The Original post was simply letting everyone know that upstream
changed their license. If you have an issue with that, they would be
the ones to address it, not anyone here in Fedora land.
Technically, if upstream bungled its relicencing, Fedora has no grounds to
redistribute under the new
On 07/06/2012 09:55 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Package raptor (orphan)
I have taken raptor
regards
Jaroslav
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
For the folk here that don't follow fd. The author is a well know and
respected security researcher.
Just for info.
Best regards
-- Forwarded message --
From: Georgi Guninski gunin...@guninski.com
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 10:13:58 +0300
Subject: [Full-disclosure] The right to read,
On 07/12/2012 08:41 AM, yersinia wrote:
For the folk here that don't follow fd. The author is a well know and
respected security researcher.
There's a much more sane independent analysis of Fedora's position at
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/secure-boot-vs-restricted-boot/whitepaper-web
Andrew.
On Wed, 11 Jul 2012 15:31:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Look at it this way: it's the *project* which is in the exposed,
dangerous position, not the contributors. You're arguing it almost the
opposite way.
That must be a misunderstanding. Perhaps as a result of reading too quickly.
I've
On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 08:34:46 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
The Original post was simply letting everyone know that upstream
changed their license. If you have an issue with that, they would be
the ones to address it, not anyone here in Fedora land.
Technically, if upstream bungled its
2012/7/11 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de:
On 07/11/2012 02:33 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
@devel
May someone take care of this rename and review so that it happens
before f18 branching ?
Regards,
done
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839382
Regarding this issue, I
- Original Message -
2012/7/11 Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de:
On 07/11/2012 02:33 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
@devel
May someone take care of this rename and review so that it happens
before f18 branching ?
Regards,
done
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 04:38:19PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Hey, folks.
So I've had a feeling lately that the amount of karma being filed on
updates has dropped - especially since proventesters was axed - but I
don't have hard numbers. I've put it on my todo list to check into this
and
Hi All,
I'm going on vacation for a week starting tomorrow, and I will *not*
be reading email, etc. during that time.
Regards,
Hans
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Hi,
One of the packages I maintain is shipped with a version of 1.4.x.
Upstream has a 1.3.x branch. The 1.3 branch is considered stable by
upstream, but my experience was that 1.4.x was actually more stable.
Additionally, migration from 1.3 to 1.4 was tedious and involved
manually changing
Once upon a time, Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com said:
So perhaps the best way would be to never allow the upgrade from 1.3.x
to 1.4.x. Is there any kind of support for this? Looking at the
triggers, and the fact that the bad packages are already installed on
those systems, I don't think any
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
On 07/12/2012 11:01 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
I would like to prevent this from happening. But since this only happens
when upgrading from a third-party 1.3 (which we don't ship) to a 1.4,
even if I used triggers to work around the config file issue, the users
would end up with a broken
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary|Determine if words are |Review Request:
On 07/12/2012 11:20 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 07/12/2012 11:01 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
I would like to prevent this from happening. But since this only happens
when upgrading from a third-party 1.3 (which we don't ship) to a 1.4,
even if I used triggers to work around the config file issue,
On 07/12/2012 11:20 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 07/12/2012 11:01 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
I would like to prevent this from happening. But since this only happens
when upgrading from a third-party 1.3 (which we don't ship) to a 1.4,
even if I used triggers to work around the config file issue,
On 07/12/2012 11:38 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
So, this makes me wonder. Is there a good reason rpm doesn't check the new
package and the old package for having the same file during an upgrade, and
simply use the flags on the incoming package if they're both present?
What if the incoming package
Hi,
In an ideal world, when pm is asked to update from a package with no
protections, to a package which has files marked as config or
config(noreplace), should not it apply the config attributes to the
package beeing replaced?
Or are there cases where it is not desirable?
--
Nicolas Mailhot
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Paul Wouters pwout...@redhat.com wrote:
Therefore neither Fedora nor EPEL
ever shipped 1.3.x, and we started out with 1.4.x.
snip
So perhaps the best way would be to never allow the upgrade from 1.3.x
to 1.4.x. Is there any kind of support for this?
I don't
Paul Wouters wrote:
On 07/12/2012 11:38 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
So, this makes me wonder. Is there a good reason rpm doesn't check the
new package and the old package for having the same file during an
upgrade, and simply use the flags on the incoming package if they're
both present?
On 07/12/2012 11:41 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On 07/12/2012 11:38 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
So, this makes me wonder. Is there a good reason rpm doesn't check the new
package and the old package for having the same file during an upgrade, and
simply use the flags on the incoming package if
On 07/12/2012 11:39 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On 07/12/2012 11:20 AM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 07/12/2012 11:01 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
I would like to prevent this from happening. But since this only happens
when upgrading from a third-party 1.3 (which we don't ship) to a 1.4,
even if I used
On 07/12/2012 12:13 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 07/12/2012 11:41 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On 07/12/2012 11:38 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
So, this makes me wonder. Is there a good reason rpm doesn't check the new
package and the old package for having the same file during an upgrade, and
simply use
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/06/12 19:42, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On 06/01/2012 12:21 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I think most of the noise in this flame thread is due to a
misunderstanding how modern memory management works and the
assumption that having an
On 2012-07-12 18:01, Paul Wouters wrote:
Unfortunately, the spec file from upstream did not use
%config(noreplace). Someone enabled epel and ran yum update and the
EPEL package was seen as an upgrade, and the noreplae bug in their
package caused our package to blow away their configuration.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 6:43 PM, David Sommerseth dav...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/06/12 19:42, Brian Wheeler wrote:
On 06/01/2012 12:21 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
I think most of the noise in this flame thread is due to a
misunderstanding
Le 13/07/2012 07:22, Jorge Gallegos a écrit :
Hello everyone,
Am I reading this right? the main PEAR package is not in any EPEL
version:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/php-pear
However some PEAR libraries *are* in EPEL, which confuses me a
little bit. How come some
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-SDL:
1a5d7849cbdfde4982b28458e38ab172 SDL-2.540.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 23d47d7d4735917c7decdd4ef2dea17d9c28ce89
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Jul 12 09:41:01 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-Locale-SubCountry.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Locale-SubCountry.spec
commit 1a9b1750feb4fd7e6103499d11e72c298cc7fb23
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Jul 12 09:41:01 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-Language-Prolog-Yaswi.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Language-Prolog-Yaswi.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728524
Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
Summary of changes:
bfce81e... Update to 1.3097
b586aaf... Update to 1.3097
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel
commit bfce81e464ae6e2cf377d0a78d9af2572f4a3dc6
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Mon Jul 9 12:41:10 2012 +0200
Update to 1.3097
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Dancer.spec |7 +--
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
commit b586aaf496e75bfb00d1b5226d3b25a700ad2eaa
Merge: bfce81e d0fb8ec
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Jul 12 10:44:26 2012 +0200
Update to 1.3097
perl-Dancer.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --cc perl-Dancer.spec
index
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-File-MMagic:
64221fdfe541505b39ea56d0b09ef8a6 File-MMagic-1.29.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838485
Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In
commit 2f9bc4f3f195c653845bda18de037975c7039368
Author: Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org
Date: Thu Jul 12 10:00:16 2012 +0100
Update to 1.29
- New upstream release 1.29
- MMagic.pm (checktype_contents): fix infinite loop bug (CPAN RT#77836)
- BR: perl(base) and
The lightweight tag 'perl-File-MMagic-1.29-1.fc18' was created pointing to:
2f9bc4f... Update to 1.29
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746941
Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org
changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746941
--- Comment #66 from Upstream Release Monitoring
upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org ---
Latest upstream release: 3.06
Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 3.0
URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Mojolicious/
Please consult the package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839600
Bug ID: 839600
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
External Bug URL: http://rt.cpan.org/Public/
URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42
commit f8547ff387cc6b04828f77fac1e712ee1e5fa4cd
Author: Petr Šabata con...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Jul 12 14:37:49 2012 +0200
Update to 2.540
Mostly rewritten. Thanks to Jitka Plesníková.
.gitignore|1 +
perl-SDL.spec | 103
commit 704c44fcec928f1e24f19e2e4eda37111853cb9d
Author: Petr Šabata con...@redhat.com
Date: Thu Jul 12 14:40:29 2012 +0200
Minor cleanup
Drop command macros and remove an useless perl dependency.
perl-SDL.spec |7 ++-
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839612
Bug ID: 839612
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42
36283
Version: rawhide
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=728524
Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In
perl-Unix-Statgrab has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-Unix-Statgrab-0.04-13.fc17.x86_64 requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
On i386:
perl-Unix-Statgrab-0.04-13.fc17.i686 requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
perl-Class-InsideOut has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-Class-InsideOut-1.10-6.fc17.noarch requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
On i386:
perl-Class-InsideOut-1.10-6.fc17.noarch requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
Please resolve this as soon as
perl-PDL has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-PDL-2.4.10-1.fc17.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
On i386:
perl-PDL-2.4.10-1.fc17.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
perl-eperl has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-eperl-2.2.14-19.fc17.x86_64 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
On i386:
perl-eperl-2.2.14-19.fc17.i686 requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora Extras Perl
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=808855
Zbysek MRAZ zm...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||839640
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839651
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||828229
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839651
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839651
Bug ID: 839651
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
URL: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=42
36247
Version: rawhide
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
--
You are
The perl maintainers are proud to announce perl 5.16.0 availability in
Fedora 18.
We have rebuilt 2102 packages in 37 days of total 2116 packages. That means we
failed to rebuild 14 packages only. This is amazing 99.34 %. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/perl5.16 for more details.
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for bucardo:
f4bb71c40438fadbdfbaab95f66f35f9 Bucardo-4.5.0.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 01a112b5cdaf5011d4ad0bf802eb2a65054b9e0b
Author: Itamar Reis Peixoto ita...@ispbrasil.com.br
Date: Thu Jul 12 14:08:34 2012 -0300
- new version 4.5.0
.gitignore |1 +
Bucardo-4.4.8.tar.gz.asc |6 --
Bucardo-4.5.0.tar.gz.asc |6 ++
bucardo.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742
--- Comment #1 from Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu ---
Oops, cut and pasted URLs from another request, here are the correct ones.
Spec URL: http://wfp.fedorapeople.org/perl-Rose-Object.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||839744
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
Bug ID: 839744
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
Clone Of: 839742
Version: rawhide
Depends On: 839742
Priority: unspecified
CC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839706
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||839751
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||839751
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||839751
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839751
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839701
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||839751
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839744
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||839754
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839742
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||839754
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839751
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||839754
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839754
Bill Pemberton wf...@virginia.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839001
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839815
Bug ID: 839815
QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
External Bug URL: http://rt.cpan.org/Public/
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC:
75 matches
Mail list logo
