On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> yersinia wrote:
> > In @rpm5.org, yes.
>
> rpm5.org is not the upstream for Fedora's RPM.
>
Sure, but it is only for info. Anyway it is only for MANDRIVA vendor in
configure. Exists so many rpm fork in place in the world.
Regards
--
fedora-
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> mock -r fedora-devel-x86_64 --shell
> INFO: mock.py version 0.9.14 starting...
> State Changed: init plugins
> State Changed: start
> State Changed: lock buildroot
> mock-chroot> rpm -q igraph
> rpmdb: Program version 4.7 doesn't match enviro
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On 06/15/2009 07:19 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
>
> I've been thinking about proposing a Guideline that says
> "header files should not be placed in noarch packages. Header files can
> contain architecture specific bits. We currently do not
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
> I am curious as to this answer as well because prelink has been
> something that actually hurt my netbook in performance so I nuked it.
>
There are also other two big problem, imho, now, with prelink support:
1 - it render impossibile to do
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu July 9 2009, yersinia wrote:
>
> > But something one have to pay a security prize on not disabling it : it
> > render impossible to have a
> > centralizzated security integrity management (e.g. rfc.sf.net for
> example)
> > or one have to
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu July 9 2009, yersinia wrote:
>
> > But something one have to pay a security prize on not disabling it : it
> > render impossible to have a
> > centralizzated security integrity management (e.g. rfc.sf.net for
> example)
> > or one have to
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Jan Kratochvil
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> filed as:
>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523698
>
> how to possibly fix the problem by a backport from rpm5.org as suggested
by
> Jeff Johnson.
>
For rpm 4.4 the backport was already filled but reject.
https://
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Lorenzo Villani
wrote:
> On 09/20/2009 06:28 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
>
>>
>> Not at all. These days the only need for xinetd is in memory constrained
>> systems. For mainline x86_64 bought with typically 4Gb of main memory,
>> xinetd
>> is a thing of the past. That'
