On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Are there official guidelines on how to handle selinux contexts in
> packaging? I can still only find the draft which seems way more complicated
> than necessary for my needs.
>
> I'm working on a package that uses mongodb internally (runs it'
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:29 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> and my suggestion is now to just create both partitions when
>> installing to GPT. Presumably if firmware can handle a GPT disk at
>> all, it won'
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:03 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>>> T
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:03 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
>> partition, a BIOS Boot partition, and a smallish (1 or 2 GB) ext4
>> /boot n
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
>> /boot is useful regardless of how you boot. The ESP doesn't need to
>> be very large and doesn't cause any harm if booted via BIOS. The BIOS
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> I think that half the difficulty here is that UEFI is annoying and the
>> other half is that both GRUB2 and efibootmgr are miserable.
>
> For single OS i
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> I've done conversions in both directions a few times although not very
> recently. But having done it, I'd say "f it, just reinstall". Or "f it, get
> drunk and sent to the hospital" is even a better experience than converting.
>
> BIOS->UEFI
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
>> …and configure the UEFI boot options, which you can't do because you're
>> not running under UEFI and so have no access to UEFI runtime services.
>
> That's probably the biggest flaw in the whole UEFI
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So, look what I wrote today:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Unified_Extensible_Firmware_Interface
>
> (just plain https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UEFI redirects to that page,
> too).
>
> It's a (hopefully) not too long and not too technic
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 10:59 AM, poma wrote:
> On 27.01.2014 19:52, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> copr has no provision currently to sign packages.
>>
>> I think it's on the todo list, but it will not be easy to implement in
>> a secure way.
>
> Ouch!
>
I'm skeptical about the whole package-signing th
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 08:13 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
>> >> Interesting... However, if you're working with an actual release
>> >> tag, I would think Peter's method would be much better.
>> >
>> > It is a good idea to use a specific
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Slightly OT, but is SELinux stopping programs from executing code at
> address zero? (And how can I stop it doing that?)
>
> JONESFORTH, a public domain FORTH I wrote, is written in x86 assembler
> and prefers to put its threaded inter
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:01 AM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Here is the request from upstream to enable this feature in Rawhide, with an
> explanation of what it does.
>
>> "Android is starting to apply execmem and friends to the non-Dalvik
>> compo
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:19:30AM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> Does uvesafb actually work? I submitted a patch to the uvesafb kernel
>> driver a few months back, and not only is the upstream link [1][2] to
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 01/20/2014 03:18 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:08:01AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>
>>> So now it is time to start looking into some of the corner cases, or
>>> rather at
>>> the elephant in the ro
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> So now it is time to start looking into some of the corner cases, or rather
>>> at
>>> the elephant in the room. What about non-kms drivers. We still have the vesa
>>> driver around as most prominent example, and this is useful for some o
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 11:29 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> On Út, 2014-01-14 at 13:13 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Adam Williamson
>> > wrote:
>> > > On
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-01-14 at 12:41 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
>> These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
>&
I have some trivial cleanups I want to make to a package a maintain.
These cleanups are trivial enough that I don't think they're worth a
new build. Should I commit them to the master branch? If so, I can
imagine a couple of issues:
- A provenpackager could kick off a rebuild for whatever reaso
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 01/09/2014 09:52 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Hans de Goede
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On 01/09/2014 12
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-12-20 at 00:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>> > In case of 3 you would never update an container you would replace it
>> > with a new container ( or App image rather ) which contains the
>> > updat
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:27 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 09, 2014 at 12:52:46PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >
>> > On 01/09/2014 12:09 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrot
On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 11:43 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 01/09/2014 12:09 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Peter Hutterer
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 01:14:08PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 5:45 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 01:14:08PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> /usr/bin/Xorg is, and has been, setuid-root just about forever. I'm
>> wondering whether there's any good reason for it to remain
>> setui
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I could have sworn there was a more recent discussion of this, but
> there is at least this thread from 2009:
>
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2009-August/036086.html
>
> Also:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/546537/
>
> (discussi
On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 2:58 PM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 01:14:08PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> /usr/bin/Xorg is, and has been, setuid-root just about forever. I'm
>> wondering whether there's any good reason for it to remain
/usr/bin/Xorg is, and has been, setuid-root just about forever. I'm
wondering whether there's any good reason for it to remain
setuid-root.
Some arguments for setuid-root:
- People who still use startx or similar scripts need it.
- It's vaguely useful for testing xorg.conf changes.
Some argume
On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Garrett Holmstrom
wrote:
> On 2014-01-02 16:38, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> [Third try to send this email. The Gmail Android app has a lovely UI
>> to select the sender address, but it doesn't do anything :(.]
>>
>> O
[Third try to send this email. The Gmail Android app has a lovely UI
to select the sender address, but it doesn't do anything :(.]
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Garrett Holmstrom
wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 10:32 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> On 12/27/2013 05:24 PM, And
On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Is anyone interested in taking on python-boto, please?
I can, although I won't be able to do anything beyond clicking the
button for a couple weeks.
--Andy
>
>
> Original Message
> Subject: [pkgdb] python-boto ownership
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-12-18 at 11:22 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> OK, so I'll re-ask my original question. Fedora 20 was released with
>> a broken update path from F19. Should the release criteria be
>> amend
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Markus Mayer wrote:
> On 12/18/2013 08:22 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>> OK, so I'll re-ask my original question. Fedora 20 was released with
>> a broken update path from F19. Should the release criteria be
>> amended? This
OK, so I'll re-ask my original question. Fedora 20 was released with
a broken update path from F19. Should the release criteria be
amended? This particular issue would have been avoided if F19's fedup
were frozen along with F20 and if all of the destined-for-stable
versions were tested together
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 18:33 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> I don't think Fedora is doing its users any favors by declaring F20 to
>> be released when upgrading from F19 using 'fedup --source network 20'
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Andrew Lutomirski [17/12/2013 15:22] :
>>
>> I propose changing that to something like "Install fedup. The version
>> of fedup used must be the most recent stable release.)
>
> Given that you yourself re
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 15:05 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> There will be a similar problem in the docker images, unless you're
>> suggesting that everyone use Ubuntu-in-docker-on-Fedora/RHEL.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> I have a tendency to upgrade to a new Fedora release as soon as it's
> final, and I sometimes upgrade even sooner. ISTM that the official
> upgrade process is almost always broken, often for known reasons.
> Should on
I have a tendency to upgrade to a new Fedora release as soon as it's
final, and I sometimes upgrade even sooner. ISTM that the official
upgrade process is almost always broken, often for known reasons.
Should one of the criteria for releasing Fedora N+1 be that a
fully-updated Fedora N must be abl
On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 23:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>
>> b) Which WG will take on the task of solving this? We shouldn't end
>> up with everybody agreeing that this needs to be solved, but no PRD
>> proposing to solve this. Is it the B
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 8:33 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 06:56:15PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> I've been using Fedora for quite a few years as my main desktop OS,
>> and I think it's time I contributed back by writing some packages.
>&
Hi all-
I've been using Fedora for quite a few years as my main desktop OS,
and I think it's time I contributed back by writing some packages.
(Also, there are packages I want -- I might as well create them.)
For my day job, I work at a trading company, writing algorithmic
trading software. I da
Hi all-
I'd like to claim ownership of the 'fish' package (i.e. the fish
shell). The (re-)review request is here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974852
This is my first package, so I'll need a sponsor, too.
Thanks,
Andy
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://
301 - 342 of 342 matches
Mail list logo
