Hi,
On Wednesday, 2018-05-02 15:23:10 +0200, Tomas Orsava wrote:
> Does anyone see a reason not to prioritize ~/.local/bin over /usr/bin?
Many have argued one way or another.
Here is what I do, sourcing in a .zshrc (or whatever-shell-rc), which
gives me selective control to override certain com
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 42/137 (x86_64), 14/24 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
ID: 233888 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso base_services_start
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/233888
ID: 233895 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_role_deploy_domain_controller
URL: https:
Currently the package 'sqlite2' provides the binary /usr/bin/sqlite,
while the package 'sqlite' provides the binary /usr/bin/sqlite3.
This results in a confusing interaction, because with sqlite package
installed, running sqlite results in a 'command not found' message and a
suggestion to inst
On 2018-05-04 12:25, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 05/04/2018 09:42 AM, John Florian wrote:
On 2018-05-04 09:33, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
I would do so for the following reasons:
1. Even though the security arguments are weak, they are going to be
checkmarks on audits which can't be changed f
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2018-05-04)
===
Meeting started by bowlofeggs at 15:00:24 UTC. The full logs are
available at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2018-05-04/fesco.2018-05-04-15.00.log.html
.
Meeting summar
On 05/04/2018 09:42 AM, John Florian wrote:
On 2018-05-04 09:33, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
I would do so for the following reasons:
1. Even though the security arguments are weak, they are going to be
checkmarks on audits which can't be changed for years.
2. When someone gets a "remove this a
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 01:44:01PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> There was an unexpected change in the ABI of libidn-1.34, which broke
> stringprep (bugs #1566414 #1573961).
>
> I've built libidn packages for F27 and F28 which revert the change
> that broke the compatibility. In F28 there seems
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20180503.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20180504.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:13
Dropped images: 1
Added packages: 8
Dropped packages:2
Upgraded packages: 131
Downgraded packages: 1
Size of added packages: 14.20 MiB
Size of dropped packages
On Fri, May 4, 2018, 15:46 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 03:42:11PM +0200, Guido Aulisi wrote:
> > It seems broken in f28 too.
>
> There is a temporary override so that new annobin can be built, it will be
> reverted afterwards.
>
>
These shenanigans are exactly what could be avo
On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 03:42:11PM +0200, Guido Aulisi wrote:
> It seems broken in f28 too.
There is a temporary override so that new annobin can be built, it will be
reverted afterwards.
Jakub
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject
On 2018-05-04 09:33, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
I would do so for the following reasons:
1. Even though the security arguments are weak, they are going to be
checkmarks on audits which can't be changed for years.
2. When someone gets a "remove this and find out why the OS did this"
it helps if
It seems broken in f28 too.
Ciao
Guido
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 4 May 2018 at 05:31, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 4.5.2018 10:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>> I don't think I like the idea of putting it early in the PATH by
>> default, but I don't have a solid argument for why I don't like it.
>
>
> Thanks. Honestly, that's the feeling I get form this discussio
There was an unexpected change in the ABI of libidn-1.34, which broke
stringprep (bugs #1566414 #1573961).
I've built libidn packages for F27 and F28 which revert the change
that broke the compatibility. In F28 there seems to be only one
package (mcabber) which was built with libidn-1.34-1. It wil
On 04/05/18 09:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 03/05/18 12:23 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
By convention additions to the path come LAST in priority,
because of well known privilege escalation attack approaches
(the incautious admin sits down at a 'trapped' nominally sick
workstation, and fails to
On 4.5.2018 10:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
I don't think I like the idea of putting it early in the PATH by
default, but I don't have a solid argument for why I don't like it.
Thanks. Honestly, that's the feeling I get form this discussion. People
don't like it, so they try to explain the reaso
On 03/05/18 12:23 -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
By convention additions to the path come LAST in priority,
because of well known privilege escalation attack approaches
(the incautious admin sits down at a 'trapped' nominally sick
workstation, and fails to use a fully qualified path to 'su'
or 'sudo'
On 4.5.2018 10:38, Petr Pisar wrote:> How does prioritized ~/.local
match removing #!/usr/bin/env from
Fedora packages? It smells pretty inconsistently.
When running RPM installed tools we want them to run on RPM installed
interpreters. When you run stuff from /usr/bin that was installed by
d
On 2018-05-03, Tomas Orsava wrote:
> On 05/02/2018 05:14 PM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> On Wed, May 02, 2018 at 11:10:05AM -0400, Siteshwar Vashisht wrote:
>>>
>>> - Original Message -
From: "Daniel P. Berrangé"
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Cc: "
On 03/05/18 22:23 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 13:12 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
I think we also need some automated test that validates
"can create executables with standard RPM build flags"
that is a blocking test before gcc RPMs get pushed into repos since this
20 matches
Mail list logo
