Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

On 2010/11/09 07:39 (GMT+0100) David Tardon composed: > Btw, maybe you should look at the proverb in your signature and try to > apply it to yourself. Because in this thread you have neither shown > understanding nor used pleasant words. The words I used are not inherently unpleasant, only unplea

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 09:30:54PM -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > On 2010/11/08 18:06 (GMT-0800) Adam Williamson composed: > > > I don't see why this is a huge deal. There's a bug in Bugzilla that it > > doesn't merge CC lists when you dupe bugs, yeah. Aside from that? What's > > the huge problem wit

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

Hello, On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 21:30 -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > Like I said, let the people who actually fix bugs both find them and > file > them. You need to rethink this. Maintainers(ones who actually fix the bugs) already have enough work on their hands. Adding "look, manage multiple copies

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 21:30 -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > On 2010/11/08 18:06 (GMT-0800) Adam Williamson composed: > > > I don't see why this is a huge deal. There's a bug in Bugzilla that it > > doesn't merge CC lists when you dupe bugs, yeah. Aside from that? What's > > the huge problem with dupin

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

On 2010/11/08 18:06 (GMT-0800) Adam Williamson composed: > I don't see why this is a huge deal. There's a bug in Bugzilla that it > doesn't merge CC lists when you dupe bugs, yeah. Aside from that? What's > the huge problem with duping an older bug to a newer one? Like I said, let the people who

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 19:51 -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > If the policy can't be clear that _reasonable_ justification is prerequisite > to duping an older bug to a newer, and some semblance of enforcement applied, > then I don't need to file any more bugs, or test any further. I don't see why >

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

On 2010/11/08 18:01 (GMT-0500) Adam Williamson composed: > The duping was done by Lubomir, as he was providing a patch to fix the > problem (which is, lest we forget, what we all wanted in the first > place). He explained his reasoning right in the comment. I don't know > why you think it's a grea

Re: Orphaning a few packages

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 11:16:18AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > bootchart Adam, I took this package ownership. best regards -- Rafael Aquini -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[perl-Net-Patricia] Maintenance version update.

commit 2075f03bc12a7e1a7520f99ceba32741746eff77 Author: Philip Prindeville Date: Mon Nov 8 16:20:27 2010 -0700 Maintenance version update. .gitignore |1 + perl-Net-Patricia.spec | 10 +++--- sources|2 +- 3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 delet

Re: [Review swap] Reviewer needed for emacs-auto-complete

On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 22:03:25 +0530, Arun SAG wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim < > sali...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > >> >> >Would anyone want to swap one of their review tickets for this? >> >> > I would like to review the package. Here is mine > https:

Re: rawhide report: 20101108 changes

On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 22:21 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 20:19:17 +, Paul wrote: > > > > deja-dup-15.3-2.fc14.x86_64 requires libnotify.so.1() > > > > Lots seem broken with libnotify.so.1 - any chance of pushing rebuilds? > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail

Re: Multilib issue with hard-coded paths in mash script

Hi, On 11/08/2010 11:15 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: >> 1. Specifically with respect to the problem with gdk-pixbuf: Should the >> gdk-pixbuf loaders be multilib or not? If yes, the mash script must be >> adjusted. > > The loaders are shared objects, and the 64-bit modules won't help you on > 32-b

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 19:00 -0500, Felix Miata wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623742 was duped to newer bug > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624297 > > The older: > > 1-began life with equivalent summary: "system-config-display fails " > > 2-contains same comm

Re: Ubuntu moving towards Wayland

On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 16:41 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Really, I have no > problem using my keyboard, Given your location and native language, I suspect your keyboard layout is en_US, in which case this isn't much of a surprise - it's one of the simplest cases (it requires one of the fewe

File Net-Patricia-1.18_80.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by philipp

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Net-Patricia: c88ad7b5da63e34b58c07bece1089ac8 Net-Patricia-1.18_80.tar.gz -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/

Re: Multilib issue with hard-coded paths in mash script

On Sun, 2010-11-07 at 00:43 +0100, Christian Krause wrote: > Hi, > The whole issue raises now some questions: > > 1. Specifically with respect to the problem with gdk-pixbuf: Should the > gdk-pixbuf loaders be multilib or not? If yes, the mash script must be > adjusted. > > 2. Should the mash sc

Re: rawhide report: 20101108 changes

On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 20:19:17 +, Paul wrote: > > deja-dup-15.3-2.fc14.x86_64 requires libnotify.so.1() > > Lots seem broken with libnotify.so.1 - any chance of pushing rebuilds? http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-November/144914.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fed

Re: rawhide report: 20101108 changes

Hi, > db4o-7.4-2.fc13.x86_64 requires mono(Mono.GetOptions) = 0:2.0.0.0 Problem here is that db4o now uses a newer version of mono-cecil and mono-cecil-flowanalysis. The current fedora version flowanalysis is something like 0.6 whereas head it 0.9. However, it's not as simple as building 0

Re: Orphaning a few packages

> powertop I took powertop, thanks Jaroslav -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 04:22:29PM +0200, Alexander Kurtakov wrote: > We can argue about this a lot (e.e. submitter can reopen bug whenever he > finds > the time to verify the bug). The problem is, there is no proper way to track whether a bug has been verified, because the result may also b

Re: Orphaning yakuake

Am 08.11.10 18:22, schrieb Johan Cwiklinski: > Hello, > > I've just orphaned yakuake on all branches ; I do not longer use it. I will take it. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: What are differences between real and rpmbuild's environment?

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 03:49:28PM +0100, Michal Hlavinka wrote: > I'm trying to find out what are differences between environment for > local rpm build and usual user's environment. I've added regression > tests to %check section of ksh spec file. These tests never fails > when executed in user's

Orphaning yakuake

Hello, I've just orphaned yakuake on all branches ; I do not longer use it. Regards, Johan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 11:58 +0300, Peter Lemenkov wrote: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523634 Added comments with the *latest* example. The bug last had a reply from the maintainer in 2009. Somehow, he called it a "feature request" rather than a bug[1]. *shrug* [1] https://bug

Re: Orphaning a few packages

On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Adam Jackson wrote: > bing > wdfs Hi Adam, I just took ownership of bing and wdfs. Thanks! -- Jean-Francois Saucier (djf_jeff) GPG key : 0xA9E6E953 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [Review swap] Reviewer needed for emacs-auto-complete

Hi, On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim < sali...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > >Would anyone want to swap one of their review tickets for this? > > I would like to review the package. Here is mine https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632858 -- Arun S.A.G http://zer0c

Orphaning a few packages

I've got some stuff that I can't really give proper attention to, and I'd rather not even get the bugmail. I just packaged them because I wanted to consume them, not because I wanted to own them. So, free to a good home: bing bootchart powertop wdfs Already orphaned in pkgdb for rawhide, first

[Review swap] Reviewer needed for emacs-auto-complete

Dear fellow packagers, I just created a package for auto-complete, an intelligent auto- completion extension for Emacs. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=650992 See screenshots on the project page: http://cx4a.org/software/auto-complete/ Would anyone want to swap one of their review

Re: What are differences between real and rpmbuild's environment?

Michal Hlavinka wrote: > I'm trying to find out what are differences between environment for local > rpm build and usual user's environment. You mean the difference between rpmbuild and... a manual "./configure; make"? For starters, see rpm's output from rpm --eval "%{configure}" which sets v

What are differences between real and rpmbuild's environment?

Hi, I'm trying to find out what are differences between environment for local rpm build and usual user's environment. I've added regression tests to %check section of ksh spec file. These tests never fails when executed in user's environment, but some of them always fail when executed as part o

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On 11/08/2010 01:34 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: > On 11/06/2010 02:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: >>> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote: >>> ABRT >>> It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are worthless

Re: Fedora - Cold Boot Attack

On Sun, Nov 7, 2010 at 1:57 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Ok there are several different "cold boot attacks". The one  I think > you are talking about is the removing memory from the system and > reading its contents with a special board. The kernel does not [snip] Not even with a special boa

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On 11/06/2010 02:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote: >> >>> ABRT >> >>> It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are >>> worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports >> >> Parts

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

2010/11/6 Till Maas > On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 12:23:00PM +0200, Alexander Kurtakov wrote: > > > Why does everyone want to put more and more burden on maintainers and > arguing > > about small things that users should do? > > How can you expect a maintainer to fix/respond to hundreds of bugs and >

Re: Fedora - Cold Boot Attack

On 2010-11-08, Petr Pisar wrote: > One of the problem is where to store the key. I found a thesis > > right now which describes working implementation using SSE registers as > a permanent (untill power cycle) stor

Re: Fedora - Cold Boot Attack

On 2010-11-06, Vaclav Mocek wrote: > > I work like an Embedded SW/HW Developer and my experience is that data > could remain in the dynamic memory for quite long time, even in the room > temperature. I have used it successfully for debugging, when a booting > routine after the cold reset copies

Re: Fedora - Cold Boot Attack

On 2010-11-06, Vaclav Mocek wrote: > > It would be usefull to overwrite some parts of memory (keys etc.), > before the computer is switched off. So, my question is: Is there > already implemented and used some kind of protection? > There was a patch for Linux to scramble memory just before halt.

rawhide report: 20101108 changes

Compose started at Mon Nov 8 08:15:29 UTC 2010 Broken deps for x86_64 -- abrt-gui-1.1.13-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libnotify.so.1()(64bit) apcupsd-3.14.8-3.fc15.x86_64 requires libnetsnmp.so.20()(64bit) balsa-2.4.7-2.fc1

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

2010/11/8 Peter Lemenkov : > 2010/11/8 Felix Miata : >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623742 was duped to newer bug >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624297 >> >> The older: > > [sorry, skipped] > >> 4-has 48 CCs > > This is a known issue in  (at least in RedHat's) bugzil

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

2010/11/8 Felix Miata : > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=623742 was duped to newer bug > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624297 > > The older: [sorry, skipped] > 4-has 48 CCs This is a known issue in (at least in RedHat's) bugzilla. If you close bug "A" as duplicate of

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

On Sun, 07 Nov 2010 19:07:08 -0500, Digimer wrote: > Try popping by IRC and asking why a particular bug hasn't been acted on. Does that scale? > If it's a lack of time, then there you go. I wouldn't expect somebody to lurk on IRC then and visit a ticket just because someone else makes some nois