On Thursday 23 September 2010 20:02:20 Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 09/20/2010 11:13 AM, Ralf Haferkamp wrote:
[..]
Nice, that makes the code a little cleaner, thanks. New patches
attached.
Patch 0001: Ack. This looks fine to me.
Patch 0002: Nack.
There are still a few style issues.
Hi,
some of the compiler flags used to build Fedora packages, e.g.
'-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2' produces some extra warnings which were not
addressed so far. Except the ones for krb5_common.c in 0001 they are
cosmetics but might still irritate some people or tools.
bye,
Sumit
From
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/24/2010 11:32 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
Hi,
some of the compiler flags used to build Fedora packages, e.g.
'-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2' produces some extra warnings which were not
addressed so far. Except the ones for krb5_common.c in 0001 they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/24/2010 05:32 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
Hi,
some of the compiler flags used to build Fedora packages, e.g.
'-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2' produces some extra warnings which were not
addressed so far. Except the ones for krb5_common.c in 0001 they
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 07:20:02AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/24/2010 05:32 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
Hi,
some of the compiler flags used to build Fedora packages, e.g.
'-Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2' produces some extra warnings which
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/24/2010 08:03 AM, Sumit Bose wrote:
On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 07:20:02AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
If you're going to address the warning in write_krb5info_file(), would
you mind solving ALL of https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/ticket/631 in
As we move to evolve the GNOME infrastructure, it has came to my attention that:
1.) Our ldap services sometimes go haywire and services we provide
go with it.
2.) Our ldap master, label.gnome.org, does not have an ldap client
configured due to the chicken/egg problem.
3.) The ldap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/24/2010 11:27 AM, Ralf Haferkamp wrote:
I agree that the parallel approach is a bit more complex. But it was
significantly faster in the tests I did compared to serially processing
the group members. Otherwise I wouldn't have done that
Am Freitag 24 September 2010, 16:29:33 schrieb Jakub Hrozek:
On 09/24/2010 11:27 AM, Ralf Haferkamp wrote:
I agree that the parallel approach is a bit more complex. But it was
significantly faster in the tests I did compared to serially
processing the group members. Otherwise I wouldn't
