Re: [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:44:52 +0200 Simone Caronni wrote: > On 17 June 2013 03:13, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > we had updated dpkg some major versions sine bug opened, how I know > > if dpkg is now ready for aarch64 ? > > > > I've discovered you can trigger builds for the ARM Koji instance with >

Re: [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276

On 17 June 2013 09:04, Dan Horák wrote: > the fedora-packager package provides wrappers for the koji command for > all secondary architectures in Fedora in the form ${arch}-koji, where > arch can be arm, ppc and s390, so you can use > > arm-koji build --scratch f19 your.src.rpm > Oh, thanks, I d

Re: Magic paths for service registration

On 06/12/2013 06:44 PM, drago01 wrote: If you count extensions then /usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions might qualify as well. Are these extensions commonly used to start daemons are interact with the network? Presumably, there are extensions for downloading weather data or stock exchange inf

[Test-Announce] CANCELLED: 2013-06-17 Fedora QA Meeting (blocker meeting still on)

Last week was pretty much taken up with F19 stuff and I don't see anything urgent that needs discussing aside from F19 business, so it seems sensible to just go straight to F19 blocker review again today. We will aim to do a blocker review meeting at 16:00 - I'll send out a separate announcement fo

[Test-Announce] 2013-06-17 @ 16:00 UTC - F19 Final Blocker Bug Review #6

# F19 Final Blocker Review meeting #6 # Date: 2013-06-17 # 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 2013-06-17, but we should still get together and do some blocker review at 16:00 - we have all the blockers a

Re: Magic paths for service registration

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 06/12/2013 06:44 PM, drago01 wrote: > >> If you count extensions then /usr/share/gnome-shell/extensions might >> qualify as well. > > > Are these extensions commonly used to start daemons are interact with the > network? No. They are eit

rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

On Monday 17 June 2013 02:13:06 Sérgio Basto wrote: > Hi, > I'm trying follow this (aarch64 support) but > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922257#c1 > > "could/should be closed now, as this is done automatically from % > configure", so no need update it anymore ? > > we had updated d

bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

I'm wondering what the current guidelines for filing bugs on bugzilla.redhat.com are. welcomes filing enhancement requests, but some package maintainers disagree and require filing bugs upstream. I would like to avoid creating account

Re: rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

Am Montag, den 17.06.2013, 11:39 +0300 schrieb Oron Peled: > On Monday 17 June 2013 02:13:06 Sérgio Basto wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm trying follow this (aarch64 support) but > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922257#c1 > > > > "could/should be closed now, as this is done automatically fro

Please test dracut-029-1.fc19!!

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-10871/dracut-029-1.fc19 Thank you! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Call for Bikeshedding: remote auth at install time

On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 07:47 +0200, Stef Walter wrote: > > even special locations for *particularly* braindamaged applications > > (pidgin). > > Hmmm, we should probably fix that one to use the central stuff. David, > if we've missed any others in Fedora 19, could you file RHBZ bugs? I will, yes.

Re: [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:04:02 +0200 Dan Horák wrote: > On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 08:44:52 +0200 > Simone Caronni wrote: > > > On 17 June 2013 03:13, Sérgio Basto wrote: > > > > > we had updated dpkg some major versions sine bug opened, how I > > > know

Re: Soname bump libpng (rawhide) - new libraries libpng.16.so and libpng16.so.16.2.0

On 06/13/2013 01:26 PM, Petr Hracek wrote: On 05/30/2013 07:48 PM, Kalev Lember wrote: 2013-05-30 10:07, Petr Hracek skrev: Ok, well. It seems that libpng15 compatibility package is built in rawhide. What are the next steps? Tagged already built libpng(1.6) package? I do not want to break rawh

rawhide report: 20130617 changes

Compose started at Mon Jun 17 08:15:02 UTC 2013 Broken deps for x86_64 -- [aries-blueprint] aries-blueprint-0.3.1-5.fc19.noarch requires asm2 [aries-proxy] aries-proxy-0.3-4.fc19.noarch requires asm2 [cxf] 1:cxf-rt-2.6

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Florian Weimer wrote: > I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug > trackers, so bugzilla.redhat.com as a single point of contact is very > helpful to me. Is the web page I mentioned outdated, or are package > maintainers expected to handle upstream bug tracker interaction

[Bug 968425] perl-XML-Writer-0.623 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968425 --- Comment #8 from Petr Pisar --- Done. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wbqniArq0e&a=cc_unsubscribe -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http:/

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 12:40 PM, Rex Dieter wrote: Florian Weimer wrote: I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug trackers, so bugzilla.redhat.com as a single point of contact is very helpful to me. Is the web page I mentioned outdated, or are package maintainers expected to ha

F-19 Branched report: 20130617 changes

Compose started at Mon Jun 17 09:15:03 UTC 2013 Broken deps for x86_64 -- [avgtime] avgtime-0-0.5.git20120724.fc19.x86_64 requires libphobos-ldc.so.60()(64bit) [derelict] derelict-ogg-3-13.20130516gitd8aa11d.fc19.i686 require

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug trackers, Aha! Should the package maintainers play the middle man in the gazillion upstream bug tracker accounts? This sounds neither very thoughtful nor quite efficient. > s

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 01:00 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug trackers, Aha! Should the package maintainers play the middle man in the gazillion upstream bug tracker accounts? This sounds ne

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:02:04 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 06/17/2013 01:00 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> >I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug > >> >trackers, > > Aha! Should the package maintainer

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

* "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [17/06/2013 12:49] : > > It's package maintainers responsibility to act as the liason between > upstream and Fedora thus reporters only need to report in our > Bugzilla instance. Even when upstream has requested that their bug tracker be the only one used? Emmanuel -- d

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > I'm wondering what the current guidelines for filing bugs on > bugzilla.redhat.com are. > welcomes filing > enhancement requests, but some package maintainers disagree and require >

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Emmanuel Seyman píše v Po 17. 06. 2013 v 15:39 +0200: > * "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [17/06/2013 12:49] : > > > > It's package maintainers responsibility to act as the liason between > > upstream and Fedora thus reporters only need to report in our > > Bugzilla instance. > > Even when upstream has re

Re: Call for Bikeshedding: remote auth at install time

On 17.06.2013 13:22, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Tue, 2013-06-11 at 07:47 +0200, Stef Walter wrote: >>> even special locations for *particularly* braindamaged applications >>> (pidgin). >> >> Hmmm, we should probably fix that one to use the central stuff. David, >> if we've missed any others in Fed

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

Florian Weimer (fwei...@redhat.com) said: > I noticed that icedtea-web (the Java browser plugin implementation > for OpenJDK) is installed and enabled by default (as part of the > "GNOME Desktop" set). This is a bit surprising, considering that > the rest of the world tries to move away from Java

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 01:39 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: * "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [17/06/2013 12:49] : > >It's package maintainers responsibility to act as the liason between >upstream and Fedora thus reporters only need to report in our >Bugzilla instance. Even when upstream has requested that their bu

Re: rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser wrote: > I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep > should be mandatory in packages using autotools. This will surely avoid > lots of possible problems caused by just injecting config.{guess,sub} by > %configure. That would

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 14:34 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > refuse to use our own bug tracker ( Like the Red > Hat's Gnome developers do ) Stop saying that, it's not true. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

- Original Message - > Florian Weimer (fwei...@redhat.com) said: > > I noticed that icedtea-web (the Java browser plugin implementation > > for OpenJDK) is installed and enabled by default (as part of the > > "GNOME Desktop" set). This is a bit surprising, considering that > > the rest of

Re: rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

On 2013-06-17 16:43, Jerry James wrote: On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser wrote: I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep should be mandatory in packages using autotools. This will surely avoid lots of possible problems caused by just injecting config.{gu

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

Josh Bressers (bress...@redhat.com) said: > - Original Message - > > Florian Weimer (fwei...@redhat.com) said: > > > I noticed that icedtea-web (the Java browser plugin implementation > > > for OpenJDK) is installed and enabled by default (as part of the > > > "GNOME Desktop" set). This i

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

On Jun 17, 2013 8:03 AM, "Bill Nottingham" wrote: > The one issue I can see with removing it is that the plugin finder you > then get in Firefox if you hit a Java site doesn't work to actually get you > the Fedora version. I would keep it if people really use it. I'm on the opposite side, where i

poppler soname bump in rawhide

Hi, I plan to rebase poppler in rawhide to poppler-0.22.4 at the beginning of the next week (24th of June). There are several changes (new parameters of some functions and new private members of some classes (Stream, Gfx, DCTStream and TextWord)) and 1 soname bump (libpoppler.so.34 to libpoppler.s

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 02:52 PM, Colin Walters wrote: On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 14:34 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: refuse to use our own bug tracker ( Like the Red Hat's Gnome developers do ) Stop saying that, it's not true. What's not true that Red Hat Gnome developers having been trying to push

General/Bugzilla: mail-headers Precedence: bulk / Auto-Submitted: auto-generated

Hi where to file a bug for the redhat bugzilla? on our mailserver i see a auto-reply "h.rei...@thelounge.net -> bugzi...@redhat.com" with the two mail-headers below which are *highly* recommended for any software which is generating emails a sane autoresponder would supress replies as well as fo

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Am 17.06.2013 15:00, schrieb Orcan Ogetbil: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug trackers, > > Aha! Should the package maintainers play the middle man in the > gazillion upstream bug tracker accounts? This sou

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

>From my point of view the java-plugin is a big security hole and should be kicked from default installations ASAP. 2013/6/17 Dan Mashal > > On Jun 17, 2013 8:03 AM, "Bill Nottingham" wrote: > > The one issue I can see with removing it is that the plugin finder you > > then get in Firefox if y

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:39:30 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > * "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [17/06/2013 12:49] : > > > > It's package maintainers responsibility to act as the liason between > > upstream and Fedora thus reporters only need to report in our > > Bugzilla instance. > > Even when upstream

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

On 17.06.2013 17:18, Heiko Adams wrote: > From my point of view the java-plugin is a big security hole and > should be kicked from default installations ASAP. > > > Then, why not fix it? Mateusz Marzantowicz -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mail

Re: rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 10:59:06 +0200, Björn Esser wrote: > I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep > should be mandatory in packages using autotools. One problem with that is, one cannot "blindly" run autoreconf -fi and expect it to be 100% compatible with the multitu

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Le lundi 17 juin 2013 à 10:52 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : > I'm wondering what the current guidelines for filing bugs on > bugzilla.redhat.com are. > welcomes > filing enhancement requests, but some package maintainers disagree and

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

On 06/17/2013 05:03 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: The one issue I can see with removing it is that the plugin finder you then get in Firefox if you hit a Java site doesn't work to actually get you the Fedora version. Hmm. Our Firefox has a pretty clear fingerprint over HTTPS (no user agent brand

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

Because IMHO Java itself is the security problem but it's easier to remove the plugin because there are AFAIK no packages which require it and are relevant to normal desktop users. 2013/6/17 Mateusz Marzantowicz > On 17.06.2013 17:18, Heiko Adam

Re: General/Bugzilla: mail-headers Precedence: bulk / Auto-Submitted: auto-generated

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 14:59:19 +0200 Reindl Harald wrote: > Hi > > where to file a bug for the redhat bugzilla? In bugzilla.redhat.com ;) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&version=4.4 kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.f

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

- Original Message - > Am 17.06.2013 15:00, schrieb Orcan Ogetbil: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug > >> trackers, > > > > Aha! Should the package maintainers play the middle man in the > > gaz

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 03:29 PM, Michael Scherer wrote: Le lundi 17 juin 2013 à 10:52 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : I'm wondering what the current guidelines for filing bugs on bugzilla.redhat.com are. welcomes filing enhancement requests, but

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:49 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > It's package maintainers responsibility to act as the liason between > upstream and Fedora thus reporters only need to report in our Bugzilla > instance. I think that this is a fantasy that is not going to happen unless every pac

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:29:55 +0200 Michael Scherer wrote: > Le lundi 17 juin 2013 à 10:52 +0200, Florian Weimer a écrit : > > I'm wondering what the current guidelines for filing bugs on > > bugzilla.redhat.com are. > > welcomes > > fi

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 17:09:57 +0200, Dan Mashal wrote: > if I'm doing anything Android related (or other various things) I must use > sun jdk/jre. Is it filed/tracked/known? Jan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 15:16 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > Maybe you should accept the truth that is instead of accusing others > of lying here. I was not accusing you of lying, merely of perpetuating what I consider an inaccurate characterization of reality. Could the team do more?

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

* Michael Schwendt [17/06/2013 17:20] : > >But if the original reporter > refuses to join the upstream ticket for answering questions or providing > further details, that can easily become tedious or even a dead end. In the case I'm facing now, the probl

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 03:42 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 7:49 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: It's package maintainers responsibility to act as the liason between upstream and Fedora thus reporters only need to report in our Bugzilla instance. I think that this is a fantasy that

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 03:47 PM, Colin Walters wrote: >Maybe you should accept the truth that is instead of accusing others >of lying here. I was not accusing you of lying, merely of perpetuating what I consider an inaccurate characterization of reality. Could the team do more? Of course. Do some Red

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 15:55 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: [...] In a community of volunteers there are two ways to treat someone's work when you are no satisfied with it: a) tell him/her, his/her work matters and push him/her to improve where you think it should be improved (eventually by

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:55 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" < johan...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 06/17/2013 03:42 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > >> 3) Even though I'm an excellent programmer, well versed in C and >> > Python, and decent in Perl, Ruby, et. al. I probably don't have the >> familiarity with

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 15:55:57 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > Because if you cannot properly maintain the component in the > distribution the community is better of without it. Such rude comments don't meet the "be excellent to eachother" guidelines anymore, I'm afraid. Stop here, please.

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Le 17/06/2013 17:37, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" a écrit : > > No it would not. > > This can be solved technically and I have already explain how to do so > in the past at least between two mozilla bugzilla instances and there > was some bugzilla maintainer from Red Hat ( we are not running our own > b

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Is the source code of the Red Hat Bugzilla instance published somewhere? A quick search didn't turn it up. Eric On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Eric Smith wrote: > Is the source code of the Red Hat Bugzilla instance published > somewhere? A quick search didn't turn it up. > > Eric > > > On M

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

On 06/17/2013 10:03 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > The one issue I can see with removing it is that the plugin finder you > then get in Firefox if you hit a Java site doesn't work to actually get you > the Fedora version. The one issue I see is that it's darn near impossible to find the package if y

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Jun 17, 2013 9:04 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > On 06/17/2013 01:00 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:52 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: >>> >>> >I would like to avoid creating accounts in gazillion upstream bug trackers, >> >> Aha! Should the package maintainers play the

Re: httpd-itk broken over release because httpd updated without dependencies caring and maintainer refuse fixing

Thank you. I have done it - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1125. 16.06.2013 18:55, Kalev Lember wrote: > 2013-06-16 16:47, Pavel Alexeev skrev: > [snip] >> So, is there any chance to force apply these patches (as provenpackager >> I can do it itself)? Or I only may wait next apache release

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 05:19 PM, Haïkel Guémar wrote: If using Red Hat Bugzilla instance is the problem, then it's worth taking a look at having our own bugtracker. In fact, it's already been examined by our awesome infrastructure team and i personnally believe that we should help them fixing that. https:

Re: Call for Bikeshedding: remote auth at install time

On 06/05/2013 03:37 PM, Stef Walter wrote: What does work, and has been tested is logging in as root and simply typing this: realm join mydomain.com I filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975182 because of confusing error messages when there is no pre-existing AD computer acct:

Re: Call for Bikeshedding: remote auth at install time

On 17.06.2013 20:44, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > On 06/05/2013 03:37 PM, Stef Walter wrote: > >> What does work, and has been tested is logging in as root and simply >> typing this: >> >> realm join mydomain.com > > I filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=975182 because of > confusing

EPEL Fedora 6 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 609 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2011-4701/supybot-gribble-0.83.4.1-10.el6 421 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5620/bugzilla-3.4.14-2.el6 79 https://admin.fedoraproject.org

EPEL Fedora 5 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 5 Security updates need testing: Age URL 421 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5630/bugzilla-3.2.10-5.el5 316 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-6608/Django-1.1.4-2.el5 12 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDO

Re: rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: > Isn't the proper solution then to patch the config files to get rid of the > obsolete macros? Such patches should certainly be acceptable upstream. If I have some other reason for needing to touch the configure script, then sure. (In fact, I

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:46:13 -0600 Eric Smith wrote: > Is the source code of the Red Hat Bugzilla instance published > somewhere? A quick search didn't turn it up. It's very close to upstream bugzilla 4.4 at this point I think. I don't know of a public repo of the exact source. kevin sign

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 18:29:11 + "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 06/17/2013 05:19 PM, Haïkel Guémar wrote: > > If using Red Hat Bugzilla instance is the problem, then it's worth > > taking a look at having our own bugtracker. > > In fact, it's already been examined by our awesome infrastruc

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote: > On 17.06.2013 17:18, Heiko Adams wrote: > > From my point of view the java-plugin is a big security hole and should be > kicked from default installations ASAP. > > > > Then, why not fix it? > > > Mateusz Marzantowicz There is no way

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

Hi On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Dan Mashal wrote: > > > There is no way in hell anyone here is going to fix the security holes > in Java (open or closed). > > The only way to avoid the security holes caused by java is to not use it. > That is too extreme. It is certainly possible to fix se

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 11:46:13 -0600 Eric Smith wrote: > Is the source code of the Red Hat Bugzilla instance published > somewhere? A quick search didn't turn it up. On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > It's very close to upstream bugzilla 4.4 at this point I think. Thanks! It

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

* Rahul Sundaram [2013-06-17 15:42]: > Hi > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Dan Mashal wrote: > > > > There is no way in hell anyone here is going to fix the security holes > in Java (open or closed). > > The only way to avoid the security holes caused by java is to not use

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

OK, so this post is going to be rather long and rambling, and hopefully respectful, but I'm passionate about this subject (and Fedora). The tl;dr summary is that there shouldn't be a single standard for what we expect of packagers, especially in the context of what to expect when bugs are filed ag

Need some advices moving a fedora package from sysVinit to systemd t

Hello, Trying to do an overdue package upgrade for a package we have in fedora and I have question regarding using systemd to do fine tuning configuration on the FIRST daemon starting. With sysVinit it was straightforward enough: At the first "service start", the script was detecting the config

Re: rpm and config.{guess,sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

On Seg, 2013-06-17 at 11:39 +0300, Oron Peled wrote: > In the Fedora spirit of "everything buildable from clean sources", I > think > the "autoreconf" solution should be globally adopted (regardless of > aarch64): > * It doesn't use generated files as input to the build process. > * It delegate

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > In no way should packagers be expected to provide end-user support for > packages, be an expert in every aspect of a package, or be expected to > work with upstream to debug issues because the end user is unwilling > to do the work themselves

[389-devel] Please review (additinal fix): [389 Project] #47391: deleting and adding userpassword fails to update the password

https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/47391 https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/47391/0001-Ticket-47391-deleting-and-adding-userpassword-fails-.patch Bug description: ldapmodify with changetype "modify" is supposed to skip checking unhashed password in acl_check_mods. "delete" and "

Re: option to ignore flash memory device at USB1.1 "full" speed

On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 22:33 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:11:42PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > > On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 05:38 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 08:24:33AM -0700, John Reiser wrote: > > > > How can I force the system not to rec

Re: rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

On 2013-06-17 21:17, Jerry James wrote: On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: Isn't the proper solution then to patch the config files to get rid of the obsolete macros? Such patches should certainly be acceptable upstream. If I have some other reason for needing to touch the con

Re: F19 locale issue?

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 22:25:50 +0200 Kalev Lember wrote: > 2013-06-16 17:17, Michael Scherer skrev: > > In short, fix /usr/libexec/gnome-settings-daemon-localeexec to remove > > "'", not ','. > > Can you give a try to gnome-settings-daemon-3.8.3-3.fc19 ? This should > fix up the issue with the extr

Re: rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

On Seg, 2013-06-17 at 08:43 -0600, Jerry James wrote: > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser wrote: > > I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep > > should be mandatory in packages using autotools. This will surely avoid > > lots of possible problems caused by

Re: Need some advices moving a fedora package from sysVinit to systemd t

On Mon, 17.06.13 16:05, Jean-Marc Pigeon (j...@safe.ca) wrote: > First question: > Sysadmin can choose about data-base to use (postgresql or MySQL, > editing the config file) and tuning configuration process will check > proper data-base server > is up and running then create application data-base

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 07:57 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: OK, so this post is going to be rather long and rambling, and hopefully respectful, but I'm passionate about this subject (and Fedora). As am I. The tl;dr summary is that there shouldn't be a single standard for what we expect of packagers, espec

Re: rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

On Seg, 2013-06-17 at 16:57 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > On 2013-06-17 16:43, Jerry James wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser wrote: > >> I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep > >> should be mandatory in packages using autotools. This will surely

Re: icedtea-web installed and enabled by default in Fedora 19

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:03:26AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > The one issue I can see with removing it is that the plugin finder you > then get in Firefox if you hit a Java site doesn't work to actually get you > the Fedora version. Well, if we're looking at this for F20, it's probably worth

Re: rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

On Monday 17 June 2013 22:58:53 Alec Leamas wrote: > On 2013-06-17 21:17, Jerry James wrote: > > ... I'd rather not spend the small amount of time I can devote to > > open source software work messing with a configure script just because > > somebody thinks they should be able to run autoreconf wi

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On 06/17/2013 04:49 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > The only difference is that I would add step number five acting as the > liaison between upstream and downstream for reporters which to me is > unavoidable for a packager/maintainer from my pov. +1 I think that this is where a Fedora packag

Re: Need some advices moving a fedora package from sysVinit to systemd t

Hello Lennart, Many thank for you advices, but... Quoting Lennart Poettering : So the service "After=" directive should be conditional to an env variable. I have seen no provision within systemd to resolve such case... Could somebody propose a nice way to resolve such needs within systemd ser

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

* "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [17/06/2013 15:37] : > > This can be solved technically and I have already explain how to do > so in the past at least between two mozilla bugzilla instances and > there was some bugzilla maintainer from Red Hat ( we are not running > our own bugzilla instance so we cannot

Re: Please test dracut-029-1.fc19!!

On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 11:41 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-10871/dracut-029-1.fc19 > > Thank you! It already got +6 karma and went to stable :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfed

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Is it possible to add a virtual team for each package(or only some packages with a lot of bugs)? I mean, since upstream may ignore the bugs in bugzilla, we can add a maintainer team like kernel, or a sig like java, to cope with many bugs reported everyday if some programs really have so many. And

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

Is it possible to add a virtual team for each package(or some packages with a lot of bugs)? I mean, since upstream may ignore the bugs in bugzilla, we can add a maintainer team like kernel, or a sig like java, to cope with many bugs reported everyday if some programs really have so many. And this

Re: rpm and config.{guess, sub} (was [aarch64 bugs] dpkg: Does not support aarch64 in f19 and rawhide bug #925276)

On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 16:57 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote: > On 2013-06-17 16:43, Jerry James wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Björn Esser wrote: > >> I completely agree to this. Using `autoreconf -fi` in %build or %prep > >> should be mandatory in packages using autotools. This will surely

[Test-Announce] Fedora 19 Final Test Compose 5 (TC5) Available Now!

NOTE: TC4 was broken (several DEs failed to appear in the DVD menu) so it was decided to not announce it and spin TC5 instead. Content information, including changes, for TC4 can be found at https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5623#comment:9 . There are delta ISOs for TC3->TC4 and TC4->TC5. The

Retrospective license change heads-up: Roundcubemail changed to "GPLv3+ with exceptions and GPLv3+ and GPLv2 and LGPLv2+ and CC-BY-SA and (MIT or GPLv2)"

Hey, fun times! I'm not the roundcubemail maintainer, but as a user and provenpackager I more or less co-maintain it with Jon. I was just doing a 'routine' bump to 0.9.2 and noticed the license situation was rather more complex than appeared. Up to 0.9.0 our package has claimed the license to be

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 09:49:37PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 06/17/2013 07:57 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > >In my view these expectations imply that a packager has some > >involvement with upstream. I think that the level of involvement is > >going to depend on the packager and the

Re: option to ignore flash memory device at USB1.1 "full" speed

Hi, On 06/17/2013 10:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 22:33 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 10:11:42PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: On Sun, 2013-06-16 at 05:38 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 08:24:33AM -0700, John Reiser wrote:

Re: bugzilla.redhat.com vs upstream bug trackers

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 03:55:57PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > Because if you cannot properly maintain the component in the > distribution the community is better of without it. > > ... > > Then you should not be maintaining that component > > ... > > We do not need unresponsive or po

  1   2   >