Le 06/06/2013 13:10, Remi Collet a écrit :
> I plan to update it in rawhide in the next days.
Update done.
Mass rebuild pending.
Remi.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 10.06.2013 23:35, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-06-09 at 09:24 +0930, Glen Turner wrote:
>>
>> I'd also strongly encourage a design which makes it easy for a
>> corporate-issued RPM to configure the authentication. For an example of
>> something wonderful, NetworkManager has a one-file-p
On Sun, 2013-06-09 at 09:24 +0930, Glen Turner wrote:
>
> I'd also strongly encourage a design which makes it easy for a
> corporate-issued RPM to configure the authentication. For an example of
> something wonderful, NetworkManager has a one-file-per-ssid design so its
> easy for a RPM to drop in
On Mon, 10.06.13 16:01, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-06-09 at 17:17 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > On Fri, 07.06.13 22:33, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 06:55:46PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > > User "simo" cr
On Sun, 2013-06-09 at 17:17 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 07.06.13 22:33, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 06:55:46PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > User "simo" creates /dev/shm/1000/ even though 1000 is the UID of user
> > > "lennart
I'm working with the Big Data SIG to package hadoop for Fedora. We're
targeting Fedora 20, but right now there are a number of packages that
hadoop will depend upon that are awaiting review. All dependent
packages have review BZs logged.
Packages needing review for inclusion into Fedora:
boo
On 06/04/2013 10:22 AM, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 10:16:22 -0400
Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 06/04/2013 10:02 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 06/04/2013 09:55 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
What's even weirder is that some folks are explicitly mentioned
(such as Jon Masters) in the desc
Le Lun 10 juin 2013 17:20, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:21:22 +0200,
>Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>Just a warning for those like me that had activated rngd in the hope
>>Fedora could someday make some use of the tpm sucking electricity on
>> their
>>mobo. In raw
On 06/10/2013 11:21 AM, Honza Horak wrote:
Thanks for reporting this. Currently, we use standard systemd macros
in both and since package replacement is not actually an update, then
mariadb gets to default (non-enabled) status the same like after the
first install.
What we could do is to
Dear Fedora Community,
since 10 years I am using different Linux distributions and I am a big
fan of the idea of Open Source. As a heavy user of Open Source Software
I want to step up my efforts of giving back something. This is why I
want to become a package maintainer.
My name is Roman Mohr (to
On 06/10/2013 04:43 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sun, 09.06.13 11:05, Doug Ledford (dledf...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
>> The audit system is just a more modern version of that same thing. And
>> the second you put any sort of exception into the audit rules, then you
>> have to verify that the e
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 10:21:22 +0200,
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Hi,
Just a warning for those like me that had activated rngd in the hope
Fedora could someday make some use of the tpm sucking electricity on their
mobo. In rawhide, instead of barfing a few error messages at boot
complaining abou
On 06/06/2013 03:36 PM, Troy Dawson wrote:
Hi,
Is there an official Fedora way for telling is something is hardened
correctly?
I'm working on hardening mongodb, and I think I have it right, but I'd
really like to check.
I was given a couple of scripts, which had dependencies not in Fedora,
which
Compose started at Mon Jun 10 09:15:03 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[deltacloud-core]
deltacloud-core-rhevm-1.1.3-1.fc19.noarch requires rubygem(rbovirt) >=
0:0.0.18
[dragonegg]
dragonegg-3.1-19.fc19.x86_64 requires gcc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972593
Jitka Plesnikova changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
On Mon, 10 Jun 2013 14:55:33 +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
> Le 10/06/2013 14:46, Jiri Popelka a écrit :
> > Hi all,
> >
> > up to F18 we've been shipping cups-php (PHP module) subpackage, but it's
> > not been required by any other package.
> > CUPS upstream dropped this module with cups-1.6 (since
Le 10/06/2013 14:46, Jiri Popelka a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> up to F18 we've been shipping cups-php (PHP module) subpackage, but it's
> not been required by any other package.
> CUPS upstream dropped this module with cups-1.6 (since F19) so there's
> been no cups-php anymore in F19.
> This breaks F18
Hi all,
up to F18 we've been shipping cups-php (PHP module) subpackage, but it's
not been required by any other package.
CUPS upstream dropped this module with cups-1.6 (since F19) so there's
been no cups-php anymore in F19.
This breaks F18 -> F19 updates when cups-php has been installed
(http
Compose started at Mon Jun 10 08:15:03 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[bind10]
bind10-1.0.0-3.fc20.i686 requires liblog4cplus-1.1.so.5
bind10-1.0.0-3.fc20.x86_64 requires liblog4cplus-1.1.so.5()(64bit)
bind10-dhcp-
On 06/10/2013 01:28 PM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi,
I have a problem not related to this update. But it's a segmentation fault.
I've filled https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972646
Please consider a fix.
As already replied in bugzilla, that's an ages old bug that's gone
unnoticed
On 06/08/2013 04:38 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-06-07 at 21:53 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
That was simple...
sudo systemctl enable mysqld.service
ln -s '/usr/lib/systemd/system/mysqld.service'
'/etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants/mysqld.service'
But why update removed
Hi,
I have a problem not related to this update. But it's a segmentation fault.
I've filled https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=972646
Please consider a fix.
Thanks.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 06/10/2013 12:34 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Hi all,
I normally wouldn't bother with heads-ups with maintenance release
updates but this one involves more changes than the average bugfix
maintenance update, in particular to address nasty performance
regression on spec parsing speed of certain
Hi all,
I normally wouldn't bother with heads-ups with maintenance release
updates but this one involves more changes than the average bugfix
maintenance update, in particular to address nasty performance
regression on spec parsing speed of certain (*cough* texlive *cough* ...
hi jnovy ;) ve
On Sun, 09.06.13 12:38, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-06-09 at 10:03 -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
>
> > Why would anyone write software that is incorrect enough the OS spits it
> > back
> > as EINVAL?
>
> One example is the btrfs ioctl() for reflink:
>
> https://bugzi
On Sun, 09.06.13 11:05, Doug Ledford (dledf...@redhat.com) wrote:
> The audit system is just a more modern version of that same thing. And
> the second you put any sort of exception into the audit rules, then you
> have to verify that the exception can never be used to circumvent the
> legitimate
Hi,
Just a warning for those like me that had activated rngd in the hope
Fedora could someday make some use of the tpm sucking electricity on their
mobo. In rawhide, instead of barfing a few error messages at boot
complaining about tpm init errors, kernel/systemd/udev/whatever loops on
the error m
I'm investigating things beyond SUID/SGID which are related to trust
transitions and visible in the file system, mainly due to the use of
magic paths. I'm aiming for a fairly general concept of "trust
transition", and I include altering browser actions when clicking on a
hyperlink as far as th
# F19 Final Blocker Review meeting #4
# Date: 2013-06-10
# Time: 16:00 UTC (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT)
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
We're cancelling the QA meeting for 2013-06-10, but we should still get
together and do some blocker review at 16:00 - we have all the blockers
a
It's been a while, but it looks like we can skip the QA meeting this
week: I'm not aware of any topics that particularly need discussion
outside of 19 Final work, and I don't see that anyone else has proposed
any. Note that we will still aim to do a blocker review meeting at 16:00
- I'll send out a
30 matches
Mail list logo
