Re: Will we finally get firefox 6.0.1???

Am 01.09.2011 23:52, schrieb Joshua C.: > Can someone finally rebuild firefox 6.0.1 for fedora? The browser is a > critical part of everyone's system today and I really don't understand > why such software isn't updated when needed to because xulrunner is updated and the version does not matter?

Re: Will we finally get firefox 6.0.1???

2011/9/2 Michał Piotrowski : > Hi, > > 2011/9/1 Joshua C. : >> Can someone finally rebuild firefox 6.0.1 for fedora? The browser is a >> critical part of everyone's system today and I really don't understand >> why such software isn't updated when needed to. > > I'm sure it will be updated soon - i

Re: Will we finally get firefox 6.0.1???

Hi, 2011/9/1 Joshua C. : > Can someone finally rebuild firefox 6.0.1 for fedora? The browser is a > critical part of everyone's system today and I really don't understand > why such software isn't updated when needed to. I'm sure it will be updated soon - it was released just yesterday. -- Best

Will we finally get firefox 6.0.1???

Can someone finally rebuild firefox 6.0.1 for fedora? The browser is a critical part of everyone's system today and I really don't understand why such software isn't updated when needed to. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: How to debug X lockup (advice from gurus wanted)

On 08/30/2011 09:24 PM, stan wrote: > On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 21:06:29 +0200 > Roberto Ragusa wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> it sometimes happens to me that X completely locks up, while the >> machine is still alive on the network. >> >> This is on F14, untainted kernel, nouveau driver, no 3D used, >> KDE des

Re: GIMP vs. poppler licensing, was: So you want to test an unstable GIMP...

On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 21:24 +0100, Dr Andrew John Hughes wrote: > > > Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be > > > able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have > > > "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license? > > > > if you combin

Re: GIMP vs. poppler licensing, was: So you want to test an unstable GIMP...

On 14:50 Thu 01 Sep , Simo Sorce wrote: > On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 20:42 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: > > It seems one always forgets something... well, better this than leaving > > the stove on. > > > > On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:45 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: > > > Here's the gist (in no parti

Re: [Fedora-legal-list] GIMP vs. poppler licensing, was: So you want to test an unstable GIMP...

> "NP" == Nils Philippsen writes: NP> Legal question: is it better to put this in its own subpackage to be NP> able to specify this individual license, or would GIMP better have NP> "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+ and (GPLv2 or GPLv3)" as its license? This is covered by http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Pac

Re: mutter vs mutter-mbl

On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 21:32 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote: > Heyyas, > > Actually since ever mutter conflicts with mutter-mbl. Isnt it about > time to get that conflict resolved? Technically it shouldnt be a big > issue to package one of them in a non conflicting way. I think it > might be good for ou

mutter vs mutter-mbl

Heyyas, Actually since ever mutter conflicts with mutter-mbl. Isnt it about time to get that conflict resolved? Technically it shouldnt be a big issue to package one of them in a non conflicting way. I think it might be good for our users to be able to install both components in parallel to be abl

Re: Initscript migration to systemd: triggerun called on downgrade

Petr Pisar (ppi...@redhat.com) said: > I'm migrating quota_nld service (provided by quota_nld subpackage of > quota spec) to systemd. > > Offical howto > > recommends: >

Re: GIMP vs. poppler licensing, was: So you want to test an unstable GIMP...

On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 20:42 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: > It seems one always forgets something... well, better this than leaving > the stove on. > > On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:45 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: > > Here's the gist (in no particular order): > > - GIMP 2.7 and later is licensed as "

GIMP vs. poppler licensing, was: So you want to test an unstable GIMP...

It seems one always forgets something... well, better this than leaving the stove on. On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 12:45 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: > Here's the gist (in no particular order): - GIMP 2.7 and later is licensed as "GPLv3+ and LGPLv3+" (executables, libraries) - This makes it incompatibl

[389-devel] Please review: Bug 735121 - simple paged search + ip/dns based ACI hangs server

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=735121 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=521072&action=edit -- 389-devel mailing list 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel

[Test-Announce] 2011-09-02 @ 17:00 UTC - F16 Beta Blocker Bug Review #2

# F16 Beta Blocker Review meeting #2 # Date: 2011-09-02 # Time: 17:00 UTC [1] (13:00 EDT, 10:00 PDT, 10:00 MST) # Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net The second action packed beta blocker review meeting will be this Friday at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-bugzappers. We'll be running through

Could I get a proven tester to test these packages so I can release them to F16.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 checkpolicy-2.1.3-1.fc16 policycoreutils-2.1.4-2.fc16 libsemanage-2.1.2-1.fc16 libselinux-2.1.4-2.fc16 libsepol-2.1.1-1.fc16 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - h

Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 09:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > and I'm _not_ being paid to > maintain gedit. Er...glibc. though I'm not paid to maintain gedit either. =) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassi

Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 10:09 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Jakub Jelinek writes: > > > It is also in bugzilla, just not in > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730856 > > but in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732857 > > which has been marked as duplicate of that. > > Ther

F-16 Branched report: 20110901 changes

Compose started at Thu Sep 1 13:15:23 UTC 2011 Broken deps for x86_64 -- 389-ds-base-1.2.9.0-1.fc16.2.x86_64 requires libnetsnmpagent.so.25()(64bit) 389-ds-base-1.2.9.0-1.fc16.2.x86_64 requires libnetsnmpmibs.so.25()(64bit)

Re: floppy support

On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 22:41:45 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > Below is a proposed specfile for the floppy case. (Analog joystick would be > very similar.) I haven't tested the package for functionality yet, but did > test it with rpmbuild and rpmlint. Is this what we want? Is this ready > for

Broken dependencies: perl-NOCpulse-Gritch

perl-NOCpulse-Gritch has broken dependencies in the F-16 tree: On x86_64: perl-NOCpulse-Gritch-1.27.9-1.fc16.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) On i386: perl-NOCpulse-Gritch-1.27.9-1.fc16.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) Please resolve this as soon as possibl

Broken dependencies: perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule

perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule has broken dependencies in the F-16 tree: On x86_64: perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule-0.37-9.fc16.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) On i386: perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule-0.37-9.fc16.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3) Please resolve this as soon as po

Re: yum update btrfs-progs failing on F16alpha

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote: > I've got an F16alpha kvm guest installed from scratch a few days ago. > > Today I tried a `yum update` (with --disablerepo=updates-testing) which > failed. By trial and error I determined that it is btrfs-progs, trying > to update from 0.

yum update btrfs-progs failing on F16alpha

I've got an F16alpha kvm guest installed from scratch a few days ago. Today I tried a `yum update` (with --disablerepo=updates-testing) which failed. By trial and error I determined that it is btrfs-progs, trying to update from 0.19-13.fc15 to 0.19-16.fc15, that fails with: warning: rpmts_Hd

[Bug 735063] perl-Locale-Codes-3.18 is available

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=735063 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added

rawhide report: 20110901 changes

Compose started at Thu Sep 1 08:15:05 UTC 2011 Broken deps for x86_64 -- FlightGear-2.0.0-6.fc16.x86_64 requires libosgViewer.so.74()(64bit) FlightGear-2.0.0-6.fc16.x86_64 requires libosgUtil.so.74()(64bit) FlightGear

So you want to test an unstable GIMP...

...or so I've heard[1]. Here we go: Herewith I announce the officially unofficial unstable GIMP for Fedora repository! I've held off making packages of the 2.7.x series for a long time, but thankfully Luya Tshimbalanga has offered his own versions of these on his fedorapeople repository, compensa

Initscript migration to systemd: triggerun called on downgrade

I'm migrating quota_nld service (provided by quota_nld subpackage of quota spec) to systemd. Offical howto recommends: %triggerun -- httpd < 1.0-2 # Save the current ser

Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc

Jakub Jelinek writes: > It is also in bugzilla, just not in > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730856 > but in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732857 > which has been marked as duplicate of that. There should have been a comment pointing out this important information by t

Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 09:34:10AM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Adam Williamson writes: > > > But I did mention all the various bug reports - Arch and upstream - in > > my ML post on the topic: subject "glibc causing crashes in most > > anything that does DNS lookups in F16". > > That is usele

Re: Notice of intent: patching glibc

Adam Williamson writes: > But I did mention all the various bug reports - Arch and upstream - in > my ML post on the topic: subject "glibc causing crashes in most > anything that does DNS lookups in F16". That is useless. Please always put such important information in the bug report, so that i