-panel. I'm afraid I know nothing about ocaml though. Help please? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Laptop screen stuck on very low brightness
I used to get stuck on this one and end up going to "system settings" and "brightness". This is the first I have heard of the Fn combination; thanks On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Björn Persson wrote: > Corey Richardson wrote: > > How are you trying to modify the brightness? > > Holding down Fn and pressing the up and down keys is supposed to adjust the > brightness. A little box is shown in the middle of the screen with a > horizontal bar that indicates the brightness. That part still works. The > bar > grows and shrinks, but the brightness is not affected. > > > Does `xbacklight` work? > > All xbacklight commands I try (except for "xbacklight -help") cause the > screen > to flash once and return zero. Even "xbacklight -get" causes a flash, > prints > nothing, and returns zero. > > Björn Persson > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Election Results for Fedora Board, FAmSCo, and FESCo seats
Greetings, patient friends: The elections for the Fedora Board, Fedora Engineering Steering Committee (FESCo), and Fedora Ambassadors Steering Committee (FAmSCo) have concluded, and the results are shown below. Apparently, we like to keep things interesting around here; the improbable situation of having a tie for a seat has occurred. Read on for details! * * * FESCo is electing 5 seats this cycle. A total of 236 ballots were cast, meaning a candidate could accumulate up to 1,888 votes (236 * 8). The results for the FESCo elections are as follows: # votes | name 1319 | Kevin Fenzi (FAS: kevin, IRC: nirik) 1208 | Bill Nottingham (FAS: notting, IRC: notting) 1028 | Tomáš Mráz (FAS: tmraz, IRC: t8m) 901 | Peter Jones (FAS: pjones, IRC: pjones) 890 | Josh Boyer (FAS: jwboyer, IRC: jwb) 844 | Stephen Gallagher (FAS: sgallagh, IRC: sgallagh) 474 | John Dulaney (FAS:jdulaney, IRC: j_dulaney) 350 | Keiran Smith (FAS:affix, IRC:affix) Therefore, Kevin Fenzi, Bill Nottingham, Tomáš Mráz, Peter Jones, and Josh Boyer are each elected to FESCo for a full two-release term. * * * FAmSCo is electing 7 seats this cycle. As this is a special transitional election for FAmSCo, all seven seats are open for election. The four candidates receiving the most votes will be seated for two release cycles and the next three candidates by vote count will be seated for one release cycle. As those terms expire, future elections will be held each release to fill the open seats for two release terms. A total of 207 ballots were cast, meaning a candidate could accumulate up to 1,863 votes (207 * 9). # votes | name 1152 | Christoph Wickert (FAS: cwickert, IRC: cwickert) 887 | Jiri Eischmann (FAS: eischmann, IRC: sesivany) 796 | Clint Savage (FAS: herlo, IRC: herlo) 576 | Nick Bebout (FAS: nb, IRC: nb) 553 | Alejandro Perez (FAS: aeperezt, IRC: aeperezt) 543 | Daniel Bruno (FAS: dbruno, IRC: danielbruno) 512 | Buddhika Chandradeepa Kurera (FAS: bckurera, IRC: bckurera) 470 | Truong Anh Tuan (FAS: tuanta, IRC: tuanta) 340 | Arif Tri Waluyo (FAS: arifiauo, IRC: arifiauo) Therefore, Christoph Wickert, Jiri Eischmann, Clint Savage, and Nick Bebout are each elected to FAmSCo for a two-release term; Alejandro Perez, Daniel Bruno, and Buddhika Chandradeepa Kurera are each elected to FAmSCo for a one-release term. * * * The Fedora Board is electing 3 seats this cycle. Atotal of 199 ballots were cast, meaning a candidate could accumulate up to 796 votes (199 * 4). # votes | name 534 | Peter Robinson (FAS: pbrobinson, IRC: pbrobinson) 505 | Eric Christensen (FAS: sparks, IRC: sparks) 358 | Nick Bebout (FAS: nb, IRC: nb) 358 | Robert 'Bob' Jensen (FAS:bjensen, IRC: EvilBob) Therefore: Peter Robinson and Eric Christensen are elected to the Board for a full two-release term. Additionally: Nick Bebout and Robert 'Bob' Jensen have tied for the remaining seat; a runoff election will be held to determine the remaining seat, beginning Tuesday, June 12, and ending Tuesday, June 19. * * * Congratulations to the winning candidates, and a hearty thank-you to all nominees for running and participating in this elections cycle. -Robyn ___ devel-announce mailing list devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: aplications is not requesting authorization when running via vnc
On Sex, 2012-06-08 at 11:34 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:52:30 +0100 > Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > Help ! > > Forwarded Message > > > > me: I see, that we got this active=no (or =FALSE) problem with other > > cases me: like my remote server, where I need to work with vnc . > > > > Kevin: VNC has always been considered a remote session and thus not > > eligible for Kevin: active session ACLs. See e.g.: > > Kevin: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711719 > > Kevin: (where the bug isn't really that ACLs aren't given out, but > > that the printer- Kevin: applet reacts to it with an uncaught Python > > exception). > > > > me: Hi, many thanks for your reply ! , > > me: Well how put my vnc with active ACLs ? I need it . ( I have root > > on me: machine :) ) > > VNC simply doesn't get the same acls as a local session. > > I'm not sure what action you are looking for here. VNC have same ACLs as a local session. > I suppose someone could write up how to get polkit Yes, that is what I'm looking for, someone help me out ? > to do that, but as > noted in the bug that may not be a very safe mode to run. > (Then your remote vnc user could access things like webcams, > microphones, etc). Yes, I know and I understand is correct as default behavior, as workaround I also could start a KDE session as root (allowing root start sessions in kdm.conf), but I would prefer use my user configurations. Thanks, -- Sérgio M. B. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Jun 8, 2012, at 10:46 AM, Gerry Reno wrote: > > No. It's entirely anti-competitive: > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confirms-UEFI-fears-locks-down-ARM/ > > > http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/ You're confusing restriction of user choice and freedom with anti-competition. The argument that this is anti-competitive when Microsoft ARM hardware is a tiny part of the market is uncompelling. This is mentioned in the first article. Further, it is possible, while presently difficult perhaps, to run a different OS on such hardware that requires Secure Boot. But I haven't read a compelling argument how this difficulty can't be dealt with, let alone how it makes the policy anti-competitive. To boot a non-Windows 8 operating system requires the same steps as Microsoft needs to get the hardware to boot Windows 8. What's the additional burden being applied to non-Windows 8 systems? Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: FYI: ocaml 4.00.0 beta going into Rawhide - gnome question
On 06/08/2012 12:25 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: On 06/08/2012 10:06 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:23:13PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I'm going to try to get OCaml 4.00.0 beta 2 into Rawhide today. https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list/2012-06/msg00030.html http://caml.inria.fr/pub/distrib/ocaml-4.00/ It's supposed to be compatible. I will rebuild as many OCaml packages as I can over the next few days. It should be possible now to rebuild OCaml packages in Rawhide. Nearly all should just need to be bumped and rebuilt, although note that you have to rebuild them in BuildRequires order. If any seem to need more complex fixes, let me know and I will have a look. Thanks Orion Poplawski for rebuilding a few already. Rich. I'm stuck now on ocaml-lablgtk: DEBUG util.py:257: Error: Package: gnome-panel-devel-3.4.2.1-1.fc18.x86_64 (build) DEBUG util.py:257: Requires: libgnome-desktop-3.so.2()(64bit) Looks like some old gnome stuff? I know nothing about the gnome stack so any suggestions here would be appreciated. Looks like it just got rebuilt. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: FYI: ocaml 4.00.0 beta going into Rawhide - gnome question
On 06/08/2012 12:31 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 12:25:51PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: On 06/08/2012 10:06 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:23:13PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I'm going to try to get OCaml 4.00.0 beta 2 into Rawhide today. https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list/2012-06/msg00030.html http://caml.inria.fr/pub/distrib/ocaml-4.00/ It's supposed to be compatible. I will rebuild as many OCaml packages as I can over the next few days. It should be possible now to rebuild OCaml packages in Rawhide. Nearly all should just need to be bumped and rebuilt, although note that you have to rebuild them in BuildRequires order. If any seem to need more complex fixes, let me know and I will have a look. Thanks Orion Poplawski for rebuilding a few already. Rich. I'm stuck now on ocaml-lablgtk: DEBUG util.py:257: Error: Package: gnome-panel-devel-3.4.2.1-1.fc18.x86_64 (build) DEBUG util.py:257: Requires: libgnome-desktop-3.so.2()(64bit) Looks like some old gnome stuff? I know nothing about the gnome stack so any suggestions here would be appreciated. Seems like a broken dependency in that package (gnome-panel-devel). The latest Rawhide-report in this list shows the same problem. If gnome-panel is deprecated, I guess we could remove the dependency. Rich. I tried building without gnome-panel-devel and got: Cross referencing... Warning: Class or class type OgtkSourceView2Props.source_view_props not found Ok ocamlc.opt -I +ocamldoc -pp "camlp4o -I /usr/lib64/ocaml/camlp4/Camlp4Parsers pa_macro.cmo -D OCAML_308" -c gtkdoc.ml File "gtkdoc.ml", line 70, characters 12-26: Error: Unbound class Odoc_html.html make[1]: *** [gtkdoc.cmo] Error 2 Any idea? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: FYI: ocaml 4.00.0 beta going into Rawhide - gnome question
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 12:25:51PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > On 06/08/2012 10:06 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:23:13PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >> > >>I'm going to try to get OCaml 4.00.0 beta 2 into Rawhide today. > >> > >>https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list/2012-06/msg00030.html > >>http://caml.inria.fr/pub/distrib/ocaml-4.00/ > >> > >>It's supposed to be compatible. I will rebuild as many OCaml packages > >>as I can over the next few days. > > > >It should be possible now to rebuild OCaml packages in Rawhide. > > > >Nearly all should just need to be bumped and rebuilt, although note > >that you have to rebuild them in BuildRequires order. If any seem to > >need more complex fixes, let me know and I will have a look. > > > >Thanks Orion Poplawski for rebuilding a few already. > > > >Rich. > > > > I'm stuck now on ocaml-lablgtk: > > DEBUG util.py:257: Error: Package: > gnome-panel-devel-3.4.2.1-1.fc18.x86_64 (build) > DEBUG util.py:257: Requires: libgnome-desktop-3.so.2()(64bit) > > > Looks like some old gnome stuff? I know nothing about the gnome > stack so any suggestions here would be appreciated. Seems like a broken dependency in that package (gnome-panel-devel). The latest Rawhide-report in this list shows the same problem. If gnome-panel is deprecated, I guess we could remove the dependency. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: FYI: ocaml 4.00.0 beta going into Rawhide - gnome question
On 06/08/2012 10:06 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:23:13PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I'm going to try to get OCaml 4.00.0 beta 2 into Rawhide today. https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list/2012-06/msg00030.html http://caml.inria.fr/pub/distrib/ocaml-4.00/ It's supposed to be compatible. I will rebuild as many OCaml packages as I can over the next few days. It should be possible now to rebuild OCaml packages in Rawhide. Nearly all should just need to be bumped and rebuilt, although note that you have to rebuild them in BuildRequires order. If any seem to need more complex fixes, let me know and I will have a look. Thanks Orion Poplawski for rebuilding a few already. Rich. I'm stuck now on ocaml-lablgtk: DEBUG util.py:257: Error: Package: gnome-panel-devel-3.4.2.1-1.fc18.x86_64 (build) DEBUG util.py:257: Requires: libgnome-desktop-3.so.2()(64bit) Looks like some old gnome stuff? I know nothing about the gnome stack so any suggestions here would be appreciated. -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA, Boulder Office FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.nwra.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Setting up Koji question
On 21 May 2012, at 07:07, Gregory Hosler wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi all,
>
> I am setting up a Koji server, and following the instructions given on the
> Fedora Koji wiki
>
>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Koji/ServerHowTo
>
> Part way down, there are directions on
>
>Generate a PKCS12 user certificate
>
> This is for web browser. This is only required for user certificates.
>
> The statement to create such a certificate is:
>
>openssl pkcs12 -export -inkey certs/${user}.key -in certs/${user}.crt \
>-CAfile ${caname}_ca_cert.crt \
>-out certs/${user}_browser_cert.p12
>
>
> "caname" is globally set (in the above documentation) to "koji".
>
> My problem is the "user" variable. There are no clues or hints as to what the
> user variable should be set to.
>
> Has anyone setup Koji before ? Anyone know how this should read ?
>
> Many thanks in advance, and all the best,
>
> - -Greg
>
> - --
> +-+
>
> Please also check the log file at "/dev/null" for additional information.
>(from /var/log/Xorg.setup.log)
>
> | Greg Hosler ghos...@redhat.com|
> +-+
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk+524wACgkQ404fl/0CV/RB8gCghP0oYND6xFrHbo2/u8pUNPyk
> nfsAnRlBjLnLDHlqH84VTzKxP1vBLno3
> =MVx9
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
This works for me.
grep DN /etc/httpd/conf.d/kojihub.conf /etc/koji-hub/hub.conf
/etc/httpd/conf.d/kojihub.conf:PythonOption ProxyDNs
"/C=GB/ST=Surrey/O=Xentic/OU=kojiweb/CN=jayeola.zapto.org/emailAddress=jaye...@gmail.com"
/etc/koji-hub/hub.conf:DNUsernameComponent = CN
/etc/koji-hub/hub.conf:ProxyDNs =
/C=GB/ST=Surrey/O=Xentic/OU=kojiweb/CN=jayeola.zapto.org/emailAddress=jaye...@gmail.com--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 18:14 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 06/08/2012 05:42 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > And - though it pains me that this next thought might actually be > > unpopular, though closer investigation might reveal that I'm giving the > > feature too much credit, and without considering or conceding whether > > such a machine would be non-free - I'm pretty sure I am willing to > > sacrifice a minor technical point of software freedom for real gains in > > human freedom. > > I suppose I don't know what minor technical point of software freedom > you're talking about. I presume it's not the freedom to change a > program so it does your computing as you wish, which is scarcely a > minor anything. It's more like "is building or supporting a machine with this kind of lockdown intrinsically non-free". At least, that's an objection I've heard, from people trying to equate SB with DRM or the DMCA, which is a bit fallacious, or from the "Microsoft is involved so it must be bad" crowd. SB's just a technology, I believe positive use can be made of it, and DFSG 6 cuts both ways. I didn't intend to make it sound like you were advocating that kind of objection, I apologize if I put words in your mouth there. - ajax signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: aplications is not requesting authorization when running via vnc
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:52:30 +0100 Sérgio Basto wrote: > Help ! > Forwarded Message > > me: I see, that we got this active=no (or =FALSE) problem with other > cases me: like my remote server, where I need to work with vnc . > > Kevin: VNC has always been considered a remote session and thus not > eligible for Kevin: active session ACLs. See e.g.: > Kevin: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711719 > Kevin: (where the bug isn't really that ACLs aren't given out, but > that the printer- Kevin: applet reacts to it with an uncaught Python > exception). > > me: Hi, many thanks for your reply ! , > me: Well how put my vnc with active ACLs ? I need it . ( I have root > on me: machine :) ) VNC simply doesn't get the same acls as a local session. I'm not sure what action you are looking for here. I suppose someone could write up how to get polkit to do that, but as noted in the bug that may not be a very safe mode to run. (Then your remote vnc user could access things like webcams, microphones, etc). kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 13:07 -0400, Gerry Reno wrote: > On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:07 +0200, Mario Torre wrote: > >> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > >> > >>> that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked > >>> down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM > >>> system and expect to run Fedora". > >> One should be very, very careful with sentences like this one. > >> > >> With more and more machines turning to ARM, simply dismiss it as a > >> "don't buy a Win8 ARM" *may* possibly work right now, but it will turn > >> against us in the future. > > That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so far > > there's been precious little indication. > > There is a tidal wave of these PC ARM devices coming: > > http://www.itworld.com/hardware/240039/qualcomm-targets-pcs-takes-aim-intels-ultrabooks The question of whether anyone's going to buy them is, however, unsettled. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 01:07:20PM -0400, Gerry Reno wrote: > On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > there's been precious little indication. > > There is a tidal wave of these PC ARM devices coming: > > http://www.itworld.com/hardware/240039/qualcomm-targets-pcs-takes-aim-intels-ultrabooks And you won't be able to run Fedora on them unless you can install your own keys. I think everything that could usefully be said in this thread has already been said. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On 06/08/2012 05:42 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 16:29 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: >> On 06/08/2012 04:24 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: >>> And? I wasn't speaking to "we should sign our arm images with >>> Microsoft's key", I was speaking to "we should support Secure Boot on >>> arm". If someone wants to build an arm machine with SB support capable >>> of running non-Windows operating systems, why would we not want to run >>> there, and why would enabling that look any different from self-signing >>> an x86 machine? >> >> Forgive me if I'm missing something, but surely the reason we would >> not want to run there is that our users would not be able to do so >> as well: they wouldn't be able to modify our kernel and run it on >> their machine. > > I chose my words carefully. I think you're hearing "Secure Boot on arm" > and concluding "immutable Secure Boot configuration", which to my > knowledge is not a given. It's a given for machines that will ship with > Windows for arm on them, and one can choose to be angry at Microsoft for > that I suppose, but that's not necessarily a statement about the broader > arm ecosystem. > > Personally I really like the idea of establishing my own trust chain on > my own machines. I like the idea that I can get the assurance that my > firmware hasn't been rooted _and_ not rely on anyone else's cert safety > practices but my own. If I'm the sort of person who's taking my > computer into hostile territory - insert oppressive government of choice > here - that level of trust is potentially life saving. I have no objection to such a secure boot either. > And - though it pains me that this next thought might actually be > unpopular, though closer investigation might reveal that I'm giving the > feature too much credit, and without considering or conceding whether > such a machine would be non-free - I'm pretty sure I am willing to > sacrifice a minor technical point of software freedom for real gains in > human freedom. I suppose I don't know what minor technical point of software freedom you're talking about. I presume it's not the freedom to change a program so it does your computing as you wish, which is scarcely a minor anything. > Software freedom is a means, not an end. > > Microsoft's requirements for SB on x86 enable that kind of trust for > Linux (and for anyone else who wants it). It's possible to build arm > machines the same way; they won't be able to run Windows, but whatever, > as if I want to run Windows anyway. If arm machines like that were to > exist, why _wouldn't_ we want to support them? For that matter, why > would we not want to enable building them? As long as the technology isn't used to bind users, no reason at all. Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On 06/08/2012 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:07 +0200, Mario Torre wrote: >> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: >> >>> that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked >>> down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM >>> system and expect to run Fedora". >> One should be very, very careful with sentences like this one. >> >> With more and more machines turning to ARM, simply dismiss it as a >> "don't buy a Win8 ARM" *may* possibly work right now, but it will turn >> against us in the future. > That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so far > there's been precious little indication. There is a tidal wave of these PC ARM devices coming: http://www.itworld.com/hardware/240039/qualcomm-targets-pcs-takes-aim-intels-ultrabooks -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 14:07 +0200, Mario Torre wrote: > On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > > > that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked > > down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM > > system and expect to run Fedora". > > One should be very, very careful with sentences like this one. > > With more and more machines turning to ARM, simply dismiss it as a > "don't buy a Win8 ARM" *may* possibly work right now, but it will turn > against us in the future. That is only assuming that Windows on ARM is successful, of which so far there's been precious little indication. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On 06/08/2012 11:55 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Jun 8, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Gerry Reno wrote: >> And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8 >> ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's >> anti-competitive. > There's no such prevention. It's just that by voluntary agreement some ARM > hardware is being manufactured with Secure Boot enabled and disabling it > isn't possible. To use other OS's requires they be capable of supporting > Secure Boot, on such hardware. That doesn't seem to be anti-competitive at > all. No. It's entirely anti-competitive: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2012/jan/12/microsoft-confirms-UEFI-fears-locks-down-ARM/ http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 16:29 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > On 06/08/2012 04:24 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > And? I wasn't speaking to "we should sign our arm images with > > Microsoft's key", I was speaking to "we should support Secure Boot on > > arm". If someone wants to build an arm machine with SB support capable > > of running non-Windows operating systems, why would we not want to run > > there, and why would enabling that look any different from self-signing > > an x86 machine? > > Forgive me if I'm missing something, but surely the reason we would > not want to run there is that our users would not be able to do so > as well: they wouldn't be able to modify our kernel and run it on > their machine. I chose my words carefully. I think you're hearing "Secure Boot on arm" and concluding "immutable Secure Boot configuration", which to my knowledge is not a given. It's a given for machines that will ship with Windows for arm on them, and one can choose to be angry at Microsoft for that I suppose, but that's not necessarily a statement about the broader arm ecosystem. Personally I really like the idea of establishing my own trust chain on my own machines. I like the idea that I can get the assurance that my firmware hasn't been rooted _and_ not rely on anyone else's cert safety practices but my own. If I'm the sort of person who's taking my computer into hostile territory - insert oppressive government of choice here - that level of trust is potentially life saving. And - though it pains me that this next thought might actually be unpopular, though closer investigation might reveal that I'm giving the feature too much credit, and without considering or conceding whether such a machine would be non-free - I'm pretty sure I am willing to sacrifice a minor technical point of software freedom for real gains in human freedom. Software freedom is a means, not an end. Microsoft's requirements for SB on x86 enable that kind of trust for Linux (and for anyone else who wants it). It's possible to build arm machines the same way; they won't be able to run Windows, but whatever, as if I want to run Windows anyway. If arm machines like that were to exist, why _wouldn't_ we want to support them? For that matter, why would we not want to enable building them? - ajax signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: FYI: ocaml 4.00.0 beta going into Rawhide
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 02:23:13PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I'm going to try to get OCaml 4.00.0 beta 2 into Rawhide today. > > https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list/2012-06/msg00030.html > http://caml.inria.fr/pub/distrib/ocaml-4.00/ > > It's supposed to be compatible. I will rebuild as many OCaml packages > as I can over the next few days. It should be possible now to rebuild OCaml packages in Rawhide. Nearly all should just need to be bumped and rebuilt, although note that you have to rebuild them in BuildRequires order. If any seem to need more complex fixes, let me know and I will have a look. Thanks Orion Poplawski for rebuilding a few already. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting, bindings from many languages. http://libguestfs.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Jun 8, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Gerry Reno wrote: > On 06/08/2012 10:11 AM, Chris Adams wrote: >>> >>> You mean they don't have iPads and Android tablets in the EU? > > They do. And there are certainly anti-competitive claims that can be made > related to certain ARM platforms. I don't think anti-competition law means what you think it means. And Apple has had a rather closed hardware platform pre-dating iOS devices. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Koji: fedora.cert
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El Fri, 8 Jun 2012 19:04:29 +1000 Amit Saha escribió: > Hello: > > A part of my GSoC project - On-Demand Fedora Build Service[1] involves > downloading packages via Koji. The build client can run simulatenously > on multiple nodes (separate machines). Is it OK to use the same > fedora.cert on all these? Or, is there any restrictions to > simultaenously using the same cert ? > > [1] https://github.com/amitsaha/gsoc2012_fbs you do not need a cert to download builds from koji, none of what you would do in finding and downloading builds requires authenticated access. so dont use it. Dennis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk/SILoACgkQkSxm47BaWfdiPgCfQW0CbOwRa0FicfS4u8dOdVpt NFQAn3D/hekiwbsPlhPLbfGfcmy0UU4a =lkrU -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Jun 8, 2012, at 6:47 AM, Gerry Reno wrote: > > And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8 > ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's > anti-competitive. There's no such prevention. It's just that by voluntary agreement some ARM hardware is being manufactured with Secure Boot enabled and disabling it isn't possible. To use other OS's requires they be capable of supporting Secure Boot, on such hardware. That doesn't seem to be anti-competitive at all. > > In fact, the whole concept of preventing dual-booting, and requiring x86 > hardware to come with Secure Boot enabled by default probably won't fly > either. > > That too is anti-competitive. There is no such concept preventing dual-booting. There is no requirement for UEFI hardware to come with SB enabled by default, outside of a voluntary agreement reached between hardware vendor and Microsoft in exchange for a specific marketing label. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Outage: Host reboots - 2012-06-13 23:00 UTC
Outage: Host reboots - 2012-06-13 23:00 UTC There will be an outage starting at 2012-06-13 23:00 UTC, which will last approximately 2 hours. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2012-06-13 23:00 UTC' Reason for outage: We will be rebooting various servers to bring them up in the latest kernel as well as some firmware upgrades on some storage devices. During the outage window various services may be down or slow to respond. Each particular service should only be affected for a short time as servers are rebooted. Affected Services: Ask Fedora - http://ask.fedoraproject.org/ BFO - http://boot.fedoraproject.org/ Bodhi - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ Buildsystem - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/ GIT / Source Control Email system Fedora Account System - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/ Fedora Community - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community/ Fedora Hosted - https://fedorahosted.org/ Fedora Insight - https://insight.fedoraproject.org/ Fedora People - http://fedorapeople.org/ Mirror Manager - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mirrormanager/ Package Database - https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/ Smolt - http://smolts.org/ Torrent - http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/ Wiki - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ Unaffected Services: Main Website - http://fedoraproject.org/ Docs - http://docs.fedoraproject.org/ QA Services Secondary Architectures Spins - http://spins.fedoraproject.org/ Start - http://start.fedoraproject.org/ DNS - Domain Name servers - ns1, ns2, ns3, ns4 Mirror List - https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/ Ticket Link: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/3326 Contact Information: Please join #fedora-admin or #fedora-noc on irc.freenode.net or add comments to the ticket for this outage above. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel-announce mailing list devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On 06/08/2012 04:24 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 15:16 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: >> Once upon a time, Adam Jackson said: >>> If there are ARM machines where UEFI and Secure Boot are available, >>> we're going to have tools to do your own trust database management >>> anyway, so why would supporting them be any different from doing the >>> same on x86? >> >> For Windows 8 certification on ARM, Microsoft is going to require UEFI >> with Secure Boot enabled _and_ no method for users to disable Secure >> Boot or enroll their own keys (the opposite of x86 where they require a >> disable method and custom key enrollment support). > > And? I wasn't speaking to "we should sign our arm images with > Microsoft's key", I was speaking to "we should support Secure Boot on > arm". If someone wants to build an arm machine with SB support capable > of running non-Windows operating systems, why would we not want to run > there, and why would enabling that look any different from self-signing > an x86 machine? Forgive me if I'm missing something, but surely the reason we would not want to run there is that our users would not be able to do so as well: they wouldn't be able to modify our kernel and run it on their machine. Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 15:16 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Adam Jackson said: > > If there are ARM machines where UEFI and Secure Boot are available, > > we're going to have tools to do your own trust database management > > anyway, so why would supporting them be any different from doing the > > same on x86? > > For Windows 8 certification on ARM, Microsoft is going to require UEFI > with Secure Boot enabled _and_ no method for users to disable Secure > Boot or enroll their own keys (the opposite of x86 where they require a > disable method and custom key enrollment support). And? I wasn't speaking to "we should sign our arm images with Microsoft's key", I was speaking to "we should support Secure Boot on arm". If someone wants to build an arm machine with SB support capable of running non-Windows operating systems, why would we not want to run there, and why would enabling that look any different from self-signing an x86 machine? - ajax signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
'lcov' package orphaned in EPEL5/EPEL6
Roland McGrath orphaned the 'lcov' package in all Fedora & EPEL branches. Since I use lcov for libvirt testing & have done some patches/bugfixes to it in the past, I have claimed ownership in Fedora branches. I'm not doing anything with EPEL branches though, so if anyone cares about lcov in EPEL5/EPEL6, please go ahead and grab it there. I'm also happy to approve co-maintainers for 'lcov' in Fedora branches, or let even let a more motivated Fedora maintainer claim full ownership across all branches. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Intent to retire: nss_ldap
I'll investigate it when we get to another system change but since its working on the current servers I'm not touching it :) By the time we do an OS refresh I'll probably try moving to IPA Brian On 06/08/2012 10:14 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 09:06 -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote: on our RHEL6 servers I'm still using nss_ldap for the hosts database: we have a private network and I don't want to copy portions of /etc/hosts around to our servers and putting them into DNS isn't really an option for us. I couldn't find an easy way to look up the data in ldap for that data so I just stuck with nss_ldap for all of the databases we needed. Sure, but you should be able to use nss-pam-ldapd for that now. Have you given that a look? (It's essentially the direct replacement for nss_ldap and pam_ldapd supported by PADL). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-YAML-Parser-Syck] Perl 5.16 rebuild
commit 79b5adecf6ac8d166ed218e5d7bbf157c1caabd8
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Fri Jun 8 16:40:19 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-YAML-Parser-Syck.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-YAML-Parser-Syck.spec b/perl-YAML-Parser-Syck.spec
index cc1c098..417db5a 100644
--- a/perl-YAML-Parser-Syck.spec
+++ b/perl-YAML-Parser-Syck.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-YAML-Parser-Syck
Version:0.01
-Release:21%{?dist}
+Release:22%{?dist}
Summary:Perl Wrapper for the YAML Parser Extension: libsyck
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -49,6 +49,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Fri Jun 08 2012 Petr Pisar - 0.01-22
+- Perl 5.16 rebuild
+
* Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering
- 0.01-21
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Guard] Perl 5.16 rebuild
commit 6832ed75f51695e0695bc445c2cabb77fd84e520
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Fri Jun 8 16:39:41 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-Guard.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Guard.spec b/perl-Guard.spec
index 7434904..ddd4ed9 100644
--- a/perl-Guard.spec
+++ b/perl-Guard.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Guard
Version:1.022
-Release:1%{?dist}
+Release:2%{?dist}
Summary:Safe cleanup blocks
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -47,6 +47,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Fri Jun 08 2012 Petr Pisar - 1.022-2
+- Perl 5.16 rebuild
+
* Sun Apr 22 2012 Nicolas Chauvet - 1.022-1
- Update to 1.022
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[pcsc-perl] Perl 5.16 rebuild
commit b08fe70b17d346dec3fd69456ba6ac8a4089108e
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Fri Jun 8 16:38:37 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
pcsc-perl.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/pcsc-perl.spec b/pcsc-perl.spec
index f7ee483..83fc87d 100644
--- a/pcsc-perl.spec
+++ b/pcsc-perl.spec
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@
Name: pcsc-perl
Version:1.4.12
-Release:3%{?dist}
+Release:4%{?dist}
Summary:Perl interface to the PC/SC smart card library
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -66,6 +66,9 @@ rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%changelog
+* Fri Jun 08 2012 Petr Pisar - 1.4.12-4
+- Perl 5.16 rebuild
+
* Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering
- 1.4.12-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Eval-LineNumbers] Perl 5.16 rebuild
commit 51b5a920c4c3bc4c848817d07466fd4003dbf326
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Fri Jun 8 16:35:37 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-Eval-LineNumbers.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Eval-LineNumbers.spec b/perl-Eval-LineNumbers.spec
index c27615f..3580c57 100644
--- a/perl-Eval-LineNumbers.spec
+++ b/perl-Eval-LineNumbers.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Eval-LineNumbers
Version:0.31
-Release:4%{?dist}
+Release:5%{?dist}
Summary:Add line numbers to hereis blocks that contain perl source code
License:Artistic 2.0 or LGPLv2+
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -39,6 +39,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/Eval::LineNumbers.3pm.gz
%changelog
+* Fri Jun 08 2012 Petr Pisar - 0.31-5
+- Perl 5.16 rebuild
+
* Wed May 30 2012 Emmanuel Seyman - 0.31-4
- Add perl default filter
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On 06/08/2012 10:11 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Gerry Reno said: >> And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8 >> ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's >> anti-competitive. > You mean they don't have iPads and Android tablets in the EU? They do. And there are certainly anti-competitive claims that can be made related to certain ARM platforms. And now Samsung on latest devices has made it almost dead simple to unlock the bootloader. They can see the handwriting on the wall. And I expect we'll see all these bootloaders unlocked in the near future. . -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-NOCpulse-Utils] Perl 5.16 rebuild
commit 0ece950ffbc5e759298bfd30824720963723087b
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Fri Jun 8 16:17:06 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-NOCpulse-Utils.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-NOCpulse-Utils.spec b/perl-NOCpulse-Utils.spec
index 0a6a171..4a65b7b 100644
--- a/perl-NOCpulse-Utils.spec
+++ b/perl-NOCpulse-Utils.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-NOCpulse-Utils
Version: 1.14.11
-Release: 10%{?dist}
+Release: 11%{?dist}
Summary: NOCpulse utility packages
URL: https://fedorahosted.org/spacewalk
Source0:
https://fedorahosted.org/releases/s/p/spacewalk/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
@@ -45,6 +45,9 @@ mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}/man3/
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
%changelog
+* Fri Jun 08 2012 Petr Pisar - 1.14.11-11
+- Perl 5.16 rebuild
+
* Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering
- 1.14.11-10
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Text-Glob] Perl 5.16 rebuild
commit c83ae39618bea099a9d31ddb98cfc4f0a12b0888
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Fri Jun 8 16:16:54 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-Text-Glob.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Text-Glob.spec b/perl-Text-Glob.spec
index e7d59f3..d50c613 100644
--- a/perl-Text-Glob.spec
+++ b/perl-Text-Glob.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Text-Glob
Version: 0.09
-Release: 3%{?dist}
+Release: 4%{?dist}
Summary: Perl module to match globbing patterns against text
License: GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -40,6 +40,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Fri Jun 08 2012 Petr Pisar - 0.09-4
+- Perl 5.16 rebuild
+
* Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering
- 0.09-3
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: Intent to retire: nss_ldap
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 09:06 -0400, Brian Wheeler wrote: > on our RHEL6 servers I'm still using nss_ldap for the hosts database: > we have a private network and I don't want to copy portions of > /etc/hosts around to our servers and putting them into DNS isn't really > an option for us. I couldn't find an easy way to look up the data in > ldap for that data so I just stuck with nss_ldap for all of the > databases we needed. Sure, but you should be able to use nss-pam-ldapd for that now. Have you given that a look? (It's essentially the direct replacement for nss_ldap and pam_ldapd supported by PADL). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
Once upon a time, Gerry Reno said: > And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8 > ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's > anti-competitive. You mean they don't have iPads and Android tablets in the EU? -- Chris Adams Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-PPIx-Regexp] 0.028 bump
commit a190fb8ddf2e01ed6e04c5aa495a70ec802e36ad
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Fri Jun 8 15:28:43 2012 +0200
0.028 bump
.gitignore|1 +
perl-PPIx-Regexp.spec | 15 +--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index 573d165..e734522 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -16,3 +16,4 @@ PPIx-Regexp-0.007.tar.gz
/PPIx-Regexp-0.025.tar.gz
/PPIx-Regexp-0.026.tar.gz
/PPIx-Regexp-0.027.tar.gz
+/PPIx-Regexp-0.028.tar.gz
diff --git a/perl-PPIx-Regexp.spec b/perl-PPIx-Regexp.spec
index dec5567..e76d72f 100644
--- a/perl-PPIx-Regexp.spec
+++ b/perl-PPIx-Regexp.spec
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
Name: perl-PPIx-Regexp
-Version:0.027
+Version:0.028
Release:1%{?dist}
Summary:Represent a regular expression of some sort
License:GPL+ or Artistic
@@ -7,10 +7,18 @@ Group: Development/Libraries
URL:http://search.cpan.org/dist/PPIx-Regexp/
Source0:
http://www.cpan.org/authors/id/W/WY/WYANT/PPIx-Regexp-%{version}.tar.gz
BuildArch: noarch
-BuildRequires: perl(List::MoreUtils)
+BuildRequires: perl(base)
+BuildRequires: perl(Carp)
+BuildRequires: perl(lib)
BuildRequires: perl(Module::Build)
+BuildRequires: perl(YAML)
+# Run-time
+BuildRequires: perl(constant)
+BuildRequires: perl(Exporter)
+BuildRequires: perl(List::MoreUtils)
BuildRequires: perl(PPI::Document) >= 1.117
BuildRequires: perl(Task::Weaken)
+# Tests:
BuildRequires: perl(Test::More) >= 0.88
Requires: perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo
$version))
Requires: perl(PPI::Document) >= 1.117
@@ -46,6 +54,9 @@ find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -depth -type d -exec rmdir {}
2>/dev/null \;
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Fri Jun 08 2012 Petr Pisar - 0.028-1
+- 0.028 bump
+
* Mon Jun 04 2012 Petr Pisar - 0.027-1
- 0.027 bump
diff --git a/sources b/sources
index e352102..472a99f 100644
--- a/sources
+++ b/sources
@@ -1 +1 @@
-fdd89a2c9132f30ed0c50e53affe6344 PPIx-Regexp-0.027.tar.gz
+de7334a0c2f121812e59e5ccddea96ec PPIx-Regexp-0.028.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
File PPIx-Regexp-0.028.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by ppisar
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-PPIx-Regexp: de7334a0c2f121812e59e5ccddea96ec PPIx-Regexp-0.028.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On 06/08/2012 09:20 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Gerry Reno wrote: >> On 06/08/2012 09:00 AM, drago01 wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno wrote: On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote: > On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > >> that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked >> down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM >> system and expect to run Fedora". > One should be very, very careful with sentences like this one. > > With more and more machines turning to ARM, simply dismiss it as a > "don't buy a Win8 ARM" *may* possibly work right now, but it will turn > against us in the future. > > You don't need to be an Oracle to see where all of this is going. > > Cheers, > Mario > And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8 ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's anti-competitive. >>> Doubt that as they have near zero market power in that segment right >>> now. One of the leaders in that space is selling locked down devices >>> and nobody seems to care. >>> In fact, the whole concept of preventing dual-booting, >>> Nothing is preventing dual booting. >>> and requiring x86 hardware to come with Secure Boot enabled by default probably won't fly either. >>> Adding a security feature does "fly" just fine. >>> That too is anti-competitive. >>> Not really no. >> Oh please. It's disrupting the entire x86 ecosystem. >> >> It's destroying the existing freedoms that users of other operating systems >> currently enjoy on x86 hardware. >> >> It's impacting business models of companies that rely on open-source >> operating systems that run on x86 hardware. > It's not doing any of that because you can disable it in the BIOS on > x86. The whole purpose of this is to allow for a more secure OS and > for something that works out of the box. > > Peter It does all that on x86 exactly because it is enabled by default. And on Win8 ARM you cannot disable. . -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-Class-Prototyped] Perl 5.16 rebuild
commit 70e07ef58d2477dfcb878053e33be28ffd5514cd
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Fri Jun 8 15:22:08 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-Class-Prototyped.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Class-Prototyped.spec b/perl-Class-Prototyped.spec
index 93a6cd2..77bd73e 100644
--- a/perl-Class-Prototyped.spec
+++ b/perl-Class-Prototyped.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Class-Prototyped
Version:1.11
-Release:12%{?dist}
+Release:13%{?dist}
Summary:Fast prototype-based OO programming in Perl
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -62,6 +62,9 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Fri Jun 08 2012 Petr Pisar - 1.11-13
+- Perl 5.16 rebuild
+
* Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering
- 1.11-12
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Gerry Reno wrote: > On 06/08/2012 09:00 AM, drago01 wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno wrote: >>> On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote: On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked > down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM > system and expect to run Fedora". One should be very, very careful with sentences like this one. With more and more machines turning to ARM, simply dismiss it as a "don't buy a Win8 ARM" *may* possibly work right now, but it will turn against us in the future. You don't need to be an Oracle to see where all of this is going. Cheers, Mario >>> And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on >>> Win8 ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's >>> anti-competitive. >> Doubt that as they have near zero market power in that segment right >> now. One of the leaders in that space is selling locked down devices >> and nobody seems to care. >> >>> In fact, the whole concept of preventing dual-booting, >> Nothing is preventing dual booting. >> >>> and requiring x86 hardware to come with Secure Boot enabled by >>> default probably won't fly either. >> Adding a security feature does "fly" just fine. >> >>> That too is anti-competitive. >> Not really no. > > Oh please. It's disrupting the entire x86 ecosystem. > > It's destroying the existing freedoms that users of other operating systems > currently enjoy on x86 hardware. > > It's impacting business models of companies that rely on open-source > operating systems that run on x86 hardware. It's not doing any of that because you can disable it in the BIOS on x86. The whole purpose of this is to allow for a more secure OS and for something that works out of the box. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On 06/08/2012 09:00 AM, drago01 wrote: > On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno wrote: >> On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote: >>> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: >>> that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM system and expect to run Fedora". >>> One should be very, very careful with sentences like this one. >>> >>> With more and more machines turning to ARM, simply dismiss it as a >>> "don't buy a Win8 ARM" *may* possibly work right now, but it will turn >>> against us in the future. >>> >>> You don't need to be an Oracle to see where all of this is going. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Mario >>> >> And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8 >> ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's >> anti-competitive. > Doubt that as they have near zero market power in that segment right > now. One of the leaders in that space is selling locked down devices > and nobody seems to care. > >> In fact, the whole concept of preventing dual-booting, > Nothing is preventing dual booting. > >> and requiring x86 hardware to come with Secure Boot enabled by >> default probably won't fly either. > Adding a security feature does "fly" just fine. > >> That too is anti-competitive. > Not really no. Oh please. It's disrupting the entire x86 ecosystem. It's destroying the existing freedoms that users of other operating systems currently enjoy on x86 hardware. It's impacting business models of companies that rely on open-source operating systems that run on x86 hardware. And it's security in name only. . -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[perl-Convert-Bencode] Perl 5.16 rebuild
commit 7b8b00e04dc62cbe967a405b337d6fc44b22a140
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Fri Jun 8 15:07:09 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-Convert-Bencode.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Convert-Bencode.spec b/perl-Convert-Bencode.spec
index 6b7eab4..c6f653a 100644
--- a/perl-Convert-Bencode.spec
+++ b/perl-Convert-Bencode.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Convert-Bencode
Version:1.03
-Release:4%{?dist}
+Release:5%{?dist}
Summary:Functions for converting to/from bencoded strings
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Fri Jun 08 2012 Petr Pisar - 1.03-5
+- Perl 5.16 rebuild
+
* Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering
- 1.03-4
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
[perl-Test-UseAllModules] Perl 5.16 rebuild
commit f8ba93f533c4680a2d80e7c9048a3cd23d68bf43
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Fri Jun 8 15:07:00 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-Test-UseAllModules.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Test-UseAllModules.spec b/perl-Test-UseAllModules.spec
index 632e4ee..3644177 100644
--- a/perl-Test-UseAllModules.spec
+++ b/perl-Test-UseAllModules.spec
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
Name: perl-Test-UseAllModules
Version:0.13
-Release:2%{?dist}
+Release:3%{?dist}
Summary:Do use_ok() for all the MANIFESTed modules
License:GPL+ or Artistic
Group: Development/Libraries
@@ -58,6 +58,9 @@ make test
%{_mandir}/man3/*
%changelog
+* Fri Jun 08 2012 Petr Pisar - 0.13-3
+- Perl 5.16 rebuild
+
* Fri Jan 13 2012 Fedora Release Engineering
- 0.13-2
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
Re: Intent to retire: nss_ldap
on our RHEL6 servers I'm still using nss_ldap for the hosts database: we have a private network and I don't want to copy portions of /etc/hosts around to our servers and putting them into DNS isn't really an option for us. I couldn't find an easy way to look up the data in ldap for that data so I just stuck with nss_ldap for all of the databases we needed. Brian On 06/07/2012 05:20 PM, Jakub Hrozek wrote: Hi, I would like to retire PADL's nss_ldap and pam_ldap from current Rawhide. SSSD has been the default in Fedora for quite a few releases with nss-pam-ldapd as another option for deployments that, for some reason, do not want to migrate to the SSSD. nss_ldap also seems to be abandoned upstream. Are there still any users of nss_ldap? If so, what are the reasons keeping you from using either nss-pam-ldapd or the SSSD? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Gerry Reno wrote: > On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote: >> On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: >> >>> that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked >>> down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM >>> system and expect to run Fedora". >> One should be very, very careful with sentences like this one. >> >> With more and more machines turning to ARM, simply dismiss it as a >> "don't buy a Win8 ARM" *may* possibly work right now, but it will turn >> against us in the future. >> >> You don't need to be an Oracle to see where all of this is going. >> >> Cheers, >> Mario >> > > And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8 > ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's > anti-competitive. Doubt that as they have near zero market power in that segment right now. One of the leaders in that space is selling locked down devices and nobody seems to care. > In fact, the whole concept of preventing dual-booting, Nothing is preventing dual booting. > and requiring x86 hardware to come with Secure Boot enabled by > default probably won't fly either. Adding a security feature does "fly" just fine. > That too is anti-competitive. Not really no. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On 06/08/2012 08:07 AM, Mario Torre wrote: > On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > >> that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked >> down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM >> system and expect to run Fedora". > One should be very, very careful with sentences like this one. > > With more and more machines turning to ARM, simply dismiss it as a > "don't buy a Win8 ARM" *may* possibly work right now, but it will turn > against us in the future. > > You don't need to be an Oracle to see where all of this is going. > > Cheers, > Mario > And I expect this idea of preventing other OS's from being installed on Win8 ARM hardware will not fly in the EU. It's anti-competitive. In fact, the whole concept of preventing dual-booting, and requiring x86 hardware to come with Secure Boot enabled by default probably won't fly either. That too is anti-competitive. . -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora ARM and SecureBoot
On Thu, 2012-06-07 at 14:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: > that would not allow custom kernel and such. Don't support the locked > down platform; the answer to "Fedora on ARM" is "don't buy a Win8 ARM > system and expect to run Fedora". One should be very, very careful with sentences like this one. With more and more machines turning to ARM, simply dismiss it as a "don't buy a Win8 ARM" *may* possibly work right now, but it will turn against us in the future. You don't need to be an Oracle to see where all of this is going. Cheers, Mario -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
aplications is not requesting authorization when running via vnc
Help ! Forwarded Message me: I see, that we got this active=no (or =FALSE) problem with other cases me: like my remote server, where I need to work with vnc . Kevin: VNC has always been considered a remote session and thus not eligible for Kevin: active session ACLs. See e.g.: Kevin: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=711719 Kevin: (where the bug isn't really that ACLs aren't given out, but that the printer- Kevin: applet reacts to it with an uncaught Python exception). me: Hi, many thanks for your reply ! , me: Well how put my vnc with active ACLs ? I need it . ( I have root on me: machine :) ) me: x11vnc or x0vncserver also doesn't have active ACLs ? I think, I try it me: without success. which is strange since I have a desktop on console that me: I can access physically. But I will try it again to confirm (since I'm me: near to them now). me: Or other solution to work remotely on my server, with graphics. Others references : my comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638344#c16 I admit is not completely related (again) with the bug itself . https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638344 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=573499 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=546640 Thanks and best regards, -- Sérgio M. B. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PDF printing woes
On Wed, 2012-05-30 at 21:32 +0800, P J P wrote: > I'm facing a weird printing problem with cups-1.5.2 on F16. I can > print a document from the browser; But when i try to print a PDF > document, it prompts me for the cups server password. I've tried with > epdfviewer and Adobe Reader both halt at the same point. This looks like a problem in the print dialog for the application you are using to print. I gather you have set 'ServerName' in /etc/cups/client.conf (or ~/.cups/client.conf) to cups.x.com, and that the server policy on that machine requires authentication for at least one of the steps required for printing a job. Does printing from the command line (using lp) work? Does it ask for a password? Tim. */ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Koji: fedora.cert
On Fri, 2012-06-08 at 19:04 +1000, Amit Saha wrote: > Hello: > > A part of my GSoC project - On-Demand Fedora Build Service[1] involves > downloading packages via Koji. The build client can run simulatenously > on multiple nodes (separate machines). Is it OK to use the same > fedora.cert on all these? Or, is there any restrictions to > simultaenously using the same cert ? Why would you need the client certificate? Can't you download builds without being authenticated? -- Mathieu -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Koji: fedora.cert
Hello: A part of my GSoC project - On-Demand Fedora Build Service[1] involves downloading packages via Koji. The build client can run simulatenously on multiple nodes (separate machines). Is it OK to use the same fedora.cert on all these? Or, is there any restrictions to simultaenously using the same cert ? [1] https://github.com/amitsaha/gsoc2012_fbs Thanks! -Amit -- http://echorand.me -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
python-icalendar changing license to BSD
Upstream of python-icalendar changed to Plone foundation and they relicensed the project from mostly LGPLv2 to BSD. Original license: # test.py is GPLv2 # parser is GPL # doctest.py is Public Domain # rest is LGPLv2 License:LGPLv2 and GPLv2 and GPLv2+ and Public Domain Package has been cleaned so it's no longer such a mix, and upstream went through contributors to change the license: https://github.com/collective/icalendar/issues/2 -- Stanislav Ochotnicky Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno PGP: 7B087241 Red Hat Inc. http://cz.redhat.com signature.asc Description: signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
