On Fri, Apr 13, 2012 at 1:59 AM, Anthony Green wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I recently release libffi 3.0.11, and ABI changes are mandating a .so
> number change. Despite the ABI change, I suspect that simple rebuilds
> are all that will be required for dependent packages.
>
> The ABI changes are si
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 17:25:02 +0200
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> nomnex wrote:
> > I don't know if the proprietary Java JRE would fix these issues?
>
> I doubt it. The proprietary Java is technically almost identical to
> OpenJDK, the biggest difference is the license.
Thanks for the info. I won't
On 04/12/2012 01:06 PM, Sergio Belkin wrote:
Hi,
I've installed openmpi I wonder if openmpi has support for torque. If
I issue the command ompi_info say nothing about torque/openpbs.
Also I've taken a look to spec file and I've found an early entry:
* Wed Oct 17 2007 Doug Ledford - 1.2.4-1
- U
Hello,
I recently release libffi 3.0.11, and ABI changes are mandating a .so
number change. Despite the ABI change, I suspect that simple rebuilds
are all that will be required for dependent packages.
The ABI changes are simply:
1. Some internal debugging functions that should never h
On Apr 11, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Got it all updated, it's in koji, 0.19-18 is what you want. Thanks,
Thanks Josef. This is now available with a yum update and has fixed the
problem. However, this is what I get as a result.
I'm under the impression that a btrfsck isn't neede
On 04/12/2012 01:54 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:40:14PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:39:16 +0100
>> "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 05:18:02PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I think it
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Tweaks needed for bootstrapping
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=812143
Summary: Tweaks needed for bootstrapping
Product: Fedora
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=810719
--- Comment #2 from Paul Howarth 2012-04-12 16:59:17 EDT ---
Note that perl-DBIx-Class also needs a complementary fix
[BR:perl(D
Here is the latest set of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
---
A bundling exception for boost within Passenger was granted, due to the
intrusive nature of the forked changes, the efforts of the maintainer to
merge as many of them as possible into the upstream boost source tree,
and the
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:40:14PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:39:16 +0100
> "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 05:18:02PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > > I think it should be possible to make repos that are always
>
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:19:57PM +0200, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> 2012/4/12 Jim Meyering :
> > I built another x86_64 rawhide VM yesterday and was surprised
> > to find that its gcc was unusable:
> >
> > $ printf 'int main(){return 0;}' > k.c; gcc k.c
> > /usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:39:16 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 05:18:02PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > I think it should be possible to make repos that are always
> > > self-consistent even when mirrors only partially mirror or delay
> >
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 05:18:02PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I think it should be possible to make repos that are always
> > self-consistent even when mirrors only partially mirror or delay
> > content. I have in mind a great proof of this, but this email is too
>
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 09:53:17AM -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
>
> Perhaps the level of detail is sufficient and I'm the only one who
> wants to know what is happening?
Actually anaconda is quite verbose, at least in the logfiles. If you
look in /tmp/ you will find a number of logfiles th
On 04/12/2012 02:39 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 09:38:40AM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
>> (Think about it a moment. gdb -p is the same as firefox trying to ptrace
>> gnome-keyring)
>
> I thought a bit about it. And now I am even more confused :)
>
> It seems you are already n
On 04/12/2012 11:35 AM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 04/12/2012 11:53 AM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
So on Friday I used the netinstall to upgrade my baremetal F15 system
to F17. Went well and I'm enjoying F17 so far. However I noticed that
anaconda is um... too quiet?
[...]
very little HD acti
Hi,
I've installed openmpi I wonder if openmpi has support for torque. If
I issue the command ompi_info say nothing about torque/openpbs.
Also I've taken a look to spec file and I've found an early entry:
* Wed Oct 17 2007 Doug Ledford - 1.2.4-1
- Update to 1.2.4 upstream version
- Build against
On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 09:38:40AM -0400, Eric Paris wrote:
> (Think about it a moment. gdb -p is the same as firefox trying to
> ptrace gnome-keyring)
I thought a bit about it. And now I am even more confused :)
It seems you are already not allowed to ptrace gnome-keyring-daemon
(or ssh-agent b
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-HTTP-Proxy:
5f5cce8a40fbc887121b9a94ad0fd265 HTTP-Proxy-0.25.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
perl-RPM2 has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-RPM2-1.0-2.fc17.x86_64 requires librpmio.so.2()(64bit)
perl-RPM2-1.0-2.fc17.x86_64 requires librpm.so.2()(64bit)
On i386:
perl-RPM2-1.0-2.fc17.i686 requires librpmio.so.2
perl-RPM2-1.0-2.fc17.i6
On 04/12/2012 11:53 AM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
So on Friday I used the netinstall to upgrade my baremetal F15 system
to F17. Went well and I'm enjoying F17 so far. However I noticed that
anaconda is um... too quiet?
[...]
very little HD activity, no UI etc. I ended up stracing anaconda
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/183
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/183/0001-Ticket-183-passwordMaxFailure-should-lockout-passwor.2.patch
I did not account for password policy subentries
Thanks,
Mark
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 09:52 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Am 12.04.2012 03:24, schrieb Bojan Smojver:
>> >> Anyone knows what's the holdup with the Samba update (CVE-2012-1
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 05:18:59PM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 08:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Please just use Yama -- it's already in the mainline kernel[1]. You
> > don't need to create anything new. All the crash handlers and other
> > tools (Firefox, Chrome, DrKon
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 09:52 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 12.04.2012 03:24, schrieb Bojan Smojver:
> >> Anyone knows what's the holdup with the Samba update (CVE-2012-1182)? No
> >> new builds have been done or queued up recently AF
Hello,
So on Friday I used the netinstall to upgrade my baremetal F15 system
to F17. Went well and I'm enjoying F17 so far. However I noticed that
anaconda is um... too quiet? When performing the usrmove there was
nothing telling me that anything was going on. There was another stage
that
nomnex wrote:
> I don't know if the proprietary Java JRE would fix these issues?
I doubt it. The proprietary Java is technically almost identical to OpenJDK,
the biggest difference is the license.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproj
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 08:05 -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> Please just use Yama -- it's already in the mainline kernel[1]. You
> don't need to create anything new. All the crash handlers and other
> tools (Firefox, Chrome, DrKonqi/KDE, and Wine) are already aware of how
> to declare ptrace relationships
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I think it should be possible to make repos that are always
> self-consistent even when mirrors only partially mirror or delay
> content. I have in mind a great proof of this, but this email is too
> small to contain it.
Even across repositories? (RPM Fusion…)
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 11:34:07 +0200
> Johannes Lips wrote:
Hello, nice to meet you.
> As the maintainer of freemind, I also looked into packaging freeplane
> but I gave up since it adds a whole bunch of new deps. I didn't have
> the time and motivation to add all those, just for a program whic
Niels de Vos said:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Eric Paris wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 00:31 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> It also
>>> breaks crash reporters such as DrKonqi (for DrKonqi, we work around this by
>>> disabling the flag in kde-runtime's %post script, but there are other
>>>
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
> dwalsh wrote:
>
>> [...] deny_ptrace will be DISABLED for F17. Already checked in. [...]
>
> Note that the selinux-policy rpm update that corrects this has not yet
> been pushed to any yum update/-testing channels. It would be a shame
dwalsh wrote:
> [...] deny_ptrace will be DISABLED for F17. Already checked in. [...]
Note that the selinux-policy rpm update that corrects this has not yet
been pushed to any yum update/-testing channels. It would be a shame
if the f17 beta spin went out with this bug.
https://admin.fedorapr
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:31 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 12.04.2012 03:24, schrieb Bojan Smojver:
>> Anyone knows what's the holdup with the Samba update (CVE-2012-1182)? No
>> new builds have been done or queued up recently AFAICT...
>
> this is really scary
>
> CentOS pushed yesterday a up
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:20 AM, devzero2000 wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Bojan Smojver
>> wrote:
>> > Anyone knows what's the holdup with the Samba update (CVE-2012-1182)? No
>> > new builds have been done or queued up recent
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Bojan Smojver
> wrote:
> > Anyone knows what's the holdup with the Samba update (CVE-2012-1182)? No
> > new builds have been done or queued up recently AFAICT...
>
> There's a BZ open, I'll look into getting n
Am 12.04.2012 03:24, schrieb Bojan Smojver:
> Anyone knows what's the holdup with the Samba update (CVE-2012-1182)? No
> new builds have been done or queued up recently AFAICT...
this is really scary
CentOS pushed yesterday a update
on fedora-koji still no build
remember that this is the worst
Quoting Luca Botti (2012-04-12 11:41:21)
>Since is packed by Olea, why just ask for addition to fedora repositories?
As far as 3rd party Java rpms are concerned, these are fairly OK, but
they still bundle few other java libraries (for example jortho) so
packages can't be simply "added" to Fedora r
On 03/26/2012 05:46 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:54:05PM +0200, Adrian Reber wrote:
>> Trying to build gforth with gcc 4.7 fails currently. The forth engine is
>> build but it fails its included tests. The problem is that every newline
>> the forth engine writes is replaced
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 7:42 AM, yersinia wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, devzero2000 wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Bojan Smojver
>>> wrote:
>>> > Anyone knows what's the holdup with the Samba update (CVE-2012-
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:20 PM, devzero2000 wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 2:17 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Bojan Smojver
>> wrote:
>> > Anyone knows what's the holdup with the Samba update (CVE-2012-1182)? No
>> > new builds have been done or queued up recent
2012/4/12 Jim Meyering :
> I built another x86_64 rawhide VM yesterday and was surprised
> to find that its gcc was unusable:
>
> $ printf 'int main(){return 0;}' > k.c; gcc k.c
> /usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible
> /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../libc.so when searching for
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Anyone knows what's the holdup with the Samba update (CVE-2012-1182)? No
> new builds have been done or queued up recently AFAICT...
There's a BZ open, I'll look into getting n update out ASAP.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=81
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=809427
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
I built another x86_64 rawhide VM yesterday and was surprised
to find that its gcc was unusable:
$ printf 'int main(){return 0;}' > k.c; gcc k.c
/usr/bin/ld: skipping incompatible
/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.7.0/../../../libc.so when searching for -lc
/usr/bin/ld: skipping inco
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 22:46:17 +0200, Ryan Lewis wrote:
> Having stack frame pointers enabled within libraries is extremely
> valuable for profiling.
Frame pointers are useless, every Fedora binary has .eh_frame full unwind info
thanks to -fasynchronous-unwind-tables and oprofile can properly unwind
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 05:42:45PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-09 at 07:03 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 12:20:20PM +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 07:19 -0400, Neil Horman wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 05:28:10PM +0800, Dave Young
On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 10:51 -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> On 04/11/2012 10:21 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I'm in favour of keeping ptrace available for F17 - I don't think we've had
> > enough opportunity to discuss the tradeoffs.
> >
> deny_ptrace will be DISABLED for F17. Already checked in
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:08:24AM +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
> On Wednesday, 11 ??April 2012 17:49:29 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:11:40AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > So that's a factor of 25ish more data in the Requires list. No, thanks.
> >
> > I'm assuming your
Since is packed by Olea, why just ask for addition to fedora repositories?
On 12/04/2012 11:34, Johannes Lips wrote:
> As the maintainer of freemind, I also looked into packaging freeplane
> but I gave up since it adds a whole bunch of new deps. I didn't have
> the time and motivation to add all t
As the maintainer of freemind, I also looked into packaging freeplane
but I gave up since it adds a whole bunch of new deps. I didn't have the
time and motivation to add all those, just for a program which basically
does the same as freemind. I know that it does have some additional
features an
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 02:40:36AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I'm not arguing that's how yum works now, but it doesn't have to work
> > that way!
> >
> > It could incrementally download the RPMs during depsolving, test that
> > they work together, and with that info
On 12/04/12 09:00, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
"I am using Freemind 0.9 on F15. It is not without problems." from the very
first mail in the thread.
Alex
My bad.
--
Regards,
Frank
"Jack of all, fubars"
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailm
- Original Message -
> From: "Frank Murphy"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 10:55:23 AM
> Subject: Re: End user needs info: Freeplane on Fedora 17
>
> On 12/04/12 08:54, Caterpillar wrote:
> > Which problems do you have with freemind? Maybe I can che
On 12/04/12 08:54, Caterpillar wrote:
Which problems do you have with freemind? Maybe I can check and confirm
or not
Not *freemind*, but freeplane.
--
Regards,
Frank
"Jack of all, fubars"
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/deve
Which problems do you have with freemind? Maybe I can check and confirm or
not
Il giorno 12/apr/2012 01:39, "nomnex" ha scritto:
> http://freeplane.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
>
> Will there be a Freeplane package available on the F17 repository (& Is
> there a Freeplane Fedora packa
- Original Message -
> From: "nomnex"
> To: "List Fedora-dev"
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:39:48 AM
> Subject: End user needs info: Freeplane on Fedora 17
>
> http://freeplane.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
>
> Will there be a Freeplane package available on the F17 rep
On 12/04/12 00:39, nomnex wrote:
http://freeplane.sourceforge.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Will there be a Freeplane package available on the F17 repository (& Is
there a Freeplane Fedora package maintainer)?
I am using Freemind 0.9 on F15. It is not without problems.
Thank you
iirc, it was
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 08:39:48AM +0900, nomnex wrote:
> Will there be a Freeplane package available on the F17 repository (& Is
> there a Freeplane Fedora package maintainer)?
As far I could find out there is no package with the name freeplane on
Fedora. With the command
$ yum list ''
you can
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Upgrade to new upstream version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=811862
Summary: Upgrade to new upstream version
Product: Fedora EPEL
On Wednesday, 11 בApril 2012 17:49:29 Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 10:11:40AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > So that's a factor of 25ish more data in the Requires list. No, thanks.
>
> I'm assuming your argument is that you don't want to ship RPMs or
> repositories where pa
61 matches
Mail list logo
