Re: documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

Matt Domsch wrote: > However, check if unifdef is really needed. The kernel team knew it > was going to be orphaned, and said "that's OK, as the kernel tree has > its own copy that's maintained there." or somesuch. If not, letting > it stay dead is fine - desireable in fact. > What is the crit

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora?

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:39:02 +0800, Chen Lei wrote: > Hi all, > I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora doesn't > have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html). > Since I realized no linux distribution containing lzma sdk yet, is using a > bundled library permitted under this

Re: documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Looks like you've linked to the wrong bug. > Sorry, it was a typo. The correct bug is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511553 > From the description, it now builds from source, at least in rawhide. > I think you want to Close Rawhide in that case. > Great

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora?

> I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora > doesn't have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html). Fedora 12 has package lzma-libs which is generated by lzma-4.32.7-3.fc12.src.rpm. Perhaps you should confer with the maintainer of the Fedora lzma package if you desire a later lzma vers

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora?

On 02/12/2010 04:39 AM, Chen Lei wrote: > Hi all, > I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora doesn't > have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html). > Since I realized no linux distribution containing lzma sdk yet, is using a > bundled library permitted under this condition,? This s

Re: documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 05:36:23PM -0800, Eric Smith wrote: > The unifdef package had become orphaned due to an FTBFS, > . I took it over, > updated it to the latest upstream code, verified that it builds with > Koji, and committed it. I'm not

No lzma sdk in fedora?

Hi all, I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora doesn't have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html). Since I realized no linux distribution containing lzma sdk yet, is using a bundled library permitted under this condition,? Regards, Chen Lei-- devel mailing list devel@list

Re: ABRT unusable again

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 15:48 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 10:53 +, Leigh Scott wrote: > > IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps > > to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they don't respond > > to the "needinfo" request). >

Re: documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 05:36:23PM -0800, Eric Smith wrote: > The unifdef package had become orphaned due to an FTBFS, > . I took it over, > updated it to the latest upstream code, verified that it builds with > Koji, and committed it. I'm not

documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

The unifdef package had become orphaned due to an FTBFS, . I took it over, updated it to the latest upstream code, verified that it builds with Koji, and committed it. I'm not sure what to do about the Status field of the bug. I looked for r

Re: ABRT frustrating for users and developers

Am Montag, den 18.01.2010, 21:58 -0800 schrieb Adam Williamson: > On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > > I doubt this very much. Many people don't report the bugs when the app > > crashes but later, many reports in a row. Most of my reports read "I > > have no idea what

Re: ABRT frustrating for users and developers

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:58:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > > I doubt this very much. Many people don't report the bugs when the app > > crashes but later, many reports in a row. Most of my reports read "I > > have no idea what

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

2010/2/11 Robert 'Bob' Jensen : > > - "Dan Williams" wrote: >> >> Oh seriously, a little communication between the Unity team and the >> KDE >> team wouldn't hurt here.  If the Unity team said "hey, we're going to >> do >> a spin on March 6th" but the KDE team wanted to slip that a few days >>

Re: berlios.de compromised since 2005

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:23:15PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: > till:fatsort:http://fatsort.berlios.de/ Upstream compared the contents of the current tarball with a old working copy. Since there is only one developer, it's probably safe to assume, that the code is clean. Regards Till pgp2X6CpGxd

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 11:58 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote: > > Note that _libraries_ generally do not have a problem building in a > > --no-add-needed world. ELF does not require that all references in a > > DSO be resolvable at ld time, and this linking change does not change > > that. If your lib

[Test-Announce] F-13 Alpha Blocker Meeting 2010-02-12 @ 16:00 UTC (11 AM EST)

When: Friday, 2010-02-12 @ 16:00 UTC (11 AM EST) Where: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net It's that time again: blocker bug review meeting time! Tomorrow is the second blocker bug review meeting for Fedora 13 Alpha. Please note the adjustments to the time written in this announcement. The la

Re: perl core/minimal swizzle?

Hello Chris, > The other thread had me wondering where we are in doing the perl > minimal/core change that was discussed earlier on the list... Are we > still on target for F-13? I'm very sorry, but I'm afraid we are going to miss this. :-( Stepan -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedorapro

perl core/minimal swizzle?

Hey Stepan -- The other thread had me wondering where we are in doing the perl minimal/core change that was discussed earlier on the list... Are we still on target for F-13? -Chris -- Chris Weyl Ex astris, scientia -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproj

Re: Filtering non-versioned provides/requires

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Stepan Kasal wrote: > Hello Chris, > > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 09:32:11AM -0800, Chris Weyl wrote: >> Or, appropriately enough, a Perl one-liner :) >> >> perl -e 'while (<>) { chomp; s/\s+$//; split / >= /; $v{$_[0]} = >> $v{$_[0]} > $_[1] ? $v{$_[0]} : $_[1] } do

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

> Note that _libraries_ generally do not have a problem building in a > --no-add-needed world. ELF does not require that all references in a > DSO be resolvable at ld time, and this linking change does not change > that. If your library libfoo uses symbols from libbar but does not > itself link a

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 09:48 +, Tim Waugh wrote: > Shouldn't > > * D-Bus services on the system bus > > be listed there, to make sure that /etc/dbus-1/system.d/*.conf files are > sane? It's just that it is quite a commonly used mechanism. > > This was brought up in discussion of one of th

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 16:16 +0100, Till Maas wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:48:39PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > I have now adjusted the draft - > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Fedora_privilege_escalation_policy > > - to reflect all feedback from this list and f

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 13:32 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 05:19:59PM -0500, Tony Nelson wrote: > > On 10-02-10 15:48:39, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Hi, all. So the privilege escalation policy went to FESco, who > > > suggested some minor tweaks and a final run-by the

Re: Notice: dnssec-conf updates in Fedora 11 and 12

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 05:29:27PM -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote: > == Remediation == > > A new update is being prepared to address this problem for Fedora 11 > and 12 users, and will be pushed to our mirrors as soon as possible. > Users who are not ru

Re: Filtering non-versioned provides/requires

Hello Chris, On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 09:32:11AM -0800, Chris Weyl wrote: > Or, appropriately enough, a Perl one-liner :) > > perl -e 'while (<>) { chomp; s/\s+$//; split / >= /; $v{$_[0]} = > $v{$_[0]} > $_[1] ? $v{$_[0]} : $_[1] } do { print $v{$_} ? "$_ >= > $v{$_}\n" : "$_\n" } for sort keys %

Re: rawhide report: 20100211 changes

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 17:03:14 +, Rawhide Report wrote: > Compose started at Thu Feb 11 08:15:15 UTC 2010 > > Broken deps for i386 > -- > glest-3.2.2-2.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28 I got a working build of glest last n

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said: > And this makes this ld (mis)feature particularly silly, ld now gratuitously > errors on "undefined" symbols which would be found just fine at runtime. No, it errors on undefined symbols that may or may not be found at runtime. Why do you want binaries that

[Bug 563935] New: Update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.10 or later

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.10 or later https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563935 Summary: Update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.10 or later Pro

[Bug 563937] New: Update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.17

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.17 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563937 Summary: Update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.17 Product: Fedora

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

On 02/11/2010 07:17 AM, Adam Jackson wrote: > If your library libfoo uses symbols from libbar but does not > itself link against libbar, that's still legal (although probably > impolite). It is not really correct, it works only by accident in most cases. If the library with is linked with is usi

[Bug 561568] (amavisd noisy?) sa-update.cron generating errors

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561568 Muzi changed: What|Removed |Added --

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

Adam Jackson wrote: > Also note that the runtime linker will still do recursive lookups. If > you have a binary that did not link against some needed library, but one > of its dependencies did link against it, the binary will still work. And this makes this ld (mis)feature particularly silly, ld

[Bug 561568] (amavisd noisy?) sa-update.cron generating errors

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561568 Warren Togami changed: What|Removed |Added -

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 11:06 +0100, yersinia wrote: > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > > --no-add-needed is quite different. Your binary a.out uses > symbols from > libfoo and libbar. libfoo is linked against libbar. But your > link line >

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:48:39PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > I have now adjusted the draft - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Fedora_privilege_escalation_policy > - to reflect all feedback from this list and from FESco. It will be reviewed > again by FESco next week. Pl

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:34 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 20:42 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > > > You should add "AC_CHECK_LIB(X11, XKeysymToString)" to configure.in, > > for example. > > It's nicer to use pkg-config for libraries which provide .pc files, > isn't it? X11 d

giis-ext4 undelete

Hi all, Here it's http://www.giis.co.in/giis/, ext4 undelete tool.giis-ext4 uses ext2fs lib and sqlite,thus provides better/best performance than giis for ext3. giis-ext4 has less than 1000 LOC wh

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 05:19:59PM -0500, Tony Nelson wrote: > On 10-02-10 15:48:39, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Hi, all. So the privilege escalation policy went to FESco, who > > suggested some minor tweaks and a final run-by the mailing lists > > before it gets approved. > > > > I have now adjus

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > Kevin this is your warning we are going to try again in a month. When exactly? March 2? We'll see if we can get 4.4.0 out to the stable updates by that time… > Why shouldn't the KDE team wait 3 weeks now so that their update gets > released about the time of our next

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

On Thursday 11 February 2010 11:03:52 Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: > - "Kevin Kofler" wrote: > > Sadly, this means this respin includes KDE 4.3.4 when 4.3.5 got pushed > > to > > stable on February 5 (in fact I queued it for stable on February 2, > > but it > > just missed a push and the next on

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

- "Jaroslav Reznik" wrote: > > The problem that Kevin is pointing out is - we can't watch every other > Fedora > projects, schedules etc. so closely - it's not just possible as it's > big > project and lot of people. It wouldn't hurt anybody to send quick note > to > k...@lists.fedoraproject

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Tony Nelson wrote: > On 10-02-10 15:48:39, Adam Williamson wrote: >> Hi, all. So the privilege escalation policy went to FESco, who >> suggested some minor tweaks and a final run-by the mailing lists >> before it gets approved. >> >> I have now adjusted the draft

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

- "Kevin Kofler" wrote: > The packages available at the time it was released. ;-) I.e. not > preparing > the spin 3 days before a KDE update goes out, considering that testing > the > spin apparently takes 9 days. But nobody at Fedora Unity ever talks to > us > about KDE update schedules.

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

- "Kevin Kofler" wrote: > > Sadly, this means this respin includes KDE 4.3.4 when 4.3.5 got pushed > to > stable on February 5 (in fact I queued it for stable on February 2, > but it > just missed a push and the next one was only on February 5) and 4.4.0 > is in > the works. > > Somehow

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:06 +, Richard Hughes wrote: > > On 8 February 2010 22:46, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > As a result, you'll be causing dozens of FTBFS bugs just before the > feature > > > freeze. I think this is entirely the wrong ti

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

- "Dan Williams" wrote: > > Oh seriously, a little communication between the Unity team and the > KDE > team wouldn't hurt here. If the Unity team said "hey, we're going to > do > a spin on March 6th" but the KDE team wanted to slip that a few days > to > get some new packages in, that woul

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 12:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > I have now adjusted the draft - > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Fedora_privilege_escalation_policy > - to reflect all feedback from this list and from FESco. It will be reviewed > again by FESco next week. Please rai

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

On Thursday 11 February 2010 04:21:10 Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 03:15:56AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >Mat Booth wrote: > >> If you insist on putting out major updates for released Fedoras it > >> will never a good time to do a re-spin. Oh well. > > > >The updates being pushed s