On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 09:29:40AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 7/26/11 8:48 AM, Till Maas wrote:
I hereby propose to change this in the future and explicitly CC
comaintainers to make them aware that their package is orphaned.
This can easily be done by just mailing
package-ow
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 02:00:28PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 7/27/11 1:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Depends on the PATH-Order
if something is intended to be first in PATH and any attacker is able
to write there his ls would win against /bin/ls
So, the attacker can write a
Hi,
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 12:23:43PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
%define _hardened_build 1
just wondering: Is %define really correct here or does it need to be
%global?
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:49:23PM -0700, Steve Jenkins wrote:
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/19/2011 06:02 AM, Steve Jenkins wrote:
Hi - the purpose of this email is to introduce myself as a prospective
new package maintainer for Fedora.
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 01:24:37PM +0200, Roman Rakus wrote:
I have a question, if it is worth to enable this option by default? It
will not confuse some people, but can increase disk searching. Comments
welcome.
How can it increase disk searching in case the program is still there?
It
Hi,
is it ok to package a pearl script to convert flac files to ogg or mp3
files? The conversion is done by calling the respective command line
tools, i.e. no mp3 encoding logic is included in the script:
http://smxi.org/acxi
Kind regards
Till
P.S.: I tried to send this message to legal@fpo,
On Tue, Sep 06, 2011 at 08:46:50PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
It's not being enforced in bodhi, but it should be:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/277
It is somehow sad that nobody took the time to write a two line patch to
fix this 3 year old bug report:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:16:50PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
based testing in a variety of environments. In light of that, we can
either accept a maintainer +1 as I tested this as I would use it and
it worked (which should
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 08:30:24PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
Might be worth adding a flash() to inform why the karma wasn't added.
Done:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/attachment/ticket/277/0001-model.py-Change-karma-from-Submitter-to-0.2.patch
Kind regards
Till
pgpHXAZilkoL0.pgp
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:42:56PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
As in components flagged as base/core/critical might restrict the
maintainer from +1 his own component and require more stricter QA
oversight while components that are not flag as base/core/critical might
not?
If a +1
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 12:34:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2011-09-08 at 20:59 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 06:42:56PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
As in components flagged as base/core/critical might restrict the
maintainer from +1 his own
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 03:33:33PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
package for a while. If I'm happy with my subsequent testing, then I'll
+1 my own update, on the grounds that I've been viewing the change from
a testing perspective, rather than just from a development perspective.
If not, I'll
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 10:44:35AM -0400, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
On 09/11/2011 04:33 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
darrell pfeifer wrote:
Fails for me too, with the same error.
Thanks for confirming that.
I don't mean to be rude or inflammatory, but do have to wonder how such
a
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 acceptable.
If you notice this, ask FESCo to ask FES
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
On Fri, Oct 07, 2011 at 07:53:25AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Might have gone quicker if you pull via git:// and then only push via ssh://
reducing your ssh handshakes by half.
How do you ensure the integrity of the git repo if it is pulled via
git://? As far as I can see doing this
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 11:43:58PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
3. Can someone (I'm looking at you, QA) make sure all extensions
are still compatible?
The problem is that testers seem to ignore test cases provided for
updates, because there is an test case to check for
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 09:28:45PM +0200, Heiko Adams wrote:
Why don't you blame *mozilla* to make it possible to easily install
and manage extensions centralized? This would IMHO be the best way for
all because it makes packaging extensions allmost unnecessary.
Using the same logic you
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 11:10:12PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/09/2011 10:59 PM, Vinzenz Vietzke wrote:
I'd prefer a bit less bleeding edge over breaking crucial packages.
Sometimes unavoidable due to security issues
Why was it unavoidable with Firefox? Afaik updated Firefox
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:49:54AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
There obviously is a _legitimate_ question as to whether you ought to be
able to add your package into anyone else's update if you aren't a
provenpackager; it's not necessarily something we'd want to do. But I
think
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 09:35:33AM -0500, Nathan O. wrote:
I am curious or maybe giving an idea, but I have my package listed there and
currently there is an update for the package I have added to the list. Well
I have the package in bodhi, which I believe is in testing right now. The
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 03:07:11PM -0500, Nathan O. wrote:
Thanks for all the help, and glad it seemed to help you find a issue with
URM, Till
Thank you for the report. I dug a little deeper and identified and fixed
the bug that was responsible for the multiple bug reports.
Kind regards
Till
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 03:06:46PM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
out of interest - are there any plans to auto-close bugs once the new
version hits rawhide?
No, this is not planned. But you do not need to close bugs, because old
bugs are re-used unless they changed status.
Regards
Till
--
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:45:45PM +0200, Christoph Trassl wrote:
On 10/25/2011 09:33 AM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
On 10/25/2011 09:30 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/25/2011 09:15 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
It's not only an aesthetic issue. This enables possibilities,
which were not doable
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 06:41:21PM +0200, Christoph Trassl wrote:
On 10/25/2011 05:30 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 01:45:45PM +0200, Christoph Trassl wrote:
On 10/25/2011 09:33 AM, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
On 10/25/2011 09:30 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
On 10/25/2011 09:15 AM
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
can seem to agree on what an appropriate sign of life would be, no
has made a serious FESCo proposal for a contrived sign of life.
I remember that there has been
Hi,
I want to offer a review swap for hxtools:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683610
It is a dependency I need to update and probably fix several bugs in
pam_mount.
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:32:56PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle, to
publish a list of packages which were not touched by it maintainer in
previous release. For all these packages, new co-maintainer could
stepped up and they
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:05:37AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to:
One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
still come in by packaging a new package.
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:21:40PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
We have considered it. A really long time ago. At that time, it was
decided that we consider out-of-tree modules to be something we don't
support, don't care about, and won't hold up updates for because of
the aforementioned
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:51:52AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:40:52 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
can seem to agree
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:03:05PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
* The list of test cases associated with the package, with a PASS / FAIL
choice for each
A Did not test choice is missing here.
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 07:00:16PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
| xiphmont's Info | xiphmont's Packages (328)
| https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/xiphmont
How is that package count to be interpreted?
It is the amount of all packages that match any of the selected
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 09:42:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I suspect it might short-circuit the 'ahhh, but what about...' 'oooh,
but then I can...' nature of the conversation if you just put together a
proof-of-concept attack and document it somewhere. I suspect the git
maintainers
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 02:55:05PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
workflow, or merely an RFE I need to file against Bodhi?
The RFE is already there:
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/ticket/343
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 01:11:24PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:03:14 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
The attack is quite trivial:
1) clone the git pkg Fedora repos
2) commit some nasty change
3) publish the repo on some server
4) if the victim wants
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 01:34:30AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Petr Pisar wrote:
PulseAudio is interresting project, but it's absolutely unusable on old
slow hardware. Last time I checked it out on Pentium TSC (no MMX)
running at 200 MHz,
Fedora doesn't support that hardware anymore (the
On Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 12:47:00PM +0100, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
I do need to be in a ACL and have a public key, isn't? :)
You do not need the ACL to clone and you certainly need a FAS account to
clone via ssh. But I do not know, whether you need to be in the packager
group to be able to clone.
On
On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 09:39:44PM +0200, Robert Scheck wrote:
Hi,
as per non-responsive maintainer policy at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
I have filed:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=600992
Imho the bug report should be
the autokarma thresholds if it is enabled (Thanks to
Till Maas)
This is still faulty. Is there a way to get access to a running bodhi
instance that I can patch and test directly? A local instance set up
according to
https://fedorahosted.org/bodhi/wiki/Development
does not allow to edit updates, because
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 01:27:18AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
fix breaks that. Plus, edits can also be only to the description or bug
references, Bodhi doesn't allow me to edit those without editing the whole
update.
Bodhi also allows you to edit the stable karma value and unless it is
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 05:54:30PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
Bodhi also allows you to edit the stable karma value and unless it is
implemented differently (or has changed again), you can just use a
stable karma value of 1 and ask someone except the update submitter
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 09:07:21AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 14:04, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.net wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 22:23 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
Yes ssh is secure if used properly. To get the proper known_hosts entry,
one has to download
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:07:44PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
I just pushed out a fix that should allow you to edit updates with your
local development instance.
Thank you very much, it works. Patches for the autokarma javascript will
soon be attached to bodhi's trac. With these, there is only
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 01:06:46PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010, Peter Jones wrote:
On 08/12/2010 02:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
BN == Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com writes:
BN I can't help but note that the
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:12:14PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 08/17/2010 02:28 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
If you're able to create a long term ssh socket to the git server you
could re-use the connection and save a significant portion of the
connection overhead.
Interesting idea, but
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:42:18PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 18:30 +0200, Dennis J. wrote:
On 08/19/2010 05:46 PM, seth vidal wrote:
...
Now, the concept of an app can be refined in many ways but this is just
to prove that the infrastructure has been available.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 02:38:59PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 06:49:33PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I think run X as user Xorg if you're on KMS would be a fine
F15Feature to aim for. Ubuntu's been working on it too:
Of course, doing so just turns it from
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 03:26:24PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 8/20/10 3:20 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
You are requesting people participate in discussions via Google Wave. This
is problematic for two reasons:
a) Google Wave is dead
b) Noone wants to use Google Wave. See a)
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:19:53PM +0400, Mahmoud Abdul Jawad wrote:
without help i'll not be able to continue.
please test the application on non-KDE desktops, think for improvements
give feedbacks.
Maybe you get more feedback if you make it a F15 feature:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:19:59PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
to do so.
I guess sshfs fuse entries might be problematic, because they can
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:06:32PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
PACKAGING
- The syntax of systemd units shall be frozen for the release (all future
releases? Some set number of releases?)
ADMIN INTERFACE
- The files and paths used by systemd shall be frozen for future releases.
- The
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 03:43:36PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The problem with delivering this to a user's mailbox via an MTA is that
in the typical case it doesn't result in the user noticing anything
until they've logged in as root and find out that the you have new
mail message
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:00:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Well, ironically enough, Lennart's last big revolution illustrates the
problem with that. PulseAudio - previously PolypAudio, remember - was
'opt-in' for several releases; it was packaged in Fedora and many other
major
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 08:20:16PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Well, for different people different things appear more important. From
that you should not imply that one thing is useless and the other
isn't.
I did not want to imply that PulseAudio is useless. I doubt that you
would have
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 03:02:27PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
I did not want to imply that PulseAudio is useless. I doubt that you
would have implemented it, if you did not have any use for it. Probably
a lot of people who bought their soundcard
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:54:17PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
This is something I have been complaining about for a long time, especially
since this now means the same update has different karma requirements on
different branches, making it a PITA to push it in sync. (This wasn't that
bad
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:46:41PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
for workstation most users already use ubuntu. why? because it's more
user friendly.
There is nothing wrong with using Ubuntu, if it servers their needs.
do you think workstation users will like this kind of changes?
If they
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:15:54PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Because generally whats on the mainboard (or in the laptop) works. If
it didn't work, the first reaction isn't Oh I need to go buy a better
one it's why the heck can't linux work with this, is linux still a
piece of crap?.
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 01:06:41AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
and the people testing a particular Fedora release are not punished by
other people using another Fedora release and not testing the update
there.
Except that, with that logic, half of the time, you'll break
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 10:20:44AM +0100, mike cloaked wrote:
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:12 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
It also takes up live image space, which is a very scarce resource, it's
always a fight to keep our live images within the size constraints.
Which is fixable
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 07:44:55AM +0100, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
has to do with the discussion. I actually want it so its easy to make
tiny appliances and routers without having to manually strip a whole
lot of crap out. As I mentioned above there's nothing to stop it being
included in
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 05:25:17AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
When there's a compelling use case for NetworkManager on machines that
don't move around?
The compelling use case is that it doesn't make sense to maintain 2 pieces
of core infrastructure code doing the
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 02:33:25PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 8/24/10 2:13 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 01:15:54PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
Because generally whats on the mainboard (or in the laptop) works. If
it didn't work, the first reaction isn't Oh I need
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:39:09AM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
$ fedpkg push
Everything up-to-date
$ fedpkg build
Could not initiate build: There are unpushed changes in your repo
Clue?
You might need to do this to get the push working:
git config --add push.default tracking
Regards
Till
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 03:57:31PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
Till Maas opensou...@till.name writes:
git config --add push.default tracking
push.default can only have one value, so --add does not make sense.
Ok, I adjusted it here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Using_Fedora_GIT
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:08:27AM +, Matej Cepl wrote:
Till Maas, Wed, 25 Aug 2010 13:15:20 +0200:
Does it support setting ip rule commands if an interface is up?
http://projects.gnome.org/NetworkManager/developers/settings-
spec-08.html
I am not sure I know what you mean (I am
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 02:58:40PM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
Updating mercurial (stop laughing) to 1.6.3. I updated master, f14, f13.
Made some mistake on f12. Now:
git status
# On branch f12
# Your branch is ahead of 'origin/f12/master' by 1 commit.
fedpkg build
Could not initiate
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 03:16:14PM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
But, I hope this doesn't mean f12 is out of sync with f13, f14, master.
They should all be identical.
I usually gitk --all to check this. The green labels need all to
point to the same commit for all to be equal.
Btw. there are
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:43:41AM +0200, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2010/8/27 Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net:
That's strange. I use it on my laptop, which has a caching local DNS
server (dnsmasq) and it works just fine. I do have a script in
/etc/NetworkManager/dispatcher.d/ that
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 06:56:33PM +0100, Mark Chappell wrote:
I should point out that if NM gained a CLI so that I could do
something like that then I wouldn't mind the old RH scripts going
away, all I want is *a* method that I can automate easily, NM
currently only has a bit of a hack to do
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 01:28:26PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
What are you afraid of? Fedora is not a country, you don't have to
move to get away. All the code is free. Most the code isn't even ours,
it belongs to the upstreams. If somebody were to buy RHT, the worse
they could do is
On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 10:34:10AM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
I tried this viedeo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoNvsiBTQDE on
Fedora 13. It's compiled against Gstreamer, and it complainead about
Youtube-nocookie works with gnash for me on F12:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:10:16PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:53:51AM -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
If I have to wait for the next release of Fedora (14 for example) to
get KDE 4.5 then it's looking like the stable updates vision has made
If you need the absolute
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 03:47:04PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I'd like to ask for feedback and helping cleaning up an updates policy
draft page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
How can we clarify the language or the layout of the page to be more
clear? Are
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 04:45:30PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 22:21 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
This here sounds strange:
| The update rate for any given release should drop off over time,
| approaching zero near release end-of-life; since updates are primarily
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:48:34AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
Say you ship with 50 bugs in a package. As you update it through the
lifetime of a release, that number should decrease more or less
monotonically. The bugs that take longest to fix are presumably the
hardest ones to fix, and
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:22:44AM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
Well, I guess some people would want the laptop to suspend, but it's a
very good question. Now all it needs is someone willing and able to
write a little patch for me :-)
Do you know which components need patching to make Fedora
On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:54:41PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
I'm pretty sure docking stations are irrelevant to this whole thread.
The issue is about lids and video outputs. If you think lids are all
over the place (as mjg59 points out), docks are even worse. Lets not
drag them into
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 01:03:13PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 22:21:33 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
Also can someone please explain the practical advantages of requiring
the autokarma threshold to approve the ability to push a non critical
path update
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:05:19PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for filesystem encryption. I have /
and
/home encrypted and /usr not encrypted (for better performance of my laptop)
On Tue, Nov 02, 2010 at 08:35:41AM -0400, Jean-Francois Saucier wrote:
Thanks to everyone for pointing me scripts and other templates. I will
take a look at them and it will help me figure out a good starting
point.
All templates I know are linked here:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 01:36:24PM +0200, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
On Sat, 6 Nov 2010 12:23:00 +0200, Alexander wrote:
How can you expect a maintainer to fix/respond to hundreds of bugs and
not expect the user to verify his/her bug still applies?
Have you noticed how many ticket EOL
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 not
expect the user to verify
Hi everyone,
I just noticed that Andreas Thienemann seems to be unresponsive:
There are 48 open bugs assigned to him including 3 security bugs:
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 be,
Hi,
I noticed that the revelation security update was not pushed to stable.
It is now 91 days old, which makes me suspect that Jef is somehow
hindered to take care of it:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-10269/revelation-0.4.14-1.fc17
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 07:51:30PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
To summarize:
Previously: /var/log/secure readable only for root, /var/log/messages
readable for everybody and including data from everybody.
Currently (Fedora 17 and before) /var/log/message is only readably by
root.
Hi,
On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 02:36:49PM +0200, Fabian Affolter wrote:
The Fedora Security Lab is an official spin since Fedora 13. So far
all packages are handled direct in the kickstart file which is not
very handy if you want to install the packages from a running Fedora
installation.
I
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 06:12:02PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/02/2012 06:05 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
No, they might simply have had nothing to do. Sometimes
applications are stable, have no releases, and have no bugs files
against them.
sigh
Then those individuals would
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 06:32:20PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
So, I have been thinking about rawhide.
I agree identifying the problems/issues would be good, and I think
there's something we can do to help with that:
Get a nice group of at least 10 or so folks who are active on this list
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:20:14PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
* 960 - F18 schedule + the holidays (notting, 18:50:29)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JaroslavReznik/FedupF18Final -
not updated yet (jreznik, 18:58:15)
* AGREED: Do not block on fedup signature checking (not
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 02:28:16PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 08:11:08PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
* 960 - F18 schedule + the holidays (notting, 18:50:29)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JaroslavReznik/FedupF18Final -
not updated yet (jreznik, 18:58
On Sat, Dec 08, 2012 at 12:10:36AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2012-12-07 at 20:11 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 03:20:14PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
* 960 - F18 schedule + the holidays (notting, 18:50:29)
* LINK: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 09:59:52AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Oh sure. I guess I need to draw a distinction between what I see as two
different cases. Which I'm sure you understand but I'm having trouble
describing clearly. I guess what I'm saying is, if
there's /etc/keyboard.conf
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 08:53:15PM +1100, Ankur Sinha wrote:
I've received new bugs in the form:
bibus-1...5...2 is available. There's already a bug for 1.5.2. Is
something faulty with the script?
yes, there was an incomplete patch added unintentionally to the script.
All faulty bugs
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 03:20:41PM -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 08:28:03PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
I'll agree that most users probably don't verify their DVD images as it
takes some manual work to do it properly, so that's another weak link,
but the possibility
On Wed, Jan 09, 2013 at 10:09:21AM -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
As it stands you still need to verify that your netinst.iso (or
whatever) boot image is what you mean to be using. There are ways we
can address that, but it's not the problem I'm trying to solve with this
particular feature.
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 02:41:54PM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 17:56 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
But why should anaconda not verify packages if secure boot is disabled?
For the same reason Firefox doesn't automatically accept self-signed SSL
certs, and the same reason
On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 04:25:18PM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Problem 1: Root trust
Currently this process is manually performed by checking a mental
checkbox when a user downloads a Fedora image from fp.o. Having
SecureBoot perform this process automatically is a +1, but not a
1 - 100 of 967 matches
Mail list logo
