On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 11:14 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> > Does it really use TLS with openpgp certificates? If yes, I doubt you
> > could make 2.8.5 interoperate with gnutls 3.1.20. GnuTLS was modified in
> > 3.1.x to adhere with RFC6091 which was incompatible the previous attempt
> > to h
Am 04.04.2014 04:44, schrieb Andrew Lutomirski:
> On Apr 3, 2014 7:18 PM, "Reindl Harald" wrote:
>> besides that it is the wrong list:
>
> What's the right list?
the users list, not the developers list
>> grub2-install
>
> $ grub2-install
> /usr/sbin/grub2-probe: error: cannot find a GRUB dr
On 04/03/2014 04:54 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
On 04/02/2014 07:47 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
* Support for weak dependencies
Does this mean that rpm-build will be able to create packages with weak
dependencies?
Yes.
Will Fedora packages be allowed to declare weak
dependencies?
That's u
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064271
--- Comment #34 from Andreas Krebbel ---
(In reply to Dan Horák from comment #29)
> Thanks, Andreas, your explanation makes sense. I'm going to dig into the
> perl itself first.
To my understanding the problem is that a sigjmp_buf is embedded
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 04.04.2014 04:44, schrieb Andrew Lutomirski:
> > On Apr 3, 2014 7:18 PM, "Reindl Harald" wrote:
> >> besides that it is the wrong list:
> >
> > What's the right list?
>
> the users list, not the developers list
>
> >> grub2-install
>
Agenda:
- Discuss
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-March/197074.html
as task for Base
- Discuss http://tinyurl.com/fedora-pkg-reviews as task for Base
- Open Floor
Thanks & regards, Phil
--
Philipp Knirsch | Tel.: +49-711-96437-470
Manager Core Services
On 04/04/2014 12:42 PM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
- Discuss
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-March/197074.html
as task for Base
This is just needs a feature owner and an individual to do the work and
push it through
- Discuss http://tinyurl.com/fedora-pkg-reviews as task
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> Agenda:
My regrets today. I'll be unable to attend.
> - Discuss
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-March/197074.html as
> task for Base
This seems reasonable to me.
> - Discuss http://tinyurl.com/fedora-pkg-reviews as
The lightweight tag 'perl-Exporter-Tiny-0.038-1.el7' was created pointing to:
3ebb26a... Update to 0.038
--
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-de
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 12:45:17PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > - Discuss http://tinyurl.com/fedora-pkg-reviews as task for Base
> Why should this be a task for base, what's the relationship with base?
I had suggested prioritizing the reviews of the packages covered by base.
--
Matt
On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 07:32:38 -0700, quickbooks office wrote:
> This change will not affect logging into the console using the local
> account and then doing su to get root privileges.
>
> Is there a problem with logging into the local user account and then
> typing su and the root password?
Maybe
As I promised, I prepared a benchmark of lbzip2 and bzip2.
I also added pbzip2 for comparison.
Basic information
=
Test date: 2014-04-04
Tester:Mikolaj Izdebski
Test subjects: lbzip2 2.5
bzip2 1.0.6
pbzip2 1.1.6
Test purpose: compare per
On 04/02/2014 08:03 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> A quick check shows lbzip2 doesn't provide a library interface, much less
> one compatible with libbz2. Is that ever intended?
>
> If it's not, saying lbzip2 is the default bzip2 *implementation* may be a
> bit of a stretch. Perhaps s/implementation
On 04/04/2014 04:15 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> Compression of payload.tar
> --
>
> command| real | user | sys | memory | compr. size
> ---+++--++
> lbzip2 | 3.36 | 170.07 | 6.38 | 380448 | 424676188
> lbzip2
On 04/04/2014 05:16 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/04/2014 04:15 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>> Compression of payload.tar
>> --
>>
>> command| real | user | sys | memory | compr. size
>> ---+++--++
>> lbzip2 |
A number of rpms currently ship .orig files, which are presumably from
patching the files in the spec. Would it make sense to have rpm complain
about this?
# repoquery --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=rawhide --whatprovides '/*.orig' |
sort -u
alliance-doc-0:5.0-35.20090901snap.fc18.x86_64
ardu
On 04/04/2014 05:26 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> On 04/04/2014 05:16 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
>> On 04/04/2014 04:15 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>>> Compression of payload.tar
>>> --
>>>
>>> command| real | user | sys | memory | compr. size
>>> ---+---
Matthias Clasen píše v Čt 03. 04. 2014 v 10:20 -0400:
> Hey,
>
> so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
> Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
> already received fairly wide testing.
>
> But we should be careful, so I want to ask for
fredagen den 4 april 2014 09.32.06 skrev Orion Poplawski:
> A number of rpms currently ship .orig files, which are presumably from
> patching the files in the spec. Would it make sense to have rpm complain
> about this?
No, if -b is used there won't be a .orig file, unless it's named so.
--
de
On 04/04/2014 05:40 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
> First after the upgrade I didn't even boot to GDM. Too bad I didn't
> debug it because I had already been considering a clean install, so I
> did it right away. My setup was not typical, I had been upgrading since
> F15. But apparently I was not the o
On 04/03/2014 11:27 PM, William Brown wrote:
What is the software that is used to make images like :
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html/FreeIPA_Guide/images/IPA_arch.png
Or
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/18/html-single/System_Administrators_Guide/images/Network_Inte
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 04:15:59PM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> "lbzip2" was the fastest compressor and decompressor in all tests.
> It the best command for interactive use.
>
> "lbzip2 -u" always produced smallest files (even smaller than bzip2)
> while consuming the least amount of resources
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 12:49:25 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 04:15:59PM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
> > "lbzip2 -u" always produced smallest files (even smaller than bzip2)
> > while consuming the least amount of resources (CPU power and memory).
> > This directly translate
[snip]
Is it useful for these messages to go to the devel (or test, for that
matter) lists? They seem mostly to just raise the noise.
--
Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--
"Tepid change for the somewhat better!"
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 13:14:30 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Is it useful for these messages to go to the devel (or test, for that
> matter) lists? They seem mostly to just raise the noise.
>
>
>
it is very useful to see what is changed
On 04/04/2014 07:01 PM, Susi Lehtola wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 12:49:25 -0400
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 04:15:59PM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote:
>>> "lbzip2 -u" always produced smallest files (even smaller than bzip2)
>>> while consuming the least amount of resources (C
Dne 4.4.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller napsal(a):
> [snip]
>
> Is it useful for these messages to go to the devel (or test, for that
> matter) lists? They seem mostly to just raise the noise.
>
>
>
I'm definitely going through this email every day. Not just to see what
is broken but what is new as wel
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 07:39:18PM +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I'm definitely going through this email every day. Not just to see what
> is broken but what is new as well.
Okay, carry on then. Just checking!
--
Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--
"Te
I mentioned this a while ago but just recently figured out the
process details and got the permissions I needed to complete the work.
Our hosts are getting pretty old and most of them haven't seen a
firmware update since they were installed 3-4 years ago. This hasn't
been a problem for most of the
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 11:32:57AM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> As far as I am concerned they are very useful. In more detail I am
> looking mostly at "Broken deps" and "Summaries", with only an occasional
> peek at a changelog information, but on a number of occasions these
> messages were cr
commit 12ec243a1d40126dffa5201d6e5819cb5d22b430
Author: Paul Howarth
Date: Fri Apr 4 18:41:23 2014 +0100
Update to 1.978
- New upstream release 1.978
- Added public prefix checking to verification of wildcard certificates,
e.g.
accept *.foo.com but not *.co.uk; see d
On 04/04/2014 07:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Is it useful for these messages to go to the devel (or test, for that
> matter) lists? They seem mostly to just raise the noise.
It is definitely useful, but I wish there was some way of excluding
long-standing problems that no one cares
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/04/2014 11:44 AM, Oden Eriksson wrote:
> fredagen den 4 april 2014 09.32.06 skrev Orion Poplawski:
>> A number of rpms currently ship .orig files, which are presumably
>> from patching the files in the spec. Would it make sense to have
>> rpm c
On Friday, April 4, 2014, 1:42:49 PM, Matthew Milleru wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 11:32:57AM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
>> As far as I am concerned they are very useful. In more detail I am
>> looking mostly at "Broken deps" and "Summaries", with only an occasional
>> peek at a changelog
Hi,
There have been a few discussions about this in the past but no action.
With feature freeze approaching for F21, I think this is a good time to
address this.
I will be orphaning java-1.5.0-gcj in Fedora on April 8th. If anyone
wants to take over, please let me know. Please do keep in mind tho
- Original Message -
> From: "Deepak Bhole"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, April 4, 2014 2:01:18 PM
> Subject: Orphaning java-1.5.0-gcj
>
> Hi,
>
> There have been a few discussions about this in the past but no action.
> With feature freeze approaching for F21, I
On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 01:14:30PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Is it useful for these messages to go to the devel (or test, for that
> matter) lists? They seem mostly to just raise the noise.
To add to what others have said, I also find this a useful message.
Rich.
--
Richard Jon
37 matches
Mail list logo
