Jef Spaleta wrote:
> I fully admit that this case is meant to be indicative of a class of
> transactions and not a smoking gun. I was reaching for a simple to
> understand virtual provides scenario, in the same vein as the test cases
> that zif's compile time make check does already. I believe it
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> If it is broken.. why not retire it now so that people don't download
> it, find it broken and then find out when no bugzilla reports are
> fixed it was dead?
Packages can only be retired from upcoming releases (i.e. currently Fedora
16 and newer, as he said), not fr
Peter Jones wrote:
> You're basically arguing that we should never remove any software from
> Fedora in case it's used in a virtual machine hosted on a Fedora machine.
>
> This is not a workable scenario.
Why, if the virtualization folks are willing to pick up maintainership? You
won't have to m
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 22:29 +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:27:41AM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > right. the big problem is not working around a broken network or a network
> > > with an attacker. The problem is false positives due to the pletora of
> > > hotspot mangling
On 09/22/2011 04:31 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote:
> On 09/22/2011 09:09 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
>> Grubby will continue to support the grub 1 style config file.
>
> Just to confirm ...
>
> Does this mean that a RHEL 6/Fedora dual-boot system using grub 1 will
> continue to work (i.e. Fedora kernel updates
On 09/23/2011 01:39 AM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> I can understand in the case where you have some knowledge of what
>> the
>> various package chains do.
> Such cases do exist. The libibverbs package requires a libibverbs-driver in
> order to run. Which driver you wan
On 09/22/2011 04:07 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Fedora ships a virtualization environment, so while grub1 should "go away as
> soon as possible" in terms of Fedora's own use, having it around for
> situation 3 is not outside the scope of a reasonable request in support of
> Fedora's own virtualizati
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:23:40PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 07:38:54PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:37:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> We allow you to inspect the g
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Dan Williams wrote:
>> You properly talk to it via unbound-control, which uses SSL certs between
>> it and the daemon. No need to re-write config files or send it weirdo
>> signals.
>
> Ok, this part mystifies me. I assume it just has a TCP socket listening
> that you talk to
On 09/22/2011 02:47 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> There is a further issue #2, quite orthogonal, which is that grub
> (upstream) doesn't support offline installation. This is a bug in
> grub 1& 2 which really should be taken upstream.
You're still missing the point here. This wasn't a design
On 09/22/2011 09:09 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> Grubby will continue to support the grub 1 style config file.
Just to confirm ...
Does this mean that a RHEL 6/Fedora dual-boot system using grub 1 will
continue to work (i.e. Fedora kernel updates will properly update the
grub 1 configuration)?
--
=
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:27:41AM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> > right. the big problem is not working around a broken network or a network
> > with an attacker. The problem is false positives due to the pletora of
> > hotspot mangling techniques out there. Ideally, NetworkManager would deal
> >
- Original Message -
> I can understand in the case where you have some knowledge of what
> the
> various package chains do.
Such cases do exist. The libibverbs package requires a libibverbs-driver in
order to run. Which driver you want depends on hardware, and we don't normally
instal
- Original Message -
> Having more things installed on the host means a larger attack
> surface.
Not if the host is properly locked down. And given that guests typically have
more open services, and therefore a larger remote attack surface, the more
there is in the guest, the less secur
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 13:43, Doug Ledford wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> Wow... just wow.
>>
>> -jef"please hold while koji asks you a series of questions concerning
>> multiple provider cascades to pre-populate the build environment for
>> your rawhide scratch build that you have just
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 14:26 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Dan Williams wrote:
>
> > But I'm not really familiar with unbound. Is it a long-running service?
>
> Yes, It's a fully dnssec validating caching resolver. You start it at boot
> and leave it running.
>
> > What does
- Original Message -
> Wow... just wow.
>
> -jef"please hold while koji asks you a series of questions concerning
> multiple provider cascades to pre-populate the build environment for
> your rawhide scratch build that you have just requested"spaleta
You can always have a switch to provid
On 09/22/2011 03:27 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:51:40PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
>> Oh, my mistake. That being beside the point, it pretty much means
>> any VM created in a previous OS release won't work. In any case I
>> totally disagree with your idea of security,
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> I'm
>> just trying to test how well zif handles the multple provider case
>> and understand how it makes the judgment on what is installed.
>
> There's probably a pretty strong argument to be made that if packa
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 07:58:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:44:00PM -0400, David Airlie wrote:
>
> > Nicely editing out of the other use-case I supplied. grub and grub2
> > *packages* don't install into the same few bytes.
> >
> > I thought you were good at back
If people are testing this it would be good if they could test the unit
files for this too on F15+ hosts.
Afaik I have already converted the whole xelerance.com stuff and it's
just laying there in bugzilla.
Create the relevant files in there relevant paths then run...
systemctl daemon-reload
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:33:07PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 20:22 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>
> > Such packages would be broken and would fail to link without hardening
> > or at least have text relocations too. Packagers shouldn't rely on
> > this spec hack to fix up
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:44:00PM -0400, David Airlie wrote:
> Nicely editing out of the other use-case I supplied. grub and grub2
> *packages* don't install into the same few bytes.
>
> I thought you were good at backing up arguments with technical reasons, not
> strawmen.
>
> The argument i
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 19:47 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > I hate to say it, but honestly, this thread looks pretty clear-cut to an
> > outsider: pjones and mjg59 are correct, and you and rwmj are incorrect.
> > Their arguments that it is fundamentally unsafe to use the host's grub
> > or, e
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:51:40PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> Oh, my mistake. That being beside the point, it pretty much means
> any VM created in a previous OS release won't work. In any case I
> totally disagree with your idea of security, as I mentioned at the
> time. It makes things worse, no
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 8:40 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 07:38:54PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:37:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> We allow you to inspect the guest to find the OS version, and even
>> versions of individual packages
On 09/22/2011 02:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:18:48PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
>> On 09/22/2011 02:02 PM, David Airlie wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
- Original Message -
> I'm
> just trying to test how well zif handles the multple provider case
> and understand how it makes the judgment on what is installed.
There's probably a pretty strong argument to be made that if package A requires
foo, and packages B, C, and D all provide foo, t
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:45:11AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> > On 09/22/2011 02:02 PM, David Airlie wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wr
On Sep 22, 2011, at 11:27 AM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
>> Doug Ledford wrote:
>>
>> ...snip...
>>
>>
>> Which rpmdiff are we talking about here?
>> The free/included in fedora one is not that great... it gives you
>> files
>>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:38:26AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:18 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
> > You described yourself how libguestfs could check it. And failing
> > libguestfs doing it, the user could be warned to check it.
>
> 'check' it? And what's the user e
On Sep 22, 2011, at 11:18 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 09/22/2011 02:02 PM, David Airlie wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> grub provides no mechanism for you to know that, which means y
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:02:15PM -0400, David Airlie wrote:
>
> > you run rpm -q grub in the guest and on the host, if they are the
> > same nvr,
> > then they are the same package, where's the rocket science here.
>
> No, that's not good enough. You need to know the version installed on
> t
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> (And besides, your example is about the worst you could pick, since if
> somebody is skilled enough with package management to remove the PackageKit
> frontend, surely he or she knows what to do if zif wants to pick the wrong
> one. ;-) Real
> I think that's largely because we don't have a community of
> engineers. We have a community of /packagers/ who are able to cause
> packages to be built, and are able to do some measure of QA to see
> if those builds work, but do not have the skill set to look at a
> code diff and give a honest
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:18:48PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 09/22/2011 02:02 PM, David Airlie wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> grub provides no mechanism for you to know that
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 07:38:54PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:37:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I described something that is, practically speaking, impossible.
>
> We allow you to inspect the guest to find the OS version, and even
> versions of individua
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 06:47, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I was hoping to be able to work on a forked version of chess and have it
> replace chess in Fedora, but I haven't had time to learn enough about
> ogre to do this, and chess is broken enough now that there is no point
> in including it any mo
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:37:39PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > grub provides no mechanism for you to know that, which means you can't
> > > reliably know that. W
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:18 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> You described yourself how libguestfs could check it. And failing
> libguestfs doing it, the user could be warned to check it.
'check' it? And what's the user expected to do if they're incorrect?
Crowbar Ubuntu's grub2 into Fedora, or vi
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 20:22 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Such packages would be broken and would fail to link without hardening
> or at least have text relocations too. Packagers shouldn't rely on
> this spec hack to fix up their packaging bugs (or upstream bugs), the hack
> should be just about
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011, Dan Williams wrote:
> But I'm not really familiar with unbound. Is it a long-running service?
Yes, It's a fully dnssec validating caching resolver. You start it at boot
and leave it running.
> What does its config file look like? Does it re-read config data on
> SIGHUP?
Y
- Original Message -
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:19:29 -0400 (EDT)
> Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
>
> Which rpmdiff are we talking about here?
> The free/included in fedora one is not that great... it gives you
> files
> and deps that changed, but that doesn't help you see what cha
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:18:10PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > %rename cc1_options rh_cc1_options_old
> >
> >
On 09/22/2011 02:02 PM, David Airlie wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
grub provides no mechanism for you to know that, which means you
can't
reliably know that. Which means relyi
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 02:02:15PM -0400, David Airlie wrote:
> you run rpm -q grub in the guest and on the host, if they are the same nvr,
> then they are the same package, where's the rocket science here.
No, that's not good enough. You need to know the version installed on
the system, not the
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 20:05 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> %rename cc1_options rh_cc1_options_old
>
>
>
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:59:33PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 09/22/2011 01:36 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > That should be ... "adds -fPIE (if -fPIC is not already present)" ...
> > I'd say. At least I hope that's what the spec change does, the initial
> > version did that.
>
> No, I'm fairl
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > grub provides no mechanism for you to know that, which means you
> > > can't
> > > reliably know that. Which means relying on them being compatible
> > > is
> > >
On 09/22/2011 01:36 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> That should be ... "adds -fPIE (if -fPIC is not already present)" ...
> I'd say. At least I hope that's what the spec change does, the initial
> version did that.
No, I'm fairly sure that it only adds -fPIC in scenarios where -fPIE is
not already pas
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:06:51PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote:
> Here are the latest changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
>
> ---
>
> The section of the Packaging Guidelines regarding Compiler Flags has
> been updated and improved, most notably, to document handling of PIE
> enabled package
Here are the latest changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
---
The section of the Packaging Guidelines regarding Compiler Flags has
been updated and improved, most notably, to document handling of PIE
enabled packages.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Compiler_flags
---
On 2011/09/22 17:37 (GMT+0100) Matthew Garrett composed:
> There is no rational reason to have grub and grub2 installed on the same
> system at once, and having them both there increases the complexity of
> the system.
For which definition of "system"? My systems typically contain 20 or more
par
Hi,
Owing to limited time recently I have been unable to look into my
packages and so I am orphaning the following packages:
agave
gnujump
mausezahn
moe
peppy
gnurobots
It would be nice if someone can pick them up.
Thanks and Regards,
Vivek
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 12:37 +0200, Adam Tkac wrote:
> On 09/20/2011 05:19 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Sat, 2011-09-17 at 14:00 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> >> Hi developers of NM and Fedora,
> >>
> >> We are trying to get DNSSEC validation on the end nodes. One way of doing
> >> that is to run a
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 05:18:09PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > grub provides no mechanism for you to know that, which means you can't
> > reliably know that. Which means relying on them being compatible is
> > incorrect.
>
> You d
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 11:23 -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>
> >> solve a part of the problem how can you even consider removing the
> >> ability for disabling dnssec when implementing and deploying and running
> >> dnssec increases the complexity times hundred
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 17:00 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:50:16PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 14:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > The grub maintainer is telling you that the way in which you're trying
> > > to use grub is broken. You *
# F16 Beta Blocker Review meeting #5
# Date: 2011-09-23
# Time: 17:00 UTC [1] (13:00 EDT, 10:00 PDT)
# Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
The fifth (and hopefully final) Fedora 16 beta blocker bug review
meeting will be this Friday at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-bugzappers. We'll
be running
On 09/22/2011 05:58 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:15:38AM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
>
>> I hope you don't suggest for every rebuild of few dependent packages one
>> FESCo ticket.
>
> This is what is currently required to ask FES for help. It is certainly
> a lot better and
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:50:16PM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 14:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The grub maintainer is telling you that the way in which you're trying
> > to use grub is broken. You *need* to use the grub files that are in
> > guest, not the host.
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:15:38AM +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> I hope you don't suggest for every rebuild of few dependent packages one
> FESCo ticket.
This is what is currently required to ask FES for help. It is certainly
a lot better and more efficient to open one FESCo and one FES tick
On Thu, 2011-09-22 at 14:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:27:35AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
>
> > Sigh. I was joking. Obviously, if maintainers went around inserting
> > Conflicts with other packages because they don't like how the other
> > package works, then the
On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 09:32:11 +0100
Paul Howarth wrote:
...snip...
> >
> > The first package is already in the build root.
>
> Yes, but there's still a wait until it's actually available to build
> against, though it's usually a wait of less than an hour rather than
> the next day.
This is wha
On 09/22/2011 12:05 AM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> Given the grub1/grub2 discussion that is going on, I could use some info
> about the state of grubby's support for grub1. The virtual machine
> images that the Cloud SIG publishes on Amazon EC2 do not require
> bootloaders, but they do require
Late yesterday at the Go/No-Go meeting it was decided to slip the Beta
release of F16 by one week [1]. Minutes follow below.
There are numerous unresolved blockers at this time [2], resulting in
the inability to compose a viable release candidate.
As a result, ALL MAJOR MILESTONES, and their de
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:27:35AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Sigh. I was joking. Obviously, if maintainers went around inserting
> Conflicts with other packages because they don't like how the other
> package works, then there'd be an order of magnitude more unpleasantness
> on fedora-devel.
perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule-0.37-9.fc16.noarch requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3)
On i386:
perl-Pugs-Compiler-Rule-0.37-9.fc16.noarch requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.12.3)
Please resolve this as soon as
I was hoping to be able to work on a forked version of chess and have it
replace chess in Fedora, but I haven't had time to learn enough about
ogre to do this, and chess is broken enough now that there is no point
in including it any more. So I am looking at retiring it in f16+.
The current status
On 09/20/2011 05:32 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> just a short status update:
>
> * multi-registry
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739904
>
> * python-wordpress-xmlrpc
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739908
>
> * python-import-utils (already reviewed and appr
On 09/22/2011 01:11 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 09/22/2011 12:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 09/22/2011 11:31 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
>>> Depends on how you want to resolve this. If you are going for
>>> resurrecting the packages, then fix them up to build again and submit
>>> new package revi
On 09/22/2011 12:52 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 09/22/2011 11:31 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
>> Depends on how you want to resolve this. If you are going for
>> resurrecting the packages, then fix them up to build again and submit
>> new package review requests.
>
> I have a version of libglfw whic
On 09/22/2011 11:31 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 09/22/2011 12:05 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 09/20/2011 01:12 PM, Branched Report wrote:
>>> Compose started at Tue Sep 20 08:15:41 UTC 2011
>>>
>>> Broken deps for x86_64
>>> --
>>
>> This
On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 15:54 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 09/21/2011 03:39 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-09-21 at 18:48 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> Remember that the incompatibility isn't between libguestfs and the
> >> guest, it's between the host grub and the guest grub. Bot
On 09/22/2011 11:31 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 09/22/2011 12:05 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 09/20/2011 01:12 PM, Branched Report wrote:
>>> Compose started at Tue Sep 20 08:15:41 UTC 2011
>>>
>>> Broken deps for x86_64
>>> --
>>
>> This
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22/09/11 09:15, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
> On 09/21/2011 05:33 PM, Till Maas wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:43:38PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>>
>>> And that's always fine and dandy if these issues are resolved
>>> in a reasonable amount
On 09/22/2011 12:05 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 09/20/2011 01:12 PM, Branched Report wrote:
>> Compose started at Tue Sep 20 08:15:41 UTC 2011
>>
>> Broken deps for x86_64
>> --
>
> This breakage is weird:
>
>> hosts3d-1.13-2.fc15.x8
On 09/20/2011 01:12 PM, Branched Report wrote:
> Compose started at Tue Sep 20 08:15:41 UTC 2011
>
> Broken deps for x86_64
> --
This breakage is weird:
> hosts3d-1.13-2.fc15.x86_64 requires libglfw.so.2.6()(64bit)
In Fedora < 16, lib
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:58:53AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> (In short, pvgrub! I thought that was dead and buried a long time ago ..)
Of course I'm confusing this with PyGrub, that was the old horrible
thing. PvGrub is the shiny new thing.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Grou
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 09:05:19PM -0700, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> Given the grub1/grub2 discussion that is going on, I could use some info
> about the state of grubby's support for grub1. The virtual machine
> images that the Cloud SIG publishes on Amazon EC2 do not require
> bootloaders, bu
On 09/21/2011 04:49 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:23:52 -0600
> Jerry James wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Bruno Wolff III
>> wrote:
>>> Chain building is allowed for rawhide to help get groups of packages
>>> built.
>>
>> The chain-build facility is very useful. B
On 09/21/2011 05:33 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:43:38PM +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote:
>
>> And that's always fine and dandy if these issues are resolved in a
>> reasonable amount of time. Right now Rawhide has packages with
>> dependencies broken since pre-F15. This isn't acce
82 matches
Mail list logo
