On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 22:36:02 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Note there's a GUI tool similar to easy karma called gooey karma, waiting for
> a package sponsor.
>
We don't sponsor packages but packagers. ;)
Actually, the review request has stalled, waiting for the reviewer (here
also the sponsor
Lukas Zapletal wrote:
>> that could be easier solved by force anybody to use "easy-karma"
>instead the
>> webinterface because that only asks for the current installed
>packages
>
>Oh, I did not know fedora-easy-karma. We should advertise with the
>update tickets on Bodhi perhaps.
>
>Actually this
> that could be easier solved by force anybody to use "easy-karma" instead the
> webinterface because that only asks for the current installed packages
Oh, I did not know fedora-easy-karma. We should advertise with the
update tickets on Bodhi perhaps.
Actually this could improve things.
--
Late
Am 24.01.2014 17:34, schrieb Lukas Zapletal:
> One note on that topic:
>
> I found myself giving karma to an update, while I tested different
> version (actually a completely different build). It would be good if
> giving karma would require to insert a hash or something generated from
> the pack
One note on that topic:
I found myself giving karma to an update, while I tested different
version (actually a completely different build). It would be good if
giving karma would require to insert a hash or something generated from
the package itself (rpm -q -qf something package), header or signa
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 09:54 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 23:18 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 01:01 -0600, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> > > On 01/20/2014 11:48 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > The bug currently under discussion was caused by a change that
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 21:25 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 10:36 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:43:47 -0700
> >> Luke Macken wrote:
> >>
> >> > Unfortunately, bodhi has not had dedicated full-time de
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 8:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 10:36 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:43:47 -0700
>> Luke Macken wrote:
>>
>> > Unfortunately, bodhi has not had dedicated full-time development
>> > resources in a long time. Thankfully, I now hav
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 10:36 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:43:47 -0700
> Luke Macken wrote:
>
> > Unfortunately, bodhi has not had dedicated full-time development
> > resources in a long time. Thankfully, I now have the cycles to put
> > into new features, such as improving th
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:43:47 -0700
Luke Macken wrote:
> Unfortunately, bodhi has not had dedicated full-time development
> resources in a long time. Thankfully, I now have the cycles to put
> into new features, such as improving the feedback mechanisms.
>
> Many components of the "Bodhi 2.0" vis
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 05:01:24PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 17:00 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 15:35 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:48:28AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > I'd suggest this test should be a
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 23:18 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 01:01 -0600, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> > On 01/20/2014 11:48 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > The bug currently under discussion was caused by a change that came in
> > > inadvertently, not intentionally, and was actually
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 01:01 -0600, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 01/20/2014 11:48 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > The bug currently under discussion was caused by a change that came in
> > inadvertently, not intentionally, and was actually intended for Rawhide.
>
> I can't help wondering if there's an op
On 01/20/2014 11:48 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The bug currently under discussion was caused by a change that came in
> inadvertently, not intentionally, and was actually intended for Rawhide.
I can't help wondering if there's an opportunity for process/workflow
improvement right there.
--
===
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 17:00 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 15:35 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:48:28AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > I'd suggest this test should be a high priority for implementation once
> > > taskotron is operational, per
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 15:35 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:48:28AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I'd suggest this test should be a high priority for implementation once
> > taskotron is operational, perhaps equal in importance to re-implementing
> > the current AutoQA
On 01/20/2014 06:48 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 12:17 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 08:10:29PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
A simple "yum -y update ; reboot ; Oh, everything seems to work" has not
been enough this time. And it was an update with a s
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 09:48:28AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'd suggest this test should be a high priority for implementation once
> taskotron is operational, perhaps equal in importance to re-implementing
> the current AutoQA tests.
*nod* Sounds good to me.
> what we have. I don't know
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 12:30 -0500, Scott Schmit wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:23:42PM -0500, Scott Schmit wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:47:37PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > > > I replaced the typo scriplet -> scriptlet i
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 12:17 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 08:10:29PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > A simple "yum -y update ; reboot ; Oh, everything seems to work" has not
> > been enough this time. And it was an update with a screen full of ticket
> > numbers for the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/20/2014 10:50 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 08:42 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:02:24 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>
Anyone not aware of the problem and the fix, who applies the
-117.fc20 selinux
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 08:10:29PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> A simple "yum -y update ; reboot ; Oh, everything seems to work" has not
> been enough this time. And it was an update with a screen full of ticket
> numbers for the included bug-fixes/changes. It could have broken something
> else
On Sat, 2014-01-18 at 15:06 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:47:38 -0500
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > Hi
> >
> > Since updates don't automatically fix the issue created by
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054350 and users are
> > required to run a set of steps
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 08:42 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:02:24 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > > Anyone not aware of the problem and the fix, who applies the -117.fc20
> > > selinux-policy update in _enforcing_ mode (since it has entered stable
> > > updates meanwhile) be
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/20/2014 04:42 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I think we should have a much higher Karma for SELinux-policy to be released.
5 or maybe 10. The problem with selinux-policy is it gets karma fast, since
each update fixes multiple bugs. And people jus
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:53:42 -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> Is it possible to build a one-time build of selinux-policy without
> scriptlets so that the update will succeed?
Define what you mean with "update will succeed". Simply replacing the
bad package with a new package doesn't fix it. The
On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 12:20:38 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> IMO a SOP need to be documented or linked to selinux-policy package update
> also.
>
> BTW not all people run enforcing mode in daily time, so sometimes
> problems may not be found easily.
Running SELinux in enforcing mode is mandato
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 23:02:24 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > Anyone not aware of the problem and the fix, who applies the -117.fc20
> > selinux-policy update in _enforcing_ mode (since it has entered stable
> > updates meanwhile) believing it to be a normal update, will face another
> > failure and a
Is it possible to build a one-time build of selinux-policy without
scriptlets so that the update will succeed?
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> Since updates don't automatically fix the issue created by
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054350 and use
IMO a SOP need to be documented or linked to selinux-policy package update also.
BTW not all people run enforcing mode in daily time, so sometimes
problems may not be found easily.
Thanks.
--
--
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
Noob here.
http://cicku.me
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.f
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 00:14 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Anyone not aware of the problem and the fix, who applies the -117.fc20
> selinux-policy update in _enforcing_ mode (since it has entered stable
> updates meanwhile) believing it to be a normal update, will face another
> failure and a par
Anyone not aware of the problem and the fix, who applies the -117.fc20
selinux-policy update in _enforcing_ mode (since it has entered stable
updates meanwhile) believing it to be a normal update, will face another
failure and a partial update. Package selinux-policy updated
to -117.fc20 but -targe
On Jan 19, 2014 8:57 PM, "Michael Schwendt" wrote:
>
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:32:26 +0200, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
>
> > If scriptlet failures weren't fatal, we wouldn't have the problem we
> > have now with duplicate packages. We could have just pushed the selinux
> > update,
>
> After installing
Am 19.01.2014 20:48, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:03:14 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> this case is *very* special because you also need to realize *what*
>> update before breaks the scriptlets and that it break all scriptlets
>>
>> zero chance to figure that out for 99 o
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:03:14 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> this case is *very* special because you also need to realize *what*
> update before breaks the scriptlets and that it break all scriptlets
>
> zero chance to figure that out for 99 out of 100 users
>
> you only need to look at the amount
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 18:48:57 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
> Would a gui yumex\PK have burped at the update?
Yes, because selinux-policy* is a low-level package not specific to Yum.
The policy affects RPM and everything on top of it.
> Would the two testers have seen the script errors.
Only during
Am 19.01.2014 20:00, schrieb drago01:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
>> On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 19:15 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Since updates don't automatically fix the issue created by
https
Am 19.01.2014 19:57, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
>> [...] then bumped the release for all updates in the last few pushes,
>> and then rebuilt them.
>
> How do you know which packages a user has tried to install/update _after_
> updating to the bad policy package? It could be any package within the
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:32 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 19:15 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Since updates don't automatically fix the issue created by
>> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=10543
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 20:32:26 +0200, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> If scriptlet failures weren't fatal, we wouldn't have the problem we
> have now with duplicate packages. We could have just pushed the selinux
> update,
After installing the previous bad update that breaks scriptlets, how would
you act
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:15:35 +0100
drago01 wrote:
> So it happened .. how do we prevent it in the future? How did it pass
> testing?
Would a gui yumex\PK have burped at the update?
Would the two testers have seen the script errors.
___
Regards,
Frank
www.frankly3d.com
--
devel mailing list
d
Hi
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> How to prevent it from happening in the future? The update criteria for
> the so-called critical path packages could be made more strict. A minimum
> time for updates to stay in the updates-testing repo. A higher karma
> threshold pr
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:15:35 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>
>> So it happened .. how do we prevent it in the future? How did it pass
>> testing?
>
> A first +1 vote 22 hours _before_ it entered the updates-testing repo.
> A second +1 vote eight
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:15:35 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> So it happened .. how do we prevent it in the future? How did it pass testing?
A first +1 vote 22 hours _before_ it entered the updates-testing repo.
A second +1 vote eight hours _before_ it entered the updates-testing repo.
A third +1 vote and
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 19:15:35 +0100
drago01 wrote:
> So it happened .. how do we prevent it in the future? How did it pass
> testing?
I don't think it got manually tested.
___
Regards,
Frank
www.frankly3d.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org
On Sun, 2014-01-19 at 19:15 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Since updates don't automatically fix the issue created by
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054350 and users are required
> > to run a set of steps as a workaro
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> Since updates don't automatically fix the issue created by
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054350 and users are required
> to run a set of steps as a workaround, shouldn't this be announced via the
> fedora announce li
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:23:42 -0500
Scott Schmit wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:47:37PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > > I replaced the typo scriplet -> scriptlet in several places in
> > > that page, including the anchor link. Don'
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:23:42PM -0500, Scott Schmit wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:47:37PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > > I replaced the typo scriplet -> scriptlet in several places in that page,
> > > including the anchor link.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2014 12:23:42 -0500
Scott Schmit wrote:
> The text of the announcement made sense, but the link doesn't point to
> anything -- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F20_bugs exists, but
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F20_bugs#RPM_scriplets_fail_during_updates
> doesn't poi
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 11:47:37PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
> > I replaced the typo scriplet -> scriptlet in several places in that page,
> > including the anchor link. Don't know if that breaks any existing links.
>
> Thanks. I just se
Hi
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Andre Robatino wrote:
> I replaced the typo scriplet -> scriptlet in several places in that page,
> including the anchor link. Don't know if that breaks any existing links.
>
Thanks. I just sent out the announcement. Hopefully it makes sense.
Rahul
--
dev
Rahul Sundaram gmail.com> writes:
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F20_bugs#RPM_scriplets_fail_during_updates
>
> Please review it. Do you want me to send the announcement as well?
I replaced the typo scriplet -> scriptlet in several places in that page,
including the anchor link. Don't
On 1-18-14 18:39:55 David wrote:
> What I did. This worked for me.
>
> I set Selinux to permissive
>
> I rebooted (don't know if needed)
Not necessary.
> Yum clean all
>
> Yum update
>
> package-cleanup --dupes (to look for dupes)
>
> package-cleanup --cleandupes to remove the dupes
This wo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 1/18/2014 6:23 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:39:07 -0500 Rahul Sundaram
> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would think a detailed common bugs entry and then a shor
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 17:39:07 -0500
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I would think a detailed common bugs entry and then a short
> > announcement pointing to that would be good.
> >
> > Would someone be able to write up the comm
Hi
On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>
> I would think a detailed common bugs entry and then a short
> announcement pointing to that would be good.
>
> Would someone be able to write up the common bug entry?
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F20_bugs#RPM_scriplets_fai
On Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:47:38 -0500
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> Since updates don't automatically fix the issue created by
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054350 and users are
> required to run a set of steps as a workaround, shouldn't this be
> announced via the fedora announc
Hi
Since updates don't automatically fix the issue created by
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054350 and users are required
to run a set of steps as a workaround, shouldn't this be announced via the
fedora announce list and posted in the Fedora website prominently as well?
Rahul
--
59 matches
Mail list logo
