On Wed, 30 Jul 2014, Greg Bailey wrote:
> I've filed a formal review request at:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1124994
a current rpmlint run ...
Please amend to remove the 'dl' in the indicate places
[herrold@centos-6 dl]$ rpmlint dl-0.12-1.orc6.src.rpm
dl.src: W: summary-no
On 07/30/2014 12:45 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014, R P Herrold wrote:
following on myself ...
I also see a packaging at:
[herrold@centos-6 6]$ rpm -qip
/var/ftp/pub/nfs/mirror/firewall-services/centos/6/dl-0.11-1.el6.fws.src.rpm
I've filed a formal review request at:
https://b
Le Mercredi 30 Juillet 2014 21:45 CEST, R P Herrold a
écrit:
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2014, R P Herrold wrote:
>
> following on myself ...
>
> I also see a packaging at:
Yep, I'm the maintainer of this one. At that time, I couldn't find any packaged
version, so I did my own (I deploy only RPM based
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014, Greg Bailey wrote:
> I've checked for existing submissions and it doesn't appear that anyone else
> has started this effort yet? I'd like to confirm that's the case before going
> too much further.
we packaged it locally a while back, but 'punted' on writing
the database se
On Wed, 30 Jul 2014, R P Herrold wrote:
following on myself ...
I also see a packaging at:
[herrold@centos-6 6]$ rpm -qip
/var/ftp/pub/nfs/mirror/firewall-services/centos/6/dl-0.11-1.el6.fws.src.rpm
warning:
/var/ftp/pub/nfs/mirror/firewa
Hi Yuri (and others),
I'm putting the finishing touches on RPM ingredients to submit dl as a
package for Fedora and Fedora EPEL (for RHEL, CentOS, etc.).
I maintain a few other packages in Fedora so hopefully I've covered most
of the "gotchas". :)
I've checked for existing submissions and
On 07/30/2014 12:40 PM, Edi Füllemann wrote:
>> I got the last translation today and I was planning to make a release,
>> so it would be nice to confirm that 0.13 is fine.
>
> It seems to be fine. See my previous post.
Herrlich!
I'll release 0.13 shortly.
> I got the last translation today and I was planning to make a release,
> so it would be nice to confirm that 0.13 is fine.
It seems to be fine. See my previous post.
> Did you change or set the value of $authRealm in your configuration file
> maybe?
>
Good point! The $authRealm line in my config.php was uncommented. I didn't
remember playing around with this value.
Thanks a lot.
On 07/30/2014 09:58 AM, Yuri D'Elia wrote:
> Did you change or set the value of $authRealm in your configuration file
> maybe?
>
> I just tried this on 0.12 but couldn't reproduce it somehow.
I'd also like to mention that if you could try this on the 0.13 RC1 it
would be great:
http://www.thre
On 07/30/2014 09:25 AM, Edi Füllemann wrote:
> I updated from 0.10 to 0.12 and realized that any username / password is
> accepted by the web frontend. The installation is configured to use internal
> authentication. First I suspected the upgrade process somehow went wrong and
> tried a fresh insta
Hello,
I updated from 0.10 to 0.12 and realized that any username / password is
accepted by the web frontend. The installation is configured to use internal
authentication. First I suspected the upgrade process somehow went wrong and
tried a fresh install. But the problem persisted. When I login w
12 matches
Mail list logo
