Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 10:57 +0200, drago01 wrote: > Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be > like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click > "install" to install an extension. > Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream. So, just so I

Re: koji: kernel-2.6.40-3.fc15

On 07/29/2011 10:41 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:29:58PM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote: > > > wasn't there some kind of issue in vm's ? Maybe I'm not remembering > > correctly. > > too vague to comment. there are always 'issues in vm's :) Ha ha .. actually I have a fee

Re: koji: kernel-2.6.40-3.fc15

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:29:58PM -0400, Genes MailLists wrote: > wasn't there some kind of issue in vm's ? Maybe I'm not remembering > correctly. too vague to comment. there are always 'issues in vm's :) > Dave - how is the 2.6.40 code different or not from 3.0.0-2 ? pretty much the same

Re: koji: kernel-2.6.40-3.fc15

On 07/29/2011 10:16 PM, Dave Jones wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:16:43AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > i have running 2.6.40-4.fc15.x86_64 #1 SMP in my testing-virtual-machine > since > > some minutes, boot looked fine, after a minute a got a btrfs-stack-trace > > > > hope this hel

Re: koji: kernel-2.6.40-3.fc15

On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 01:16:43AM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > i have running 2.6.40-4.fc15.x86_64 #1 SMP in my testing-virtual-machine > since > some minutes, boot looked fine, after a minute a got a btrfs-stack-trace > > hope this helps (no i do not tend use btrfs in production *gg*) h

Re: koji: kernel-2.6.40-3.fc15

Am 29.07.2011 19:39, schrieb Josh Boyer: > On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=256138 >> >> does this mean that F15 will get a rebased 2.6.40 sooner or >> later in stable repos to avoid troubles with the new versioning >>

Re: Unresponsive maintainer: cvsgraph

Kevin Fenzi scrye.com> writes: > Done. Thank you. I'm guessing these things take time to propagate: $ bodhi --new -t newpackage -N "Initial package for EL6." cvsgraph-1.6.1-8.el6 Creating a new update for cvsgraph-1.6.1-8.el6 bojan does not have commit access to cvsgraph -- Bojan -- devel

Re: Unresponsive maintainer: cvsgraph

On Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:10:29 +1000 Bojan Smojver wrote: > On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 19:16 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > Anyone knows how to contact cvsgraph maintainer (Marek Mahut)? Bug > > is here: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709923 > > > > I already b

2011-07-29 - F16 Alpha blocker bug review #3 - recap

Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2011-07-29/f16-alpha-blocker-review.2011-07-29-17.00.html Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2011-07-29/f16-alpha-blocker-review.2011-07-29-17.00.txt Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-bugzappers/2

Re: rawhide report: 20110729 changes

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Rawhide Report wrote: > kernel-3.1.0-0.rc0.git9.1.fc17 > -- > * Wed Jul 27 2011 Josh Boyer > - Linux 3.0-git9 > - Move CONFIG_JUMP_LABEL to config-generic now that powerpc has it too This is probably broken on several kinds of setups.

Re: koji: kernel-2.6.40-3.fc15

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 7:53 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=256138 > > does this mean that F15 will get a rebased 2.6.40 sooner or > later in stable repos to avoid troubles with the new versioning > and will not stuck at 2.6.38 the whole life cycle?

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 06:28, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 11:15 +0200, drago01 wrote: >> >> Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream. >> > >> > [citation needed] >> >> https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-June/msg00164.html > > Seriously, who cares?

Fwd: Rapid DHCP

Interesting message in another list. for me fedora is very slow to get dhcp address. -- Forwarded message -- From: Sridhar Dhanapalan Date: Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 12:51 PM Subject: Rapid DHCP To: OLPC Devel , OLPC Australia list Here's an article that tries to explain why Mac

Re: DHCPv6 support in Network Manager isn't RFC compliant

On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 16:12 +0200, Tore Anderson wrote: > * Paul Wouters > > > Stopping the firewall did not help me on ietf-v6ONLY though. I still got > > not DNS entry in /etc/resolv.conf and on top of that my routing seemed to > > not have a working default route. > > > > [...] > > > > [paul@

systemd automounts

I'm trying to automount /var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs for the nfs-idmap.service var-lib-nfs-rpc_pipefs.mount is: [Unit] Description=RPC Pipe File System DefaultDependencies=no [Mount] What=sunrpc Where=/var/lib/nfs/rpc_pipefs Type=rpc_pipefs var-lib-nfs-rpc_pipefs.automount is: [Unit] Description=RPC

Re: F16 not ready to accept builds?

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 08:39:56AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:36:00 +0100 > "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: > > > > > fedpkg build says ... > > > > Could not initiate build: Unknown build target: > > dist-f16-updates-candidate > > > > Is this just a taking-time-to-set-it-up

Re: Java 7 for Fedora 16

* Omair Majid [2011-07-29 10:32]: > On 07/25/2011 04:04 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote: > >* Bill Nottingham [2011-07-25 15:54]: > >>Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said: > >>>Robyn and I have talked about how the feature process could be adapted to > >>>allow for more late work to occur however non

Re: F16 not ready to accept builds?

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:36:00 +0100 "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: > > fedpkg build says ... > > Could not initiate build: Unknown build target: > dist-f16-updates-candidate > > Is this just a taking-time-to-set-it-up issue, or am I doing something > wrong? Thats the wrong tag... make sure you ha

F16 not ready to accept builds?

fedpkg build says ... Could not initiate build: Unknown build target: dist-f16-updates-candidate Is this just a taking-time-to-set-it-up issue, or am I doing something wrong? Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http:

Re: Java 7 for Fedora 16

On 07/25/2011 04:04 PM, Deepak Bhole wrote: > * Bill Nottingham [2011-07-25 15:54]: >> Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said: >>> Robyn and I have talked about how the feature process could be adapted to >>> allow for more late work to occur however none of that talk has turned into >>> anythi

Re: koji: kernel-2.6.40-3.fc15

* Reindl Harald [29/07/2011 15:58] : > > does this mean that F15 will get a rebased 2.6.40 sooner or > later in stable repos to avoid troubles with the new versioning > and will not stuck at 2.6.38 the whole life cycle? Yes. https://plus.google.com/106327083461132854143/posts/SbnL3KaVRtM Emmanuel

Re: DHCPv6 support in Network Manager isn't RFC compliant

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011, Tore Anderson wrote: > There's two potential explanations for that that I'm aware of: > > 1) The «Require IPv4 for this connection to complete» NM setting is > unfortunately checked by default, see > and >

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 16 branch today

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 06:07:00 -0700 John Reiser wrote: > On 07/26/2011 14:26 UTC, Adam Williamson wrote: > > Just a heads-up to let everyone know that Fedora 16 is now branched > > from Rawhide. [snip] > > Since then, I have seen no nightly "rawhide report" nor "F-16 > branched report", nor any

koji: kernel-2.6.40-3.fc15

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=256138 does this mean that F15 will get a rebased 2.6.40 sooner or later in stable repos to avoid troubles with the new versioning and will not stuck at 2.6.38 the whole life cycle? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- d

Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 16 branch today

On 07/26/2011 14:26 UTC, Adam Williamson wrote: > Just a heads-up to let everyone know that Fedora 16 is now branched from > Rawhide. [snip] Since then, I have seen no nightly "rawhide report" nor "F-16 branched report", nor any relevant news. The last "rawhide report" was for that same day:

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

On Fri, 2011-07-29 at 11:15 +0200, drago01 wrote: > >> Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream. > > > > [citation needed] > > https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-June/msg00164.html Seriously, who cares? Upstream are clearly on crack these days anyway. The best way

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 11:36:50 +0200 Tomasz Torcz wrote: > I would strongly prefer third parties not to reinvent whole > packaging and repositories concept. Some companies grasp it (I have > yum repos provided for Google Earth and Talk Plugin, Dell BIOSes and > firmwares, Adobe Flash and Air, Vir

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:31:35AM +0200, drago01 wrote: > 2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" : > > On 07/29/2011 09:21 AM, drago01 wrote: > >> 2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson": > >>> On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote: > Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be >

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" : > On 07/29/2011 09:21 AM, drago01 wrote: >> 2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson": >>> On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote: Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and c

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

On 07/29/2011 09:21 AM, drago01 wrote: > 2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson": >> On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote: >>> Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be >>> like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click >>> "install" to install an extension

[perl-Coro] Correct fix_shbang_line detection

commit 986b8135d55cdce15b2bb90e346d897a48de8159 Author: Petr Písař Date: Fri Jul 29 11:21:54 2011 +0200 Correct fix_shbang_line detection It does not work anymore (rpm-4.9). perl-Coro.spec |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-Coro.spec

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" : > On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote: >> Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be >> like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click >> "install" to install an extension. >> Distro packaged extensions are frowned

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote: > Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be > like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click > "install" to install an extension. > Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream. Is it not then better to s

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Stijn Hoop wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:57:59 +0200 > drago01 wrote: > ... > >> Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream. > > [citation needed] https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-June/msg00164.html -- devel mailing list

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

Hi, On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:57:59 +0200 drago01 wrote: ... > Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream. [citation needed] --Stijn -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: RPM version goes backward in Rawhide

On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 02:29:23 +0300, KL (Kalev) wrote: > Bumping epoch in rpm would have made it harder for all other packages to > depend on a particular rpm version. Instead of having e.g. > Requires: rpm >= 4.9.1, they would now also have to remember the put the > correct epoch in there. Worth

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 07/29/2011 09:47 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: >> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the >>> gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've th

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

On 07/29/2011 01:57 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > There does exit an [1] rpm and an srpm [2] here by the do we have > guidelines on how to package additional extensions I guess official and > unofficial ones? The only one we have is at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidel

[perl-Coro] Remove executable bit from internal JIT libraries

commit b5a34fa549039e7f3705bd4cde8849878992cac5 Author: Petr Písař Date: Fri Jul 29 10:47:56 2011 +0200 Remove executable bit from internal JIT libraries perl-Coro.spec |2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-Coro.spec b/perl-Coro.spec index 2cf96

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

Hi, On 07/29/2011 09:47 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the >> gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've the >> same plans or are already working on this, please let me kn

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

On 07/29/2011 07:47 AM, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the >> gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've the >> same plans or are already working on this, please let me know. >

Re: Intent to package GNOME Shell frippery

On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the > gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've the > same plans or are already working on this, please let me know. > So we can avoid doing double work. Did you do thi