Am 2009-10-19 23:17, schrieb Matěj Cepl:
Dne 19.10.2009 21:05, mcloaked napsal(a):
I don't know if you saw the rather extended thread recently concerning the
release of thunderbird 3.0b4 but there were significant problems with GLODA.
Were there any other problems than OMG, indexing my 2.5GB
Hi.
I was wondering the other day how much space the file information (i.e. the
stuff that rpm -V checks against) takes up in an RPM file. And, going from
there, how much space we would waste over the years if we kept this
information for every RPM ever built by koji.
The idea would be to have a
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 08:45 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
I was wondering the other day how much space the file information (i.e. the
stuff that rpm -V checks against) takes up in an RPM file. And, going from
there, how much space we would waste over the years if we kept this
Le Mar 20 octobre 2009 10:20, Tomas Mraz a écrit :
What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a known
bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would contain
known vulnerabilities and so knowing that you have a file that was once
included in Fedora does
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:17 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a
known bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would
contain known vulnerabilities and so knowing that you have a file
that was once included in
Hi,
On 10/19/2009 09:20 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Hi All,
I thought with the mass rebuild the i586 rpms were suppose to be gone
but it seems the F-12 repository still has quite a few of them. Are
the old packages that should have been blocked, ones that's that
weren't rebuilt for some reason
Hi Orion,
- does local mock build fail too?
- could you upload the SRPM somewhere?
Regards,
Milos
On 10/19/2009 04:58 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
This has happened two for two now:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1754220name=build.log
ENTER do(['bash', '--login', '-c',
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:17 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for?
To expand on the motivation for this:
The idea is to have a list of known good file hashes to test your local
files against, if you have reason not to trust your local RPM database
(which may have been
Hi All,
As the Dell Latitude D630 is one of the more common devices that smolt
reports being used by Fedora I thought I'd mention my upgrade
experience and issues for F-12.
Probably the two usual things that people query are grahics and wifi.
The model I have has the Intel IWL-4965AGN device
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:17 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for?
To expand on the motivation for this:
The idea is to have a list of known good file hashes to test your local
files against, if you have reason not to trust
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
$SUBJECT is currently in the stable repositories, but no matching
version of thunderbird-lightning was pushed.
thunderbird 3.0-2.7.b5 is needed by package
thunderbird-lightning-1.0-0.7.20090715hg.fc11.x86_64
This looks like the problem is due to a
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:18:03 +0300 (EEST), Panu Matilainen wrote:
To make any use of that data you'll obviously need the file names
too, so:
[pmati...@localhost Packages]$ rpm -qap --qf [%{filedigests}
%{filenames}\n] *.rpm |wc
430716 804104 47467960
That has to be databased
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:18:03 +0300 (EEST), Panu Matilainen wrote:
To make any use of that data you'll obviously need the file names
too, so:
[pmati...@localhost Packages]$ rpm -qap --qf [%{filedigests} %{filenames}\n]
*.rpm |wc
430716
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 07:35:11AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
$SUBJECT is currently in the stable repositories, but no matching
version of thunderbird-lightning was pushed.
thunderbird 3.0-2.7.b5 is needed by package
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:00:50 -0400 (EDT), Seth Vidal wrote:
You could, of course, just have koji keep the pkgs and then you could
use the existing metadata to grab the header from the pkgs and access
the information that way.
That would be a solution, of course, but keeping the files
Fedora is a leading edge, free and open source operating system that
continues to deliver innovative features to many users, with a new
release every six months. We have reached the Fedora 12 Beta, the last
important development milestone of Fedora 12. Only critical bug fixes
will be pushed as
Peter Robinson wrote:
Hi All,
As the Dell Latitude D630 is one of the more common devices that smolt
reports being used by Fedora I thought I'd mention my upgrade
experience and issues for F-12.
Please do file bugs for any problems you encountered, they -should- get
more attention from the
Is there any process for handing over package ownership? I have a
package that I'm wanting to give to another maintainer. Can I simply
reassign ownership to him, or is there something else needed first?
Thanks.
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Virtual Machine
On 10/20/2009 03:50 AM, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
Hi Orion,
- does local mock build fail too?
- could you upload the SRPM somewhere?
Ah, I ended up with conflicting BuildArch and ExclusiveArch statements
when I removed gcj conditionals.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
I would like to understand why the file macros.cmake as distributed in
fedora-10 defines:
%_cmake_skip_rpath -DCMAKE_SKIP_RPATH:BOOL=ON
Because otherwise installed binaries would end up with rpaths, even for
standard library paths.
On 10/20/2009 03:48 AM, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
Hi,
On 10/19/2009 09:20 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Hi All,
I thought with the mass rebuild the i586 rpms were suppose to be gone
but it seems the F-12 repository still has quite a few of them. Are
the old packages that should have been blocked,
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Jeffrey Ollie j...@ocjtech.us wrote:
I'm trying to build the latest Asterisk sounds package, but I'm
getting the following error:
error: Recognition of file
Start End Name
Thu 15-Oct Tue 20-Oct Stage Sync Beta to Mirrors
Tue 20-Oct Tue 20-Oct Beta Release Public Availability
Tue 20-Oct Mon 02-Nov Beta Testing
Fri 23-Oct Fri 23-Oct Blocker Bug Day (F12Blocker) #1
Fri 30-Oct Fri 30-Oct Blocker Bug Day (F12Blocker) #2
Mon 02-Nov
Orion Poplawski (or...@cora.nwra.com) said:
I just rebuilt:
itcl-3.4-5.fc12 - no changes from original failed rebuild
irda-utils-0.9.18-10.fc12 - added a minor patch to fix install issue
xfconf-4.6.1-4.fc12 - added missing BRs
Does it make sense to tag them into F-12 at this point?
Am 2009-10-20 14:12, schrieb Ralf Ertzinger:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:00:50 -0400 (EDT), Seth Vidal wrote:
You could, of course, just have koji keep the pkgs and then you could
use the existing metadata to grab the header from the pkgs and access
the information that way.
That would be a
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:47:50 -0600
Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com wrote:
...snip...
I just rebuilt:
...snip...
xfconf-4.6.1-4.fc12 - added missing BRs
Wow. I didn't know this was still an issue. I thought I fixed this long
ago. ;(
Thanks very much for fixing it!
kevin
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:37:39 +0200, nodata wrote
It sounds like a solution looking for a problem to me.
Well, the problem is being able to determine whether the files on
your system have been compromised, which seems like a sensible idea
to me.
Here's a better idea:
* Host the config
Hi guys,
the review process for EMBOSS was recently completed. A gcc bug (fixed
but not pushed) prevents it from getting built for F-12 and rawhide, but
other than that package is fine.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that jemboss bundles a load of .jar files
and seems to use some com.sun.net
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 11:17 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
Hi All,
As the Dell Latitude D630 is one of the more common devices that smolt
reports being used by Fedora I thought I'd mention my upgrade
experience and issues for F-12.
Probably the two usual things that people query are grahics
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 10:45 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:17 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a
known bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would
contain known vulnerabilities and
Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
There might be some other very good reason for keeping those lines, but
I do not see it (Rex ? since you added the lines,
maybe you remember what was the motivation ?).
I'm convinced to revert, I'll run the change by my fellow cmake maintainers
(I think we have
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:23:45AM -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
Is there any process for handing over package ownership? I have a
package that I'm wanting to give to another maintainer. Can I simply
reassign ownership to him, or is there something else needed first?
Note, if you want to
Am 2009-10-20 22:26, schrieb Seth Vidal:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:15:46 -0400 (EDT), Seth Vidal wrote
Record original copies of the config files and tuck them away - heck
you could save off a copy of the pkg hdrs if you wanted to.
Hm. The
nodata wrote:
Am 2009-10-20 22:26, schrieb Seth Vidal:
[...]
in fact you could even be super-duper cool and check the config
files into some sort of scm so you could record state...
-sv
and in one swipe enterprise configuration file management becomes a
piece of cake.
bung in a file
This is just a reminder about the tagging policy for packages built for
Fedora 12 past the development freeze.
What Qualifies for Tagging?
===
* You must have tested the build yourself. Great shame to be bestowed
if you break things so close to the release! Great
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 08:32:56AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
Původní zpráva
Předmět: [opensuse-packaging] Junior Jobs
Datum: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:46:58 +0200
Od: Michal Hrusecky mhruse...@suse.cz
Komu: opensuse-packag...@opensuse.org
lately we formulated concept of
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:20:17AM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a known
bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would contain
known vulnerabilities and so knowing that you have a file that was once
included in
Hi,
What's with the extra rpmnew files on an upgrade?
Some examples:
# md5sum /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf.rpmnew /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf
7c8f8d809c5b618e1604207525161101 /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf.rpmnew
7c8f8d809c5b618e1604207525161101 /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf
# ls -la
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 17:27:45 -0400,
Warren Togami wtog...@redhat.com wrote:
This is just a reminder about the tagging policy for packages built
for Fedora 12 past the development freeze.
So is there some more example guidance with this?
For example I have a new release of the game
On 10/20/2009 05:54 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 17:27:45 -0400,
Warren Togamiwtog...@redhat.com wrote:
This is just a reminder about the tagging policy for packages built
for Fedora 12 past the development freeze.
So is there some more example guidance with this?
Am 2009-10-20 23:48, schrieb Till Maas:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:20:17AM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a known
bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would contain
known vulnerabilities and so knowing that you
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 23:49:28 +0200,
nodata l...@nodata.co.uk wrote:
Hi,
What's with the extra rpmnew files on an upgrade?
It could be the hash change, depending on what you upgrading from and to.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:00:23AM +0200, nodata wrote:
Am 2009-10-20 23:48, schrieb Till Maas:
Having a hash list of well known files might also help in forensics
analysis to find suspicious files. Also with determining the correct RPM
NVR one could use the repo metadata to check wether
Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2009, 17:27 -0400 schrieb Warren Togami:
Many Builds Not Tagged, but Probably Should Be
==
# koji list-tagged --latest dist-f12-updates-candidate
This command shows over 400 packages are built for F-12 but not tagged
for
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Ralf Ertzinger fed...@camperquake.de wrote:
Hi.
I was wondering the other day how much space the file information (i.e. the
stuff that rpm -V checks against) takes up in an RPM file. And, going from
there, how much space we would waste over the years if we
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 01:11 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
What really scares me is that there is a number of security updates in
bodhi that don't have a tag request in trac. Are maintainers that
careless? We don't want F12 released with 6 weeks old security bugs, so
it might be worth to
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 01:11:23AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2009, 17:27 -0400 schrieb Warren Togami:
Many Builds Not Tagged, but Probably Should Be
==
# koji list-tagged --latest dist-f12-updates-candidate
This command
Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2009, 20:01 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 01:11:23AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
What really scares me is that there is a number of security updates in
bodhi that don't have a tag request in trac. Are maintainers that
careless? We don't want F12
Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2009, 17:01 -0700 schrieb Jesse Keating:
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 01:11 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
What really scares me is that there is a number of security updates in
bodhi that don't have a tag request in trac. Are maintainers that
careless? We don't want F12
On 10/20/2009 07:36 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 16:33 -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
OTOH, people did put effort into filing bodhi tickets and writing update
notes there. Perhaps this means that everything with bodhi tickets is
already good enough for tagging. We should
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Steven James Drinnan ste...@scc.hkwrote:
Well any ideas, for me Package Kit would be the way to go. Then users
could add the packages or groups to the exclude list. Maybe an extra
password (optional) for parents / supervisors.
Or like was mentioned a way
sssd-0.6.1-2.fc12 skrooge-0.5.2-2.fc12 translate-toolkit-1.4.1-2.fc12
vhostmd-0.4-0.2.gitea2f772d.fc12 qtcurve-gtk2-0.69.0-1.fc12
qtcurve-kde4-0.69.0-1.fc12 gfs-ignacio-fonts-20090923-1.fc12
adf-tribun-fonts-1.13-1.fc12 gdl-0.9-0.7.rc3.fc12
Tagged these from the oldest bodhi requests. Need
On 09-10-20 17:49:28, nodata wrote:
Hi,
What's with the extra rpmnew files on an upgrade?
Some examples:
# md5sum /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf.rpmnew /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf
7c8f8d809c5b618e1604207525161101 /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf.rpmnew
7c8f8d809c5b618e1604207525161101
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:51:01AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Not likely. dahdi-linux support is pretty spotty. atrpms can go a long
time
without having a version for a specific version Fedora. For example there
is no rawhide version now and there was a long period without one for
A colleague of mine submitted a bug report regarding an infinite loop
triggered when calling `lsb_start_daemon` with the `-p` option[1]. This
bug has been around since at least Fedora 9 and is still present in the
beta for Fedora 12.
Considering the fact that `lsb_start_daemon` is supposed to be
55 matches
Mail list logo
