On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 05:01:24PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Secondly, in my opinion, it is not okay that one person opens multiple
> Fedora accounts.
> [...]
> In case there are no rules yet, it's about time to create some.
I agree with Michael about 10^10%.
FAS accounts should be only on
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:22:02AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:06:25 +0200
> Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It's just something to think about whether this is wanted at all -
> > with the current Fedora release cycles it doesn
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 10:54:53AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:49:13 +0200
> Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > OK, we got that far, but how will you support a new arch in the tree?
>
> Usually we rebuild the package to pick up the ar
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 10:39:08AM -0400, Mike Bonnet wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 15:00 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 07:51:00AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > > Once upon a time Monday 06 August 2007, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > > On
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 07:51:00AM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Once upon a time Monday 06 August 2007, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:18:36 +0200
> >
> > Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Typo?
> >
> > Not exactly. Ex
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 08:37:45AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:35:33 +0200
> Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > CVS tag you asked for lives
> > ^
> > > > Typo?
> > >
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 08:25:20AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:18:36 +0200
> Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > You previously tagged this source as 1.9.3-34 when on the devel/
> > branch, presumably before the branching happened for
On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 08:06:20AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 08:03:29 -0400
> Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This task is the one you're probably concerned with:
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=89866&name=srpm.log
> >
> > I'm not entire
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=250819#c1
mediawiki resists my attempts to build it in various ways. The current
one is that building (or trying to build) under F7 automatically
elevates the package to mediawiki-1.9.3-34.fc8, e.g. an F8
package. What is wrong?
--
Axel.Thimm a
Hi,
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 07:47:20PM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> >How can thetango know that perl-Foo will be providing perl(Bar) which
> >perl-Baz BuildRequires?
>
> Good question, and I knew someone was going to ask how I got around that
> particular issue. perl-* was a real pain to dea
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:16:02AM -0400, Prarit Bhargava wrote:
> The problems associated with bootstrapping an OS on a new architecture have
> been around for a long time. The issues with doing so are numerous -- how
> to build, what order should the packages in the OS be built in, how to
> iden
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 10:14:05AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Friday 22 June 2007 10:14:36 Axel Thimm wrote:
> > I know that trac upstream doesn't time out login sessions, at least
> > not by default, as I've set up quite a lot of trac instances by
> > now. And
On Fri, Jun 22, 2007 at 09:47:02AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Friday 22 June 2007 03:11:06 Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Don't ask me to file that somewhere that will time out again ...
>
> You mean like Trac's upstream? (:
I know that trac upstream doesn't time ou
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 08:33:16PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thursday 21 June 2007 18:21:58 Axel Thimm wrote:
> > And trac munges the back operation in the browser.
> >
> > Looks like the login timeouts are insanely short and trac has no
> > recovery mechanism f
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 04:23:50PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thursday 21 June 2007 16:17:09 Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I created a new update which was a security relevant update and was
> > marked as such. bodhi offered me the possibility to push into tes
Hi,
I created a new update which was a security relevant update and was
marked as such. bodhi offered me the possibility to push into testing
or stable. I think the push into stable was offered only because it
was maerked a security sensitive, so updates-testing could be
shortcutted. I also know t
Hi,
some packages are best build for all releases once only like for
example firmware, game data and other packages that you know will not
change from release to release.
Currently such operations are made manually and one needs to find the
right person to talk to. I think it would be more consis
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 07:50:15AM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> I'd like to make a feature request for mock: the ability for it to
> determine a job has taken too long and kill it. mock --timeout N (with N
> in minutes) is the UI I'm picturing.
>
>
> I've been doing these mass rebuilds for a whil
On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 06:15:17PM -0500, Mike McLean wrote:
> >I understand the mechanism, but what if a security issue elsewhere in
> >mock allows one to inject code and elevate privildeges? Until now any
> >rogue mock takeover would only be able to do what the confined C
> >helper program would
On Tue, Jan 09, 2007 at 01:26:39PM +0100, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
> Is it just me, or the "make tag" command behaved strangely in this case ?
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] devel]$ make tag
> cvs tag -c mantis-1_0_6-2_fc7
> ERROR: Tag mantis-1_0_6-2_fc7 has been already created.
> The following tags have
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 02:42:51PM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Friday 05 January 2007 12:46, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > The question is whether that is technically possible - for what I use
> > at ATrpms, an ancient bunch of shell scripts being the equivalent of
> > mock, I us
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 01:04:20PM -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:52:04AM -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
> >> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >>> In a nutshell: you now carry much more unlimited root power throughout
> >
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 10:52:04AM -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > In a nutshell: you now carry much more unlimited root power throughout
> > all of mock's invocation cycle in comparison to a confined set of
> > priviledges that the helper was giving
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 03:11:23PM -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 01:13:25PM -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
> >> One of the first thing that the __init__() method for class Root does in
> >> mock.py is to call self.drop() t
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 01:13:25PM -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 10:37:03AM -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
> >> New mock will no longer use mock-helper. When it needs to do something
> >> that requires root privileges, it
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 10:37:03AM -0600, Clark Williams wrote:
> New mock will no longer use mock-helper. When it needs to do something
> that requires root privileges, it will elevate it's privilege level to
> root (using os.setreuid()), execute the command and then drop privileges
> back to the
26 matches
Mail list logo
