On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:33:11PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> We're (sort of) trying to phase out /usr/libexec in favor of
> %{_libdir}/%{name}/foo, but otherwise that sounds good.
But then the location if a command will depend on whether the system is
a 64 or 32 bit system, which makes it more
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 04:57:29PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> Packages which have SysV initscripts that contain 'non-standard service
> commands' (commands besides start, stop, reload, restart, or
> try-restart) must convert those commands into standalone helper scripts.
> Systemd does not suppo
On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 06:54:36PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Is there any information about when this should be used? I don't
> think I've ever written a spec file that uses it.
I think it is whenever a package containing a library (i.e. a multilib
package) is required via the package's
On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 06:19:39PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> There hasn't been FTBFS bug reports since Matt stopped doing them due
> to lack of time, the maintainer would have got failed builds for the
> mass rebuild and should have investigated as part of "maintaining" the
> package.
Is thi
On Mon, Mar 05, 2012 at 06:36:23PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 4:13 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
> >> It was my understanding that packages that are FTBFS prior to F-15 (ie
> >> not had a successful build in F-15 or later)
> >
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:59:27PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> More importantly, what can FESCo practically do when a component has
> an abrt bug open for 5 months, roughly 1 new reporter per day is
> added, and the package owner has not done a single action in bugzilla?
> [1]
Imho the best wa
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 07:13:03AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Or perhaps better asked, what
> about rawhide makes it
> unsuitable for use as a rolling Fedora release?
The rpm packages in Rawhide are not signed.
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fed
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 06:10:17PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> # conditionalize Ocaml support
> %ifarch sparc64 s390 s390x
> %bcond_with ocaml
> %else
> %bcond_without ocaml
> %endif
>
> #...
>
> %if %{with ocaml}
> BuildRequires: ocaml
> BuildRequires: ocaml-findlib-devel
> %endif
>
>
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:03:05PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> * The list of test cases associated with the package, with a PASS / FAIL
> choice for each
A "Did not test" choice is missing here.
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:51:52AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:40:52 +0100
> Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> > > This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nob
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:21:40PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> We have considered it. A really long time ago. At that time, it was
> decided that we consider out-of-tree modules to be something we don't
> support, don't care about, and won't hold up updates for because of
> the aforementioned hea
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:05:37AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> 2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III :
> > One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
> > packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
> > still come in by packaging a new package. I think
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:32:56PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle, to
> publish a list of packages which were not touched by it maintainer in
> previous release. For all these packages, new co-maintainer could
> stepped up and they
Hi,
I want to offer a review swap for hxtools:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683610
It is a dependency I need to update and probably fix several bugs in
pam_mount.
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
> can seem to agree on what an appropriate "sign of life" would be, no
> has made a serious FESCo proposal for a contrived sign of life.
I remember that there has
Hi,
a recent kernel update[0] broke Fedora's ability to be a VirtualBox
host, because asm/amd_iommu.h was removed. The removal of the file was
noticed during testing, but it seems nobody noticed that this affects
VirtualBox. Is this kind of change sanctioned by the
current update criteria?
Kind r
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:42:59AM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> Are the fedora-logos and setroubleshoot packages doing it the right
> way, and other icon-installing packages need to be fixed? Are they
> doing it the wrong way, and should be fixed themselves? Does
> ownership of that directory dep
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 06:41:21PM +0200, Christoph Trassl wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 05:30 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:45:45PM +0200, Christoph Trassl wrote:
> >> On 10/25/2011 09:33 AM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> >>> On 10/25/2011 09:30 AM, Haral
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:45:45PM +0200, Christoph Trassl wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 09:33 AM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> > On 10/25/2011 09:30 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> >> On 10/25/2011 09:15 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> >>> It's not only an aesthetic issue. This enables possibilities,
> >>> which were no
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 03:06:46PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> out of interest - are there any plans to auto-close bugs once the new
> version hits rawhide?
No, this is not planned. But you do not need to close bugs, because old
bugs are re-used unless they changed status.
Regards
Till
--
de
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 03:07:11PM -0500, Nathan O. wrote:
> Thanks for all the help, and glad it seemed to help you find a issue with
> URM, Till
Thank you for the report. I dug a little deeper and identified and fixed
the bug that was responsible for the multiple bug reports.
Kind regards
Till
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:35:33AM -0500, Nathan O. wrote:
> I am curious or maybe giving an idea, but I have my package listed there and
> currently there is an update for the package I have added to the list. Well
> I have the package in bodhi, which I believe is in testing right now. The
>
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:49:54AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> There obviously is a _legitimate_ question as to whether you ought to be
> able to add your package into anyone else's update if you aren't a
> provenpackager; it's not necessarily something we'd want to do. But I
> think provenpac
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 11:10:12PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 10/09/2011 10:59 PM, Vinzenz Vietzke wrote:
>
> >
> > I'd prefer a bit less bleeding edge over breaking crucial packages.
>
> Sometimes unavoidable due to security issues
Why was it unavoidable with Firefox? Afaik updated Fire
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 09:28:45PM +0200, Heiko Adams wrote:
> Why don't you blame *mozilla* to make it possible to easily install
> and manage extensions centralized? This would IMHO be the best way for
> all because it makes packaging extensions allmost unnecessary.
Using the same logic you sho
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 11:43:58PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> 3. Can someone (I'm looking at you, QA) make sure all extensions
> are still compatible?
The problem is that testers seem to ignore test cases provided for
updates, because there is an test case to check for extensi
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 07:53:25AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Might have gone quicker if you pull via git:// and then only push via ssh://
> reducing your ssh handshakes by half.
How do you ensure the integrity of the git repo if it is pulled via
git://? As far as I can see doing this automat
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 06:50:04PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> Example: we have unison-2.9-1 package which produces
> unison-2.9-1
> unison28-2.8-2
> unison21-2.1-5
>
> We want to update unison28, so the next build of unison-2.9-2 produces only:
> unison28-2.8.1-1
>
> What do
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:15:38AM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> I hope you don't suggest for every rebuild of few dependent packages one
> FESCo ticket.
This is what is currently required to ask FES for help. It is certainly
a lot better and more efficient to open one FESCo and one FES tick
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:43:38PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> And that's always fine and dandy if these issues are resolved in a
> reasonable amount of time. Right now Rawhide has packages with
> dependencies broken since pre-F15. This isn't acceptable.
If you notice this, ask FESCo to ask F
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:44:35AM -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> On 09/11/2011 04:33 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> > darrell pfeifer wrote:
> >> Fails for me too, with the same error.
> >
> > Thanks for confirming that.
> >
> > I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
>
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:33:33PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> package for a while. If I'm happy with my subsequent testing, then I'll
> +1 my own update, on the grounds that I've been viewing the change from
> a testing perspective, rather than just from a development perspective.
> If not, I'
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 12:34:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 20:59 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:42:56PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >
> > > As in components flagged as base/core/critical might rest
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:42:56PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> As in components flagged as base/core/critical might restrict the
> maintainer from +1 his own component and require more stricter QA
> oversight while components that are not flag as base/core/critical might
> not?
If
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 08:30:24PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Might be worth adding a flash() to inform why the karma wasn't added.
Done:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/attachment/ticket/277/0001-model.py-Change-karma-from-Submitter-to-0.2.patch
Kind regards
Till
pgpHXAZilkoL0.pgp
Desc
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:16:50PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
> based testing in a variety of environments. In light of that, we can
> either accept a maintainer +1 as "I tested this as I would use it and
> it worked" (which sho
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 08:46:50PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> It's not being enforced in bodhi, but it should be:
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
It is somehow sad that nobody took the time to write a two line patch to
fix this 3 year old bug report:
https://fedorahosted.org/bod
Hi,
is it ok to package a pearl script to convert flac files to ogg or mp3
files? The conversion is done by calling the respective command line
tools, i.e. no mp3 encoding logic is included in the script:
http://smxi.org/acxi
Kind regards
Till
P.S.: I tried to send this message to legal@fpo, but
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 01:24:37PM +0200, Roman Rakus wrote:
> I have a question, if it is worth to enable this option by default? It
> will not confuse some people, but can increase disk searching. Comments
> welcome.
How can it increase disk searching in case the program is still there?
It ne
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:49:23PM -0700, Steve Jenkins wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 08/19/2011 06:02 AM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
> >> Hi - the purpose of this email is to introduce myself as a prospective
> >> new package maintainer for Fedora.
> >>
> >> My
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 12:23:43PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> %define _hardened_build 1
just wondering: Is %define really correct here or does it need to be
%global?
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 02:00:28PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 7/27/11 1:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > Depends on the PATH-Order
> >
> > if something is intended to be first in PATH and any attacker is able
> > to write there his "ls" would win against "/bin/ls"
>
> So, the attacker can wri
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 09:29:40AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 7/26/11 8:48 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > I hereby propose to change this in the future and explicitly CC
> > comaintainers to make them aware that their package is orphaned.
>
> This can easily be done b
On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 03:51:16PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> > Just wondering: Did the comaintainers get a copy of this mail?
>
> Only inasmuch as they're subscribed to devel@.
I hereby propose to change this in the futu
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 03:28:05PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Each release, before branching, we block currently orphaned packages.
> It's that time again for Fedora 16.
>
> New this go-round is that we are also blocking packages that have
> failed to build since before Fedora 14.
>
> The fo
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:01:45AM +0100, Camilo Mesias wrote:
> I am still struggling to see real applications for this. I don't know
> how a networked system using the technology could be differentiated
> from an (insecure) software simulation of the same from a remote
> viewer's perspective. Als
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 04:33:15PM +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
> Even if all it did was to get rid of bogus completions it would still
> offer a better user experience at a small cost so it should be in the
> default package set. Now it does more than that.
It is not that easy, because it als
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 05:41:33PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> David Howells wrote:
> > ... and then you install acroread and things go horribly wrong due to
> > their attempt to work around bash completion of filenames with spaces [BZ
> > 702329].
>
> We do not support third-party proprietary so
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:28:50AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Kevin Kofler writes:
>
> > Personally, I think we should just push the new stuff into updates
> > whenever it makes sense (i.e. not for something like KDE 3 to 4 or
> > GNOME 2 to 3 ;-) ).
>
> Or we can encourage more people to us
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 08:37:39PM +0100, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 20:22:55 +0100, Till Maas wrote
>
> > I assume he meant since Januar 2011. This is at least the official
> > statement for Germany:
> >
> > http://www.bun
On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 08:44:55AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Petr Pisar said:
> > This year? In Europe we are over. All quallified CA's are forbiden to
> > issue SHA-1 certificates since begin of 2010.
>
> Cite? https://europa.eu/ uses SHA-1 on a cert issued in February 2010.
On Tue, Mar 08, 2011 at 04:40:49PM -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> I don't see what would require you to package every piece of
> functionality included in a upstream tarball. Certainly you should
> include sufficient comments in the spec to make the situation obvious.
> Just be mindful that
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 01:33:18AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Whoever wants to package this will also need to check the tarball for
> patent-encumbered stuff, e.g. there are tools working on MP3 files, you have
> to check whether there's any MP3 code bundled (which would have to be
> removed)
Hi,
to update pam_mount I need some programs of a tool collection from the
upstream author. The tool collection[0] named hxtools contains a lot of
stuff I do not want to package. Is there any reason to only package the
two tools I need and add others whenever someone requests it?
Would someone dis
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 02:03:26PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 11:13:44PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 07:21:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > No, but it does mean that what you're proposing would involve adding
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 08:26:05PM +1030, Glen Turner wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-02-27 at 23:20 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 12:30:43PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > > Were you thinking of just /var/log/messages? or all log files?
> > >
On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:46:13AM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Friday, February 25, 2011 03:13:31 am Matthias Runge wrote:
> > - change systems logs owners from root:root mode 600 to root:adm mode
> > 640 (or something similar)
>
> So, what would be the implementation of this? How would logchec
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 12:30:43PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Were you thinking of just /var/log/messages? or all log files?
> Or all syslog written files? or ?
>
> If you are talking all log files, I would suggest making this into a
> feature for f16, since it's going to require coordinating a
On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 07:21:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 04:33:56PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 07:00:20PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 07:30:34PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > >
&g
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 07:00:20PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 07:30:34PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > The services that are started when the respective package is installed
> > and the services that are enabled by default by the Fedora installer do
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 06:22:25PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Like Jesse said, my objection here is that using the word "essential"
> just results in us being doomed to argue over what "essential" means.
> A literal interpretation of "essential" means "start init and have it
> launch a get
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 04:45:35PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> No, but if that's your definition of "essential" then all we need is to
> launch init and have it give you a getty. chkconfigging gdm on would
> give you a graphical login, and you could probably even get a session. A
> bunch of
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:50:57PM +0100, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 25.2.2011 10:39, Mogens Kjaer napsal(a):
> > create 640 root wheel
> >
> > to /etc/logrotate.d/syslog and have added bbuser to the wheel group.
> >
> > That file is owned by rsyslog in Fedora and sysklogd in RHEL.
>
> I am not sur
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 09:46:06PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:25:44PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > For me essential services are the services that are required to start
> > other services. If there are no services required to boot Fedora, log
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 06:32:44PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 05:59:33PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:04:26PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > > And once you've got a default set for the default install, why
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:04:26PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> And once you've got a default set for the default install, why not just
> do it at the package level and ensure some level of consistency?
Because by enabling lots of potential vulnerable services you make it a
PITA to use Fedora
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 03:32:43PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Right. I think the reasonable expectation here is that if you (as a
> user) don't want the service, don't install the package. If you (as a
The package is more than just the service. It will also include the
documentation and th
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 04:26:55PM +0100, Dominic Hopf wrote:
> yum localinstall file.rpm
install does the same as localinstall nowadays when a filename is given
as a parameter afaik.
Regards
Till
pgp06flTaBo6h.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 07:53:33PM -0300, Domingo Becker wrote:
> 2011/2/19 Till Maas :
> > You can try this to install rpms from the local directory:
> > yum --disablerepo=\* install ./*.rpm
> The command I always use is
>
> yum install --nogpg my-own.rpm another.rpm
&
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:44:48AM -0300, Domingo Becker wrote:
> I think that a just installed Fedora box should have the ability to
> install software from an usb stick without the need of an internet
> connection.
You can try this to install rpms from the local directory:
yum --disablerepo=\*
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:14:23AM +1000, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> The account in question was not a member of any sysadmin or Release
> Engineering
> groups. The following is a complete list of privileges on the account:
> * SSH to fedorapeople.org (user permissions are very limited on this
> m
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 09:31:27PM +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 08:29:16PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 07:02:21PM +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
> >
> > > Note, it's possible that NFS umount/remount will not work in some
On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 07:02:21PM +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
> Note, it's possible that NFS umount/remount will not work in some
> cases, because not all necessary mount options are in /proc/mounts.
> I hope this issue will be fixed before F15 release.
Is the uhelper option in /proc/mounts?
Reg
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:38:21PM -0500, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> What's preventing us from symlinking /etc/mtab to /proc/mounts and get
> rid of confusing situations when mtab gets out of sync with the kernel?
It is not possible to set the files ystem in /proc/mounts as it is
possible with /etc
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 09:00:51PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> To the original poster: even a VM isn't a completely robust way of
> preventing root escalations. If the developers are all in your
> "organization", how about using a cluestick-based method to prevent
> them doing this?
I gue
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 08:39:50PM -0600, BJ Dierkes wrote:
> All three pieces follow each release meaning, when 0.8.12 (current stable)
> was released... new tarbals were released for all three. The reason for
> separate tarbals is primarily for maintaining releases via PyPi [2]. I need
> al
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 01:55:26PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 11:52 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:20:28AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> While I'm looking into the git setup and ACLs and all this, I have a
> >> question.
>
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 08:08:49PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said:
> > On most laptops, however, which are the most common types of system sold
> > today, a firewall is very definitely needed when you're connecting to
> > hotel networks, public wifi access point
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:01:26PM +0100, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> Yeah, general discovery. From the top of my head:
> - Pulseaudio sinks and sources
> - libvirt instances for virt-manager
> - VNC desktops for Vinagre
> - local web pages (think SOHO router config page) for zeroconf
> enabled Web
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 10:20:28AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> While I'm looking into the git setup and ACLs and all this, I have a
> question.
>
> Is anybody seeing any real value of having different commit ACLs per
> Fedora branch? I've seen some argument for EPEL vs Fedora, but is there
> re
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 02:17:32PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 16:55 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> > The comparison is 100% fair because it points out the fundamental
> > problem with the current policy: if you don't have a paid staff of
> > testers to make sure testing
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 05:36:58AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 18:15:29 +0100,
> Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > You can very easy report that you have installed some update, used it
> > and it did not break. This is afaik enough to justify +1 k
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 03:04:30PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> This still builds a reactive system instead of a preventative system.
> An only reactive system will not help prevent bad updates from getting
> out in the first place.
>
> That said, adding a reactive component to a preventative syste
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 09:48:30PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I hereby want to let everybody know that in the next days I will turn
> on
> /var/run and /var/lock on tmpfs on Rawhide/F15. This is in accordance
> with the following accepted F15 feature:
>░
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fe
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 10:32:00PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Also note that by now it's somewhat standard that code that needs to be
> run as part of early boot creates a subdir in /dev, such as /dev/.udev
> or /dev/.systemd. Not super-pretty, but I guess it's too late to
> complain about
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 07:06:33PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Afaik there is no need for a maintainer to set different acceptance
> > thresholds for his updates. At least nobody ever explained to me why
> > this would be helpful.
>
> * Upgrade
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:18:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 16:39 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Adam Williamson writes:
> > > On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 12:02 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > >> Critpath requires +1 proven tester and +1 anybody. Total of +2. Non
> > >> crit-p
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 02:33:35PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/22/10 1:50 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:02:49PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> On 11/22/2010 11:56 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> >>> It was my understanding of readi
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:02:49PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 11:56 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > It was my understanding of reading the complaints that this is what they
> > [complainers] desire - a reversal of what we require now (3 karma and/or
> > proventester if critpat
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 12:31:05PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> So they stay in updates-testing until someone does actually test them.
>
> We all know that the longer that updates wait in updates-testing the
> more likely the world will stop spinning.
It is totally annoying and time consuming to h
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:43:21AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 19:29 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 02:09:47PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > I do. I don't believe all maintainers do. It's pretty hard
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 02:09:47PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I do. I don't believe all maintainers do. It's pretty hard to explain
> why updates that completely prevent the app in question from working, or
Btw. this is not a problem that might happen with updates, but also
happens with init
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:15:17AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 18:09 +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> > The whole 'push directly to stable' arguement rests heavily on the principle
> > that an update is always better (from a QA standpoint) than whatever it's
> > replacing.
On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 09:59:42PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 10:35:31 +0100,
> Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > IMHO it is pretty unlikely that people use updates-testing but do not
> > care about posting feedback to Bodhi.
>
> I usually not
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 09:57:40AM +0100, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> sön 2010-11-21 klockan 11:00 +0100 skrev Till Maas:
>
> > I guess this can be somehow automated. E.g. change Bodhi to drop the
> > karma requirements for packages that had e.g. two subsequent updates
>
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 02:09:47PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 14:49 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Nov 2010 22:04:24 -0800
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > ...snip...
> >
> > > > https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
> > >
> > > hum, that wasn't well p
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 03:35:43PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * require testing only for packages where people have signed up to be testers
>
> Packages without 'official' testers could bypass testing or have some lower
> karma
> requirement. We would need for this a list of packages that have
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 11:42:19AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> it's worth noting that part of the point of the 7-day clause is to cover
> 'invisible testing'; even if people aren't posting feedback to Bodhi,
> it's likely that if the update actually is broken, we will find out one
> way or ano
On Sat, Nov 20, 2010 at 08:44:43AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-11-20 at 11:23 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:18:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers
&g
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 10:18:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> place. The idea was never that some magic independent group of testers
> would spend the rest of their lives doing nothing but test updates.
This idea was never prominently communicated as the default
situation. Iirc it was said t
501 - 600 of 988 matches
Mail list logo
