I've handed up with this question when I first request for an upgrade of
mediawiki.
I remember someone told me that upgrading may cause errors of custom css or
custom theme,is it true?
在 2013-2-9 AM5:37，"Pete Travis" 写道：
On Feb 8, 2013 12:54 PM, "Stephen John Smoogen" wrote:
. Two the fix is to
I've handed up with this question when I first request for an upgrade of
mediawiki.
I remember someone told me that upgrading may cause errors of custom css or
custom theme,is it true?
在 2013-2-9 AM5:37，"Pete Travis" 写道：
>
> On Feb 8, 2013 12:54 PM, "Stephen John Smoogen" wrote:
> . Two the fix
Can a admin pls close this topic?
boring
since some days, people who don't want use gnome anymore are branded as
'haters' and 'reactionary'.
.i don't and want follow your logic.
regards,
Wolfgang
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mai
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Could we move this to a gnome/desktop list?
>
> The subject of the thread has been decided...
>
> I don't think it's providing much value to the Fedora devel community
> anymore.
>
+1. Gnome 2 was counterintuitive enough. I can't imagine how Gno
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 18:21:00 -0700
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Could we move this to a gnome/desktop list?
>
> The subject of the thread has been decided...
>
> I don't think it's providing much value to the Fedora devel community
> anymore.
>
Ah, yes, my apologies. I would rather end this off topi
Could we move this to a gnome/desktop list?
The subject of the thread has been decided...
I don't think it's providing much value to the Fedora devel community
anymore.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorapr
On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 01:37:03 +0100
drago01 wrote:
> I can't recall that many stability bugs getting reported against GNOME
> 3.0 ... so [citation needed].
Well the fallback mode being a poor man's excuse was partly the case why
the people couldn't stay with gnome. Loads of features weren't
impleme
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:37 PM, drago01 wrote:
> Being different does not imply different target audience ... same
> thing and discussion happened when GNOME 2.0 got released.
> Now the haters from back then want GNOME 2.0 back ;)
Can we start a new thread about bringing sawfish back as the defau
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Martin Sourada wrote:
> * Gnome devs didn't learn from KDE's mistake (the release of beta
>stuff as 4.0) and went even further. Users affected by only this
>might return (like Linus did).
I can't recall that many stability bugs getting reported against GN
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:45:30 +0100
Stijn Hoop wrote:
> But I will keep objecting to the single-sided argument that there is
> no "GNOME 2 user" that likes GNOME 3. I fully support those who have
> tried and rejected the new stuff -- as long as they don't impose their
> opinion on me :-)
I don't thi
On 02/08/2013 12:57 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
would deveopers of core-packages take a look at this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887763#c37
god knows what happens here with the /etc/mtab symlink
BUT this all did never happen before "the problems with
/etc/mtab" where "solved" by re
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:50:11 +
Debarshi Ray wrote:
> It is irrelevant whether it is a daemon or a GUI application.
No, it is not. To stay with pulseaudio -- when you're playing a song,
it's not exactly easy to tell if it goes to your headphones through
alsa, oss, openal, pulseaudio, or a combin
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>
> I don't think that the guiding principle should be: "here is some FOSS
> code,
> lets package it".
>
Claiming what it shouldn't be is the easy part. Writing up a proposal on
what the guiding principles should be and building consensus o
> Let me say one thing: if you're going by examples, go with proper ones.
> There is vast difference of work needed to support two kernels and work
> needed to support two office suites. You know kernel is the base upon
> everything runs, right? Please, don't make the most basic component
> that ca
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> Right. When we moved from Openoffice.org to Libreoffice by default, AOO
>
> We could have kept the openoffice.org packages instead of replacing them
> with
> LO, but we did not.
>
Yes because we had some problems with how openoffice.org
> Reductio ad absurdum.
To me this is as absurd as the others.
> Right. When we moved from Openoffice.org to Libreoffice by default, AOO
We could have kept the openoffice.org packages instead of replacing them with
LO, but we did not.
(I guess, at this point, it is quite clear that I am losing
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:07:02 +
Debarshi Ray wrote:
> So do we have multiple kernels in Fedora? We offer .deb variants of
> Fedora?
Let me say one thing: if you're going by examples, go with proper ones.
There is vast difference of work needed to support two kernels and work
needed to support t
Lennart,
For better or worse Vincent Untz had people express themselves on systemd
at FOSDEM, and pretty much everyone thought you were doing great. I can
understand your regrets that it was less the case for your GNOME 3
friends, but that should not overshadow this great achievement of the
system
This thread is over.
I'd like to ask everyone to take a few minutes to re-read:
http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
and get some away time from the discussion and think about things and
how to approach discussions more constructively.
Thanks,
Stephen
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"Don't derail a
Le Ven 8 février 2013 21:30, Debarshi Ray a écrit :
>> The FOSDEM poll was stacked ??? no one really wanted to hurt Vincent
>> Untz
>> too much given his obvious efforts to be nice, there was this knot of
>> GNOME people bunched together that were a tad intimidating, and people
>> do
>>
>> [...]
>
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> So do we have multiple kernels in Fedora? We offer .deb variants of
Fedora?
Reductio ad absurdum. We will discuss serious considerations based on
actual proposals on a case by case basis. Alternative office suites
already exist in Fedo
Le vendredi 08 février 2013 à 20:56 +, Debarshi Ray a écrit :
> > especially since there is a default installed already.
>
> The first time I ran an installer 10 years ago, I remember staring at a screen
> which gave me 2 options: GNOME and KDE, and the description for both of them
> were exa
> There are better ways to highlight that not to mention the examples you
> used already exist in Fedora.
So do we have multiple kernels in Fedora? We offer .deb variants of Fedora?
> That doesn't solve the existing problem at all. There is no reason why we
> should have say Epiphany but exclu
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> For starters:
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/669
Uhm that ticket is specifically about a feature proposal to include
something as a default installed tech.
We are not talking about AOO as a default installed package. You are
confla
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> >
> > Sarcasm isn't going to resolve the problems.
>
> But it might highlight the problem with this "lets have some more choices"
> madness.
>
There are better ways to highlight that not to mention the examples you
used already exist in
> We empower interested programmers to work on AOO within the Fedora
> ecosystem. That's all.
How is packaging AOO a requirement for that? They can compile AOO and work on
it just fine.
Cheers,
Debarshi
--
If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars
and elect
>>
>> So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose
>> a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple
>> different depsolvers has already been frowned upon.
>
>
> On an F18 system
> yum info smart
> yum info dpkg
>
You do know the differen
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>> Users don't care where LO comes from at all.
>
> Then how will you empower them to make a choice between LO and AOO?
We don't. We don't need to, and we don't care to.
We empower interested programmers to work on AOO within the Fedora
ecosys
>>
>> So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose
>> a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple
>> different depsolvers has already been frowned upon.
>>
>> Now why did *that* happen? It is Fedora, isn't it?
>>
>>
>
> Sarcasm isn't go
On Feb 8, 2013 12:54 PM, "Stephen John Smoogen" wrote:
. Two the fix is to upgrade to a very new
> version which will break everyone who upgrades until they (or the
> first person who gets to the website :) ) runs the upgrade mode..
> which might not work due to either custom changes or the fact t
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>
> So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose
> a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple
> different depsolvers has already been frowned upon.
On an F18 system
yum info smart
yu
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>
> Ok.
>
>
> So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose
> a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple
> different depsolvers has already been frowned upon.
>
> Now why did *that
>>> There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one
>>> more isn't really going to aggravate the problem too much for users
>>
>> We suck. So lets suck a little bit more. Is that what you are saying? :-)
>>
>
> If you want to build a distribution with a single default for
> Keep in mind that to get to the point of installing an "alternative-only
> DE", in current Fedora, you normally first have a full blown Gnome3
> installed, which is close to impossible to get rid of.
[citation needed]
Cheers,
Debarshi
--
If computers are going to revolutionize education, th
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Debarshi Ray < wrote:
> > There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one
> > more isn't really going to aggravate the problem too much for users
>
> We suck. So lets suck a little bit more. Is that what you are saying? :-)
>
If you wa
> I know this applies, but installing gnome-shell pulls in gdm.
>
> I.e. removing gdm without removing gnone-shell is not possible.
Because gnome-shell (running in a special mode) is nowadays the greeter used
by GDM. That does not mean GDM won't let you log into KDE if you have it
installed.
As
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> It is irrelevant whether it is a daemon or a GUI application. The main
> point is that you are confusing users and also developers. Why the hell
> should a random user have to choose from half a dozen seemingly similar
> programs when the infor
> There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one
> more isn't really going to aggravate the problem too much for users
We suck. So lets suck a little bit more. Is that what you are saying? :-)
> especially since there is a default installed already.
The first time I ra
On 8 February 2013 13:15, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> This package is a bit difficult to "fix". One it has custom patches
>> that upstream doesn't accept. Two the fix is to upgrade to a very new
>> version which will break everyone who upgrades until they (or the
>>
> Unlike pulseaudio (in the above linked thread), AOO is
> end-user GUI application, not a library/daemon/sound-server/whatever
> used to get the wanted sound to your headphones (that by design
> interferes with anything else trying to do the same) ;-) By adding AOO
> we're not breaking some third
commit 3d0142676e5a3a7b77f350d468484dd3cbd40f54
Author: Tom Callaway
Date: Fri Feb 8 15:52:27 2013 -0500
1.898
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Email-Address.spec |5 -
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.giti
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Email-Address:
0ea27eae4888ec25733af68b51f20245 Email-Address-1.898.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/
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>
> If you consider that free software is meant for everybody, irrespective of
> their technical abilities, then, yes, it creates too much confusion.
>
There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one
more isn't rea
>> I'm an Ambassador and this proposal is confusing me.
>> We have LibreOffice in our repositories; I think that bring back
>> Apache OpenOffice generates only confusion between users, not freedom
>> of choice.
>>
> The confusion is already there in Windows world, linux user should be
> more capab
> The FOSDEM poll was stacked ??? no one really wanted to hurt Vincent Untz
> too much given his obvious efforts to be nice, there was this knot of
> GNOME people bunched together that were a tad intimidating, and people do
>
> [...]
>
> So don't overplay the GNOME 3 FOSDEM session, it was an awkwa
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/576
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/576/0001-Ticket-576-DNA-use-event-queue-for-config-update-onl.patch
Bug description: DNA config updates were always put into the
event queue and executed in 30 seconds, which increased a chance
to conflict
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> This package is a bit difficult to "fix". One it has custom patches
> that upstream doesn't accept. Two the fix is to upgrade to a very new
> version which will break everyone who upgrades until they (or the
> first person who gets to the website :) ) runs the upgrade
On Fri, 08.02.13 20:35, Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) wrote:
>
> Le Ven 8 février 2013 13:22, Olav Vitters a écrit :
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> >> I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original
> >> statement, namely that
On 8 February 2013 12:15, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>>
>> At this point it is time for someone to update the package as it
>> is currently a security hazard. I have already built the latest
>> mediawiki package and have it ready to r
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909136
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System ---
abi-compliance-checker-1.98.8-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/abi-compliance-checker-1.98.8-1.fc18
--
You are receiving t
I'm not sure there's any place in our community where it is acceptable
for people "to go to fight." Nor do I think that would be healthy.
I would prefer to think that noone in our community really wants to
hurt anyone else. I think if anyone showed up at any face-to-face
meeting specifically with
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:35:56 +0100
"Nicolas Mailhot" wrote:
>
> Le Ven 8 février 2013 13:22, Olav Vitters a écrit :
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> >> I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original
> >> statement, namely that there is a "compl
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909136
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System ---
abi-compliance-checker-1.98.8-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/abi-compliance-checker-1.98.8-1.fc16
--
You are receiving t
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909136
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System ---
abi-compliance-checker-1.98.8-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/abi-compliance-checker-1.98.8-1.fc17
--
You are receiving t
Le Ven 8 février 2013 13:22, Olav Vitters a écrit :
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
>> I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original
>> statement, namely that there is a "completely different target
>> audience" for GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3.
>>
>> I am
#5467: 2 Packages missing from mirrors
--+---
Reporter: limb | Owner: rel-eng@…
Type: task | Status: closed
Milestone: Fedora 19 Alpha | Component: koji
Resolution: fixed| Keywords:
Bloc
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> At this point it is time for someone to update the package as it
> is currently a security hazard. I have already built the latest
> mediawiki package and have it ready to rock-and-or-roll once the NRM
> procedure is finished.
>
Th
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 06:40:05PM +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
> Le vendredi 08 février 2013 à 11:08 -0500, Nalin Dahyabhai a écrit :
> > This worked for me:
> > openssl cms -verify -noverify -in cacert.p7s
>
> Sorry to not have been clearer, what i want is the clear text version of
> the cert
Hello,
My name is Frederik Holden, and I'm trying to becoming a package
collection maintainer. I am sending this email to introduce myself, as
recommended by the wiki. I submitted my first review request earlier
today, which can be found at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909387.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Moschny
wrote:
> 2013/2/8 Josh Boyer :
>> Yes, but fedpkg is currently relying on the existing git default, which
>> is matching. That is changing upstream in git, so fedpkg needs to set
>> a default when it clones.
>
> And this default should probably be p
2013/2/8 Josh Boyer :
> Yes, but fedpkg is currently relying on the existing git default, which
> is matching. That is changing upstream in git, so fedpkg needs to set
> a default when it clones.
And this default should probably be push.default=upstream.
--
Thomas Moschny
--
devel mailing lis
Hello,
A couple of months back I asked about updating MongoDB from 2.0.7 to
2.2.0 in EPEL6 and Fedora 17.
Although it is backwards compatible, there were several bugs brought up
that people wanted fixed in Mongodb 2.2.x before we moved to this
version. With MongoDB 2.2.3, the last of these bugs ha
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:20:23AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
>> I don't mind filling one out, but I'm not sure what I would put in it.
>> Are you saying that fedpkg should not rely on the default and explicit
>> set the push method?
Yes.
Le vendredi 08 février 2013 à 16:54 +0100, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :
> Hello,
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
> >
> > - ban all certificates if used to validate something.
> I think this is too strict; there may be legitimate cases of
> service-specific CAs; there even are
Le vendredi 08 février 2013 à 11:08 -0500, Nalin Dahyabhai a écrit :
> On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:41:29PM +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
> > What triggered to write this mail is review 902503, where I was not able
> > to find a way to inspect the cacert.p7s. I am not able to decipher
> > openssl man
Hi Wolfgang,
I have heard it is working in LXDE but I have not tried it myself.
Thanks for your hard work on this.
Dan
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Rave it wrote:
> Dear xfce/lxde user/maintainer,
> perhaps you know i re-retired compiz-0.88 for f18.
> I also added a start-script for lxde an
Dear xfce/lxde user/maintainer,
perhaps you know i re-retired compiz-0.88 for f18.
I also added a start-script for lxde and xfce, subpackage compiz-xfce
and compiz-lxde.
Unfortunately i do not use xfce or lxde directly so i have no feedback
if compiz is running well in those desktop.
I did a short
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:20:23AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I don't mind filling one out, but I'm not sure what I would put in it.
> Are you saying that fedpkg should not rely on the default and explicit
> set the push method?
Fedpkg doesn't set any setting. It only call git push.
The issue
commit 44c263dcf884abb0ed928a38096242ba3d3f5a1a
Merge: 9dfbc9a 91c503e
Author: Orion Poplawski
Date: Fri Feb 8 09:44:54 2013 -0700
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into el6
Update to 1.98.8
.gitignore |1 +
abi-compliance-checker.spec |5 -
sou
Summary of changes:
91c503e... Update to latest upstream release. (*)
44c263d... Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into el6 Updat
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
pe
On 02/07/2013 04:23 PM, Aaron Gray wrote:
Can someone who knows firewalld please do a HOWTO to on setting up a
secondary DHCP with DNS and HTTPS access for PXEBOOTing of Fedora18
please to go with the PXEBOOT HOWTO :-
http://linux-sxs.org/internet_serving/pxeboot.html
Hope someone can help, I p
Am 08.02.2013 13:05, schrieb Florian Weimer:
> On 02/08/2013 12:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 08.02.2013 12:54, schrieb Florian Weimer:
>>> On 02/08/2013 12:41 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
>>>
For a certificate, that's slightly more subtle. A certificate alone in a
package canno
would deveopers of core-packages take a look at this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887763#c37
god knows what happens here with the /etc/mtab symlink
BUT this all did never happen before "the problems with
/etc/mtab" where "solved" by replace it with a symlink
may i suggest to make
On 02/08/2013 07:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Dennis Gilmore writes:
Additionally we will be mass patching config.guess and config.sub to
support aarch64 in preperation for 64 bit arm support
Hm, it would be much better in the long run to pester upstreams to
update to an appropriate version of thes
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:41:29PM +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
> What triggered to write this mail is review 902503, where I was not able
> to find a way to inspect the cacert.p7s. I am not able to decipher
> openssl man pages to do anything with that file ( as a side note, if
> someone can tell
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904756
Robin Lee changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
> That's where it start to be funny and security related, because the
> whole certificate authority idea requires update to be kept secure ( for
> exemple, when a CA was compromised, like DigiNotar, Trustwave ). And
> that's something
Summary of changes:
91c503e... Update to latest upstream release. (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
Summary of changes:
91c503e... Update to latest upstream release. (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
Summary of changes:
91c503e... Update to latest upstream release. (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>> Does it matter which method is used for packaging purposes?
>
> I believe fedpkg might want to start setting push.default to matching
> when it does a clone. Probably a small change. Want
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I just got this output when updating a package:
>
> $ fedpkg push
> warning: push.default is unset; its implicit value is changing in
> Git 2.0 from 'matching' to 'simple'. To squelch this message
> and maintain the current behavior after the
Dennis Gilmore writes:
> Additionally we will be mass patching config.guess and config.sub to
> support aarch64 in preperation for 64 bit arm support
Hm, it would be much better in the long run to pester upstreams to
update to an appropriate version of these files. Are the required
changes in up
I just got this output when updating a package:
$ fedpkg push
warning: push.default is unset; its implicit value is changing in
Git 2.0 from 'matching' to 'simple'. To squelch this message
and maintain the current behavior after the default changes, use:
git config --global push.default matchin
The mediawiki package is severely outdated. I have attempted to contact
the maintainer and received only one reply in a couple of weeks. He has
ignored my requests for co-maintainership.
I commented on the NRM bug[1] two weeks ago with no response. The bug
itself is months old, but he pops in to k
On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 12:41 +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> a few days ago, the topic of package shipping their own ssl CA bundle
> was discussed on irc with kiilerix, and the discussion prompted me to
> add some code to rpmlint to warn people about it. In short, shipping a
> private key,
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 08:42 AM, Stijn Hoop wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:46:32 +0100
>> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>> The actual problem is the current Gnome 3 being an entirely different
>>> product than Gnome 2, which usability-wise has *not
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original
> statement, namely that there is a "completely different target
> audience" for GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3.
>
> I am that datapoint.
As are various others during FOSDEM (Vince
Le 08/02/2013 12:41, Michael Scherer a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> a few days ago, the topic of package shipping their own ssl CA bundle
> was discussed on irc with kiilerix, and the discussion prompted me to
> add some code to rpmlint to warn people about it. In short, shipping a
> private key, or a .pem is
On 02/08/2013 12:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 08.02.2013 12:54, schrieb Florian Weimer:
On 02/08/2013 12:41 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
For a certificate, that's slightly more subtle. A certificate alone in a
package cannot do much. If there is no private key, then it cannot be
used out of
On 02/08/2013 12:41 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
For a certificate, that's slightly more subtle. A certificate alone in a
package cannot do much. If there is no private key, then it cannot be
used out of the box, except for client side validation ( afaik ). So
all .pam certificates we can find wou
Hi,
a few days ago, the topic of package shipping their own ssl CA bundle
was discussed on irc with kiilerix, and the discussion prompted me to
add some code to rpmlint to warn people about it. In short, shipping a
private key, or a .pem is highly suspicious.
For a private key to be used as defau
Kevin Fenzi writes:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:57:19 +0100
> Petr Machata wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I have just built boost 1.53. I didn't go through the side tag as
>> originally envisioned, as tomorrow's mass rebuild should take care of
>> it all in one fell swoop. I'll still be available f
On 08/02/13 10:52, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
>> Will do. I'm currently packaging a tonne of deps for buddycloud, so
>> many review swaps may be imminent!
>
> Ah, buddycloud in Fedora? Cool. I'll have to try it out one day :-)
Hopefully "one day" is going to be reasonably soon :)
There are qui
Quoting Jamie Nguyen (2013-02-08 10:12:12)
> On 07/02/13 21:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Thu 07 Feb 2013 02:26:48 PM EST, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
> >> On 07/02/13 19:24, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
> >>> Now that I'm a bit more familiar with node.js packaging (ie,
> >>> never even looked at node.js befo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:41:29 +0100
Kalev Lember escribió:
> On 02/08/2013 03:56 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:57:19 +0100
> > Petr Machata wrote:
> >> I have just built boost 1.53. I didn't go through the side tag as
> >> origina
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
it was requested in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1004 that
we do a mass rebuild for Fedora 19 for
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GCC48
Additionally we will be mass patching config.guess and config.sub to
support aarch64 in preperation
On 02/08/2013 03:56 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:57:19 +0100
> Petr Machata wrote:
>> I have just built boost 1.53. I didn't go through the side tag as
>> originally envisioned, as tomorrow's mass rebuild should take care of
>> it all in one fell swoop. I'll still be available
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:47:48 +0100
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 02/06/2013 08:42 AM, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:46:32 +0100
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> The actual problem is the current Gnome 3 being an entirely
> >> different product than Gnome 2, which usability-wise has *no
On 07/02/13 21:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Thu 07 Feb 2013 02:26:48 PM EST, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
>> On 07/02/13 19:24, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
>>> Now that I'm a bit more familiar with node.js packaging (ie,
>>> never even looked at node.js before this week...), I'll take
>>> it.
>>>
>>> I don't
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
