On 28 January 2014 06:48, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 11:52 +, Ian Malone wrote:
On 27 January 2014 05:36, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi,
Here is an interesting package icecat[1],
On 28 January 2014 07:05, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 22:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 11:52 +, Ian Malone wrote:
On 27 January 2014 05:36, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng
Hello all,
I haven't thought about possible replacement plans, in my opinion it's too
early to talk about that now.
As for the packaging process, the package requires some rework and
improvement - it's actually in the process.
It takes some time and efforts from a submitter (Antonio Trande),
On 27 January 2014 05:36, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi,
Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free
version firefox.
I'd argue it's *less* free since it seeks to restrict what you can do:
Finally, we need to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Icecat package review has NOT the goal to replace Firefox in Fedora.
I wish to offer the opportunity to everyone of try a browser like so
a GNU user would do.
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitterATfedoraproject.org
http://www.fedoraos.worpress.com
On 27.01.2014 05:08, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi,
Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free
version firefox.
Do we allow this in Fedora now?
Thanks.
[1]--https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493
http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sagitter/Icecat/
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:45:48 +0100
poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27.01.2014 05:08, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi,
Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free
version firefox.
Do we allow this in Fedora now?
Thanks.
On 27.01.2014 19:52, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
copr has no provision currently to sign packages.
I think it's on the todo list, but it will not be easy to implement in
a secure way.
Ouch!
poma
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sagitter/Icecat/builds/
Results:
http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/Icecat/
http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/Icecat/fedora-20-x86_64/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/27/2014 07:56 PM, poma wrote:
http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sagitter/Icecat/builds/
Results:
http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sagitter/Icecat/
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27.01.2014 19:52, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
copr has no provision currently to sign packages.
I think it's on the todo list, but it will not be easy to implement in
a secure way.
Ouch!
I'm skeptical about the whole
On 27.01.2014 20:17, Antonio Trande wrote:
On 01/27/2014 07:56 PM, poma wrote:
http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/sagitter/Icecat/builds/
…
Package URLs:
http://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/Icecat/icecat-24.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
Not Found
The requested URL /Icecat/icecat-24.0-1.fc20.src.rpm was
On 27.01.2014 20:28, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27.01.2014 19:52, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
copr has no provision currently to sign packages.
I think it's on the todo list, but it will not be easy to implement in
a secure
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:41:35 +0100
poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27.01.2014 20:28, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com
wrote:
...snip...
I'm skeptical about the whole package-signing thing.
skeptical in what way?
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 11:52 +, Ian Malone wrote:
On 27 January 2014 05:36, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi,
Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free
version firefox.
I'd argue it's *less* free
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 22:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 11:52 +, Ian Malone wrote:
On 27 January 2014 05:36, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi,
Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which
Hi,
Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free
version firefox.
Do we allow this in Fedora now?
Thanks.
[1]--https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493
--
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
Noob here.
http://cicku.me
--
devel mailing list
Il 27/01/2014 05:08, Christopher Meng ha scritto:
Hi,
Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free
version firefox.
Do we allow this in Fedora now?
Thanks.
[1]--https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493
--
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
Noob here.
: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
送信済み: 2014年1月27日, 月曜日 午後 1:26:42
件名: Re: icecat or/and firefox?
Il 27/01/2014 05:08, Christopher Meng ha scritto:
Hi,
Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free
version firefox.
Do we allow this in Fedora now?
Thanks.
[1]--https
Hi
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:08 PM, Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free
version firefox.
Do we allow this in Fedora now?
Thanks.
[1]--https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1048493
--
I would say we
On 01/27/2014 05:08 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi,
Here is an interesting package icecat[1], which is a more free
version firefox.
Do we allow this in Fedora now?
My view: It's a package like any arbitrary other. So, if it complies
to the rules applied elsewhere, I don't see much reasons
21 matches
Mail list logo