On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 20:00:12 -0800,
Adam Williamson wrote:
Not sure what you mean, but it's kind of situational. There isn't a
Single Global Rule on exactly how 'virtual' provides should be
versioned, to my knowledge.
I was hoping there would be something that might describe how the ver
Yep, it's that time again, folks. I see errors in my daily update
indicating an unannounced API/ABI bump.
gnome-bluetooth-3.11.3-1.fc21 (built yesterday) seems to have gone from
libgnome-bluetooth.so.12 to libgnome-bluetooth.so.13 and dropped
libgnome-bluetooth-applet.so.0 entirely. This affects t
Hi
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:14 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> On mið 18.des 2013 21:02, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>>
>> You would notice I am asking a question and not making an statement. You
>> seem to speaking repeating on behalf an entire group without anyone else in
>> that group vo
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 21:56 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 18:29:41 -0800,
>Adam Williamson wrote:
> >On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 14:56 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >> While looking at bug 1044675 I noticed that redhat-release is unversioned
> >> in fedora-release and ver
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 18:29:41 -0800,
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 14:56 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
While looking at bug 1044675 I noticed that redhat-release is unversioned
in fedora-release and versioned in generic-release. I would expect it
to be the same in both of th
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 14:56 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> While looking at bug 1044675 I noticed that redhat-release is unversioned
> in fedora-release and versioned in generic-release. I would expect it
> to be the same in both of these packages. I think it probably makes the
> most sense to
I was packaging some Perl modules of rt4 a month ago.
If you want help, I can do it.
Thanks.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 01:15:26AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> is tehre a way to create SRPM from sources + spec without rpmbuild?
> Using tar or something?
> I know the sources filenames and don't need to parse spec for it.
> I need to prepare SRPM on machine where I have limited access and
> can
Hi,
is tehre a way to create SRPM from sources + spec without rpmbuild?
Using tar or something?
I know the sources filenames and don't need to parse spec for it.
I need to prepare SRPM on machine where I have limited access and cannot
install rpmbuild. It's Debian based.
Thanks for any tip
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Greetings.
This is a reminder email about the end of life process for Fedora 18.
Fedora 18 will reach end of life on 2014-01-14, and no further updates
will be pushed out after that time. Additionally, with the recent
release of Fedora 20, no new p
On mið 18.des 2013 21:29, Matthew Miller wrote:
I admit that I do feel some personal responsibility, as the current
procedure is a refinement of something I started doing with FC2 bugs. But I
don't really care_who_ fixes it or who it belongs to. I'm incredibly happy
for that to be someone else,
On mið 18.des 2013 21:30, Bill Nottingham wrote:
So, all I can go by is the bugzappers housekeeping page for each release,
where every single commit to the page or action item listed in the page
has been one of:
- Robyn
- Spot
- John Poelstra
- Jaroslav
- Kevin
since Fedora 15, at least.
Furt
Am 18.12.2013 22:40, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
> On mið 18.des 2013 21:20, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> who do you think you are to claim whatever people are "outside the
>> community"?
>
> Individual that tells that truth and shed's light how RH operates.
looking at Fedora, RHEL and CentOS ov
Once upon a time, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" said:
> On mið 18.des 2013 21:20, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >who do you think you are to claim whatever people are "outside the
> >community"?
>
> Individual that tells that truth and shed's light how RH operates.
Once again, please stop your attacks again
On mið 18.des 2013 21:20, Reindl Harald wrote:
who do you think you are to claim whatever people are "outside the community"?
Individual that tells that truth and shed's light how RH operates.
Since you are not aware of it Red Hat invented the position of Fedora QA
Community Manager ( I dont
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
> >So, instead of complaining about a process here, is there some actual
> >suggestion, input or proposal in reference to problem you would like to
> >provide?
>
> This is and always has been taken care of by the QA community so
> needless to say
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 07:48:58PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Matt could have contacted the QA community directly instead of going
> behinds it's back as well as FESCo could have chosen to redirected
> him there instead of proceeding with the ticket and spend their time
> focusing on s
Am 18.12.2013 22:14, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
> from one of the so called Fedora QA Community manager an title that RH
> invented and hired individuals outside the community to place in that position
can you *please* stop this fighting against Redhat?
without the connection to Redhat and
On mið 18.des 2013 21:02, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
You would notice I am asking a question and not making an statement.
You seem to speaking repeating on behalf an entire group without
anyone else in that group voicing their opinions. I am hoping to
hear from others rather than just you on t
Hi
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:51 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> On mið 18.des 2013 20:38, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>>
>> Does anyone else in QA share the same opinion as you? If so, who?
>>
>
> Are you saying that this is not QA responsibility to take care of?
>
You would notice I am ask
While looking at bug 1044675 I noticed that redhat-release is unversioned
in fedora-release and versioned in generic-release. I would expect it
to be the same in both of these packages. I think it probably makes the
most sense to version it for anything that is still using that, but wanted
to c
On mið 18.des 2013 20:38, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Does anyone else in QA share the same opinion as you? If so, who?
Are you saying that this is not QA responsibility to take care of?
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 12:31 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> I wonder if fedup (the program) should bail, or at least warn, if the
> kernel/initramfs version doesn't match. If I had gotten a message
> that said something like "You are trying to use fedup 0.7.0 to upgrade
> to a release that was
Hi
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:19 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>
> On mið 18.des 2013 20:00, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> So, instead of complaining about a process here, is there some actual
>> suggestion, input or proposal in reference to problem you would like to
>> provide?
>>
>
> This is and
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 12:24 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> fedup uses a custom initramfs. A kernel and initramfs that are used for
> all fedup runs are built as part of repo compose. See:
Sorry, I should've been clearer about this. The kernel isn't custom and
isn't built as part of the repo comp
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 11:22 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> OK, so I'll re-ask my original question. Fedora 20 was released with
>> a broken update path from F19. Should the release criteria be
>> amended? This particular issue would
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 20:37 +0100, Markus Mayer wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 08:22 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> > OK, so I'll re-ask my original question. Fedora 20 was released with
> > a broken update path from F19. Should the release criteria be
> > amended? This particular issue would have been
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 11:22 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> OK, so I'll re-ask my original question. Fedora 20 was released with
> a broken update path from F19. Should the release criteria be
> amended? This particular issue would have been avoided if F19's fedup
> were frozen along with F20
On mið 18.des 2013 20:00, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
So, instead of complaining about a process here, is there some actual
suggestion, input or proposal in reference to problem you would like to
provide?
This is and always has been taken care of by the QA community so
needless to say we ( QA communi
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 11:54 +, David Howells wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > > - Install fedup 0.7.0
> > > - Try it and watch it fail or hang
> > > - Update to fedup 0.8.0 from updates-testing
> > > - Run fedup
> > >
> > > ends up downloading all rpms *twice* a sucking up a corresp
On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 19:48:58 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> The EOL process is extremely delicate process and if not the nr.1
> cause we continuously have lost new contributors in the past and
> continue to lose new contributors.
I agree it's a important process.
> Matt could have cont
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Markus Mayer wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 08:22 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> OK, so I'll re-ask my original question. Fedora 20 was released with
>> a broken update path from F19. Should the release criteria be
>> amended? This particular issue would have been
On mið 18.des 2013 19:18, Bill Nottingham wrote:
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
>
>On mið 18.des 2013 13:43, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >Hi,
> >could you please add EOL process as the topic for this meeting?
> >As Fedora 20 was released, we should send Fedora 18 warning asap
Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) said:
> > Really, this should be solved in upstream projects so you can expect a
> > stable library API across distribution boundaries. Doing it in Fedora is
> > not actually solving the problem.
>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> Is it really upstream causin
The AutoQA developers are proud to announce the release of AutoQA 0.8.5
today. This is a maintenance release with the following changes:
- Improved clarity in upgradepath output (#445)
- Updated repository configuration for F20 release
The new version has been deployed to our staging environme
On 12/18/2013 08:22 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
OK, so I'll re-ask my original question. Fedora 20 was released with
a broken update path from F19. Should the release criteria be
amended? This particular issue would have been avoided if F19's fedup
were frozen along with F20 and if all of the
OK, so I'll re-ask my original question. Fedora 20 was released with
a broken update path from F19. Should the release criteria be
amended? This particular issue would have been avoided if F19's fedup
were frozen along with F20 and if all of the destined-for-stable
versions were tested together
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
>
> On mið 18.des 2013 13:43, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >Hi,
> >could you please add EOL process as the topic for this meeting?
> >As Fedora 20 was released, we should send Fedora 18 warning asap
> >and I'd like to sort it out. We're running out o
Am 18.12.2013 19:47, schrieb Ondrej Vasik:
> On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 19:00 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
seucrity by obscurity is dumb, did never work and will never work
>>>
>>> Btw. you can check how it worked for the project where both RH and
>>> upstream were WILLING to work on the report an
The lightweight tag 'perl-AnyEvent-7.07-1.fc21' was created pointing to:
3d95c06... Update to 7.07
--
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/listinfo/perl-devel
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 19:00 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 18.12.2013 18:54, schrieb Ondrej Vasik:
> > On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 16:47 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >> Am 18.12.2013 16:37, schrieb Dave Jones:
> >>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 09:12:06AM +0100, Ondrej Vasik wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Publishin
On 12/18/2013 06:18 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On mið 18.des 2013 16:48, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
I haven't seen anything related to Request Tracker v.4 on Fedora
sites. bestpractical.com claims it's a major update with lots of bug
fixes and improvements:
http://www.bestpractical.com/rt
On Dec 18, 2013, at 6:08 AM, Lars Seipel wrote:
>
> But just freezing libraries at some random version essentially creates a
> fork which has to be maintained inside Fedora. Who is going to develop
> programs specifically for Fedora? Most developers are targeting the
> broader GNU/Linux type of
Am 18.12.2013 18:54, schrieb Ondrej Vasik:
> On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 16:47 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 18.12.2013 16:37, schrieb Dave Jones:
>>> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 09:12:06AM +0100, Ondrej Vasik wrote:
>>>
>>> > Publishing them is a bit tricky - I can of course publish them (we scan
>>>
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 16:47 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 18.12.2013 16:37, schrieb Dave Jones:
> > On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 09:12:06AM +0100, Ondrej Vasik wrote:
> >
> > > Publishing them is a bit tricky - I can of course publish them (we scan
> > > with cppcheck, enhanced gcc warnings, clang
On mið 18.des 2013 16:48, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
I haven't seen anything related to Request Tracker v.4 on Fedora
sites. bestpractical.com claims it's a major update with lots of bug
fixes and improvements:
http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/whats-new/
What is the status---is anyone working on
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 10:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 09:12:06AM +0100, Ondrej Vasik wrote:
>
> > Publishing them is a bit tricky - I can of course publish them (we scan
> > with cppcheck, enhanced gcc warnings, clang and coverity) - but the
> > reports may contain some
On mið 18.des 2013 16:17, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Containers are primarily an isolation mechanism; not a way to install,
update or deploy software.
Right
"Just use containers" shifts the problem
to "how do I update the container" which is at least as complex
(because now the tools need to p
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 05:02:47PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Ecryptfs seems to be more user friendly for encrypting data on btrfs than
> using dm-crypt on each drive. For example - you have a btrfs that uses 3
> different hdd's - AFAIU you need to enter password for each hdd before
> mounti
I haven't seen anything related to Request Tracker v.4 on Fedora sites.
bestpractical.com claims it's a major update with lots of bug fixes and
improvements:
http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/whats-new/
What is the status---is anyone working on / planning to package v.4? I
suppose it won't be a
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
>
> On mið 18.des 2013 12:27, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>
>>> > Workstation WG probably will use GNOME Containers:
>>> >https://www.guadec.org/session/sandboxed-applications-for-gnome/
>>
>> That's not been discussed yet, much less decide
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:19 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 15:05 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> There will be a similar problem in the docker images, unless you're
>> suggesting that everyone use Ubuntu-in-docker-on-Fedora/RHEL.
>
> True, but it becomes the r
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky
wrote:
> Quoting Neal Becker (2013-12-18 14:06:23)
>> During the past few months, I've switched from building my software against a
>> bundled version of boost libraries, to building against the system boost
>> libs.
>>
>> On updating to f20,
2013/12/18 Kamil Paral
> > On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:33:34PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > > The beauty of ecryptfs is that I can encrypt one dir - not whole file
> > > system.
> >
> > What's the concern with encrypting the whole filesystem? It's better
> > for you because you leave signi
Hi
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 4:39 AM, Maciek Borzecki wrote:
> Have you been able to compare cppcheck with clang's static-analyzer?
> Both issues that you managed to identify should have been found by
> clang as well.
>
clang and cppcheck has some overlap but sometimes finds issues that the
other
Ah! http://dev.laptop.org/git/packages/
cheers,
m
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 9:48 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
> Hey thanks! But did you forget to include a link to the git repos?
>
> Martin Langhoff wrote:
>
>> Neal,
>>
>> look like you've found the one thing fedora devel has consensus on ;-)
>>
>>
Am 18.12.2013 16:37, schrieb Dave Jones:
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 09:12:06AM +0100, Ondrej Vasik wrote:
>
> > Publishing them is a bit tricky - I can of course publish them (we scan
> > with cppcheck, enhanced gcc warnings, clang and coverity) - but the
> > reports may contain some attack vect
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 09:12:06AM +0100, Ondrej Vasik wrote:
> Publishing them is a bit tricky - I can of course publish them (we scan
> with cppcheck, enhanced gcc warnings, clang and coverity) - but the
> reports may contain some attack vectors - and for inactive packages, it
> would only s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/18/2013 02:49 AM, Tomas Hozza wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I would like to prevent unpleasant surprises and announce, that
> bind-chroot sub-package of bind has been split into two
> sub-packages in the Fedora rawhide branch.
>
> Previously the bind-chroot
Hey thanks! But did you forget to include a link to the git repos?
Martin Langhoff wrote:
> Neal,
>
> look like you've found the one thing fedora devel has consensus on ;-)
>
> Here is a series of git repos that show how I was maintaining some
> rpms outside of the fedora infra, but using fedp
Lars Seipel wrote:
> Uhm. Exactly because I don't like my stuff breaking every three weeks I
> choose libraries that live up to my expectation. This might involve
> assessing the capability of an particular upstream to maintain their
> stuff going into the future or just avoiding the "latest flavor
Neal,
look like you've found the one thing fedora devel has consensus on ;-)
Here is a series of git repos that show how I was maintaining some
rpms outside of the fedora infra, but using fedpkg (which I recommend)
-- more specifically mockbuild.
These repos are public, but you can do the same i
Neal Becker wrote:
> How do others solve this problem
package your software as rpms too, so such dependencies get tracked.
-- Rex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-
Hi.
I would like to prevent unpleasant surprises and announce,
that bind-chroot sub-package of bind has been split into
two sub-packages in the Fedora rawhide branch.
Previously the bind-chroot sub-package contained named-chroot.service
enabling users to run named in a chroot environment and also
Quoting Neal Becker (2013-12-18 14:06:23)
> During the past few months, I've switched from building my software against a
> bundled version of boost libraries, to building against the system boost libs.
>
> On updating to f20, all of my software became broken, because the library
> versions it w
On mið 18.des 2013 13:43, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Hi,
could you please add EOL process as the topic for this meeting?
As Fedora 20 was released, we should send Fedora 18 warning asap
and I'd like to sort it out. We're running out of time.
Can we now assume that since FESCO has started fiddling
- Original Message -
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
> meeting Wednesday at 18:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net.
>
> To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
>
> or run:
> date -d '2013
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:33:34PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > The beauty of ecryptfs is that I can encrypt one dir - not whole file
> > system.
>
> What's the concern with encrypting the whole filesystem? It's better
> for you because you leave significant personal information all over
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 8:19 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
> 2) somehow build against f20 libs on an f19 system?
this is trivially done using mock. Actually, what I do, even for
non-public builds, is to have a spec file in a git repository and
build/rebuild the rpm using fedpkg.
fedpkg makes things inc
On 18/12/13 13:19, Neal Becker wrote:
Florian Weimer wrote:
On 12/18/2013 02:06 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
During the past few months, I've switched from building my software against a
bundled version of boost libraries, to building against the system boost
libs.
Is your software packaged in Fed
Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 02:06 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
>> During the past few months, I've switched from building my software against a
>> bundled version of boost libraries, to building against the system boost
>> libs.
>
> Is your software packaged in Fedora?
No, this is not intend
On 12/18/2013 02:06 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
During the past few months, I've switched from building my software against a
bundled version of boost libraries, to building against the system boost libs.
Is your software packaged in Fedora?
How do others solve this problem, or can anyone think of
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 08:53:57PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> If you like the idea of always reinventing the wheel seemingly for no good
> reason, or just to use the latest flavored language of the day, then great.
Uhm. Exactly because I don't like my stuff breaking every three weeks I
choose l
During the past few months, I've switched from building my software against a
bundled version of boost libraries, to building against the system boost libs.
On updating to f20, all of my software became broken, because the library
versions it was linked with were removed.
So I had to race to re
On mið 18.des 2013 12:27, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Workstation WG probably will use GNOME Containers:
>https://www.guadec.org/session/sandboxed-applications-for-gnome/
That's not been discussed yet, much less decided. I would advocate
for using what the Base WG and/or Env and Stacks WG settles on
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 06:01:04PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 23:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>>
>> > b) Which WG will take on the task of solving this? We shouldn't end
>> > up with everybody agreeing that this n
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 06:01:04PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 23:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>
> > b) Which WG will take on the task of solving this? We shouldn't end
> > up with everybody agreeing that this needs to be solved, but no PRD
> > proposing to solve this.
Adam Williamson wrote:
> > - Install fedup 0.7.0
> > - Try it and watch it fail or hang
> > - Update to fedup 0.8.0 from updates-testing
> > - Run fedup
> >
> > ends up downloading all rpms *twice* a sucking up a correspondingly
> > immense amount of disk space.
>
> Um, I'm fairly sure it d
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Dec 17, 2013, at 5:40 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>>> a) Do we all agree that we need to solve this?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> We should not compromise our design principles (and, e.g., endorse an
>> abominable hack like SC
Deal.
I will review yours later.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Taken
2013/12/18 Christopher Meng
> Swap with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033433 if you like.
>
> I need to handle these remaining bugs now.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> Fedora C
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> In the last few days, I have been running cppcheck on quite a few programs
> including systemd, transmission, libvirt, ndjbdns etc and cppcheck has
> found real and potential bugs (null pointer dereferences, uninitialized
> variables
Dne 18.12.2013 00:26, T.C. Hollingsworth napsal(a):
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Lukas Zapletal wrote:
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 03:10:08AM -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
I do commit locally
although I probably don't want push the snapshot sources, because I update
them later, when time co
On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 09:12 +0100, Ondrej Vasik wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 13:17 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >
> > The issues reported against libvirt all appear to be false
> > positives.
> >
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 13:17 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 12:47 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
> The issues reported against libvirt all appear to be false
> positives.
> Not entirely surprising since we already have coverity run
>
85 matches
Mail list logo
