Heads up, updates to pypolicyd-spf and python3-py3dns in Rawhide

The former is an update to the latest version of spf-engine, which rejigs the package, among other thing, so this will require careful testing. The latter had async IO pulled out, because Python 3.12 no longer supports the APIs that were used. Once again, careful testing will be required.

Re: F38 updates stuck in pending

https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11508 -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: F38 updates stuck in pending

Yeah, a ticket may be a better idea. I am not a maintainer of those packages, so don't want to overstep. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of

F38 updates stuck in pending

If anyone reading this email has special powers to get some of the week old F38 updates unstuck from pending, please click the magic button.  An example of such an update: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-ef0e8e36fc Thanks, -- Bojan

Re: Firefox builds broken on F38/39

Hi Fabio, Kevin pointed to llvm/rust bugs in that FF bug already: - https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/61932 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/109934 So, yeah - folks are already aware of this. For Firefox, using older rust for builds worked. -- Bojan

Re: Firefox builds broken on F38/39

Thank you for the pointer Kevin! Trying to build with older rust in corp now: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/bojan/FF/build/5862010/ -- Bojan -Original Message- From: Bojan Smojver To: Fedora Development List Subject: Firefox builds broken on F38/39 Date: 30/04/23 12:05:11

Firefox builds broken on F38/39

Looks like build infrastructure is having trouble building Firefox for these two at the moment. More info here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2189964 It you have any ideas of what could be causing this, please feel free to share. Thanks, -- Bojan

Re: Bodhi 7.0.1 deployed to prod

Yay! Thank you! -- Bojan -Original Message- From: Mattia Verga Reply-To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To: devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Bodhi 7.0.1 deployed to prod Date: 17/01/23 16:39:49 - Frozen releases updates will now be forced into testing before being pushed

Re: FF 107.0 scratch builds - just for fun

FF 107.0 shipped in all current Fedora releases a while ago. You can find all that in bodhi. If you mean 107.0.1, that will depend on the FF maintainers. Maybe they see no reason to respin, because the bugs fixed in that release are not something that is important in Fedora - not sure. -- Bojan

Re: FF 107.0 scratch builds - just for fun

107.0.1 build for F37/x86_64: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/bojan/FF/ If you want/need or are obsessive about version numbers, like yours truly. ;-) -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an

Re: FF 107.0 scratch builds - just for fun

Of course, relevant build overrides had to be provided, because required version of nss was not in stable at the time I started these scratch builds. Thought I'd mention it for completeness. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list --

Re: FF 107.0 scratch builds - just for fun

Everything except F38 completed fine. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

FF 107.0 scratch builds - just for fun

Now that nss 3.85 has been built, I thought I'd have a go at building FF 107.0, given that's been out for a few days and original builds failed in koji, because nss was too old at the time. No idea how this is going to end up, but the tasks for F3{8,7,6,5} are here, if anyone is interested:

Re: Direct to stable updates

Maybe push them to both, if they've never been to testing? In other words, never skip testing. Sure, there will be some duplication of packages for a cycle or two, but eventually, they anything that's already in stable will be kicked out of testing, right? -- Bojan

Direct to stable updates

Quick question about direct to stable updates in bodhi, such as FF 106.0.4 and kernel 6.0.7 that are lined up for F37 right now. Such updates often end up being in nowhere land for quite some time, because they skip testing to go to stable directly, but the push to stable cannot happen for

Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source

Possibly in one of the future versions. I am not even sure at this point how well (if at all) glamor support works with xorgxrdp. -- Bojan -Original Message- From: Hans de Goede To: Development discussions related to Fedora Cc: Bojan Smojver Subject: Re: Building two conflicting

Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source

It was for packaging xorgxrdp with glamor support. Submitted to bodhi now, so all good. -- Bojan 4 Nov 2022 7:38:17 pm Hans de Goede : Hi, On 11/3/22 21:31, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote: > This may be a trivial question, but my friend Goo

Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source

Thank you! -- Bojan 4 Nov 2022 8:48:25 am Florian Weimer : * Bojan Smojver via devel: > Sure, it is easy enough to configure/build repeatedly and stash the > results into non-conflicting paths of buildroot, but how does one then >

Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source

Cool, thank you! I think this is exactly what I was looking for (unsuccessfully). -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: Building two conflicting binaries from the same source

PS. I am aware of the alternatives approach, but looking to see whether there is something that rpm specs have natively for this. -- Bojan 4 Nov 2022 7:31:14 am Bojan Smojver : This may be a trivial question, but my friend Google is not showing me any

Building two conflicting binaries from the same source

This may be a trivial question, but my friend Google is not showing me any obvious answers, so I will ask here at my own peril. Say one needs to configure and build the same source with two (or more) different sets of options that generate different binary RPMs, but which have files in exactly

Re: Firefox/nss behaviour change in F36?

Ah, cool. Totally missed that in release notes. 臘‍♂️ Thanks, -- Bojan 6 June 2022 8:13:10 pm Alexander Sosedkin : On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 12:03 PM Bojan Smojver via devel wrote: > > Before I open a bug on this, the latest firefox/nss so

Firefox/nss behaviour change in F36?

Before I open a bug on this, the latest firefox/nss software that is in F36 - is it not accepting SSL certificates without matching subjectAlternativeName on purpose? I still have to complete more tests, but it seems that if SSL certificate is issued to CN abc.example.com and if that name is

F34: httpd package stuck in bodhi

Could someone with sufficient permissions please get httpd package unstuck in bodhi? It's been sitting there for a few days, waiting to get to stable, but it keeps getting kicked out, because some automated tests did not pass. The package contains security fixes. Thanks, -- Bojan

Re: Rawhide: noarch package built differently on different architectures

Thank you. Will check out the logs and the bug report. -- Bojan -Original Message- From: Petr Pisar To: Development discussions related to Fedora Cc: Bojan Smojver Subject: Re: Rawhide: noarch package built differently on different architectures Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:44:52 +0200

Rawhide: noarch package built differently on different architectures

Example: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76099482 Built the same thing on F35/34/33 and EPEL8/7 and that worked. Did something change in Rawhide that I should be aware of or is this just a temporary thing? Thanks, -- Bojan ___

FF builds

Just being devil's advocate for a second here... Two days to build FF in koji? Has it gotten that big or are the builds that slow? :-) -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: F33: kernel 5.10.x

big issue that is outstanding in 5.10 that is blowing people's machines up or something else (i.e. delay, oversight, etc.). -- Bojan -Original Message- From: Sérgio Basto To: Development discussions related to Fedora Cc: Bojan Smojver Subject: Re: F33: kernel 5.10.x Date: Fri, 08 Jan

F33: kernel 5.10.x

Just wondering whether there is a particular reason 5.10 kernel has not been submitted for testing in bodhi for F33. Or is it simply an oversight? -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Firefox 78.0.2 for F32

Cool, thanks! -- Bojan___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines:

Firefox 78.0.2 for F32

Would someone with sufficient powers mind queueing up this update? Thanks, -- Bojan___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: Status of bodhi

OK, thanks for the pointer. -- Bojan___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List

Status of bodhi

There was a note recently in one the the kernel packages about bodhi being a tad temperamental recently and not pushing updates out. Anyone knows what's going on with that? Is the fix on the horizon? -- Bojan___ devel mailing list --

Xorg 1.20.4-7.el7

Just tried building a scratch build of xorgxrdp, but this still pulls in the old Xorg, before RHEL 7.7 version. Could someone please change that, so that builds pick the latest package up. All in relation to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1738669

Re: Firewalld v nftables

Awesome! Thank you. -Original Message- From: Eric Garver To: Development discussions related to Fedora Cc: Bojan Smojver Subject: Re: Firewalld v nftables Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2019 10:36:12 -0400 On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 07:14:49AM +1000, Bojan Smojver via devel wrote: > This was patc

Firewalld v nftables

This was patched out, because an official feature was never submitted. Now that RHEL8 is using that combo, maybe it's time to try again? :-) -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

FF v dnf needs-restarting

I'm guessing most of you here probably observed this behaviour with dnf when FF is upgraded. Even after FF restarted, dnf needs-restarting reports that it needs restarting. Does that sound like a bug or is this somehow intentional? I'm seeing this in f29 and previous releases are the same. Once

Re: F29 updates-testing

Thank you both for clarifying. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines:

F29 updates-testing

Anyone understands why this is not being pushed in recent days? -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: F30: Self-Contained Change proposal: Firefox Wayland By Default On Gnome

I hope this gets fixed before FF on Wayland becomes the only option: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1666410 It makes FF really difficult to use with menus drawn off screen. -- Bojan Original Message From: Ben Cotton Sent: 26 January 2019 1:43:32 am AEDT To:

Re: Reminder: Deadline for Self-Contained Changes is 29 January

Just out of curiosity, is firewalld going to nftables, like rhel8? Apparently, this change was not submitted on time for f29, so just wondering what's going to happen with f30. -- Bojan Original Message From: Ben Cotton Sent: 25 January 2019 1:02:54 am AEDT To:

Re: ONGOING PROBLEM: Buildsystem degradation

Thanks Kevin. The build worked! Sorry about not opening a ticket. That's done here, right? https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: ONGOING PROBLEM: Buildsystem degradation

EPEL7 builds for x86_64 and ppc64le appear to be failing still. Example: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31577177 Just FYI. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Latest RHEL7 release v Xorg

Noted and thanks. -- Bojan Original Message From: Orion Poplawski Sent: 1 November 2018 1:17:11 pm AEDT To: Development discussions related to Fedora , Bojan Smojver Subject: Re: Latest RHEL7 release v Xorg On 10/31/2018 04:13 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote: > With RHEL 7.6

Latest RHEL7 release v Xorg

With RHEL 7.6 out, a new version of Xorg has been delivered, which made xorgxrdp package that I maintain binary incompatible. Given that build overrides are not possible with EPEL (AFAIK), could someone with enough privileges please update the build environment for rhel7. Thanks, -- Bojan

F28 updates-testing

Does anyone understand what most recent masher messages mean for F28 updates testing? bodhi masher failed to mash f28-updates-testing 3 hours agobodhi masher successfully mashed f28-updates-testing 3 hours ago Confusing... -- Bojan ___ devel mailing

RHEL 7.5 for aarch64

Anyone knows when RHEL 7.5 packages will be available for aarch64 in koji, so that new dependencies get picked up? I'm trying to build EPEL7 xorgxrdp against the latest xorg-x11-server and all other arches have 1.19.5, but aarch64 is stuck on 1.19.3. PS. Buildroot overrides don't work here,

Re: Latest updates-testing for F27

Wow! That's what I call a fast turnaround. Before even reading the replies, the bug was fixed! :-) -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Latest updates-testing for F27

Does anyone know why latest dnf repodata for updates-testing in F27 appears to be missing some packages that were supposed to be pushed? For instance, kernel 4.15.12-301 is there, but latest dnsmasq is not and they were supposedly pushed at the same time. I noticed a similar pattern the day

Old updates in F26 testing

Was just curious, anyone understands why there are so many obsolete updates in F26 testing repository? For example, there is firefox 54.0 from June, other stuff back from April etc. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To

Re: CVE-2017-3140 bind: RPM rebuild for F26?

Thank you! -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

CVE-2017-3140 bind: RPM rebuild for F26?

Hi, I pinged folks in bug #1461641 about this a couple of times, but no joy. Anyone else here that can rebuild and push patched bind to F26? Thanks, -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Firefox 52.0.1: CVE-2017-5428

Thanks Martin! A push to testing repo would also be highly appreciated. :-) -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Firefox 52.0.1: CVE-2017-5428

Does anyone know whether the fix for this problem is already in F25 builds of FF or should a new build be prepared and pushed to fix this? See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1433819 -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Firefox 52 Electrolysis

On Fri, 2017-03-10 at 07:53 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: > Anyone understands why Firefox 52 in F25 doesn't support multi- > process any more? I can confirm that -4 release of the F25 package indeed has the fix. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Firefox 52 Electrolysis

This bug is about e10s not being activated in the presence of add-ons. What I'm seeing is that it cannot be activated at all since 52. I had it running in 51 (and 50, from memory). There are no add-ons here. Even forcing it doesn't work. -- Bojan ___

Re: Firefox 52 Electrolysis

> Have you checked Red Hat Bugzilla? Yes. Nothing in there that I can find about this. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Firefox 52 Electrolysis

> Are you using Fedora's Firefox or straight from Mozilla? Fedora: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-bb459964ce -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Firefox 52 Electrolysis

Anyone understands why Firefox 52 in F25 doesn't support multi-process any more? Or alternatively, is there a new trick to get this working, apart from what is written here? https://wiki.mozilla.org/Electrolysis -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list --

Re: F25 updates/updates-testing failures in bodhi

> f25 updates testing you mean? Yeah. Basically, the testing stuff stalled, so updates are not making it in, which means no testing (apart from a few adventurous folks downloading from koji) etc. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list --

F25 updates/updates-testing failures in bodhi

Anyone understands what's going on with these? Seems like everything F25 related has been stuck for quite a while now... -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Firefox 49.0.2

I use e10 all the time. Works fine. --  Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Pondering security update time frames

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370061#c7 -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Pondering security update time frames

I guess I must have misread this as all kernels built in koji, not just scratch builds. Ouch. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Pondering security update time frames

Dnf would need to be taught to do these things, of course The "on the fly" repositories could be defined like any other, using repo files. They could be signed by the same keys updates/updates- testing repos use. Not sure why master mirrors would be required. Wouldn't regular mirrors work, minus

Re: Pondering security update time frames

I'm thinking, why not just have these as dump repositories (i.e. just signed packages) and then have dnf on each system stitch up a repo from them using createrepo locally. Then you don't need to teach bodhi anything. And the number of such urgent packages would always be very low. Essentially an

Re: Pondering security update time frames

Wouldn't package maintainers get the CVE bug notification from Bugzilla about FF that I pointed to? Given that, the assumption that maintainers are away seems reasonable. Ergo, I sent an e-mail to the list. PS. I also checked FF package git repo, which had no recent commits. -- Bojan

Re: Pondering security update time frames

If there existed updates-urgent and updates-urgent-testing repositories for packages like kernel (example: Dirty COW patch-to-testing wait time was rather long; note that some people cannot install unsigned kernel packages from koji due to grub2 bugs), FF etc., maybe these large (and possibly

Re: Firefox 49.0.2

Which is also already in Bugzilla: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387589 -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Firefox 49.0.2

What about this? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2016-87/ -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Firefox 49.0.2

Could someone with access please build this version of FF. Apparently, it's a security release. Thanks, -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Bind update (CVE-2016-2776)?

On 29 September 2016 6:08:13 PM AEST, Tomas Hozza wrote: >I'll be pushing the updates shortly. Cool, thanks. -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Bind update (CVE-2016-2776)?

Could someone with sufficient access please spin up an update of bind for F-24 and other flavours of Fedora. That CVE looks like a pretty serious DoS. This has already been fixed in RHEL. Thanks, -- Bojan ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Firefox 48 v Electrolysis

Martin Stransky redhat.com> writes: > You can enable it by your own in about:config, set > browser.tabs.remote.autostart value to true. Thanks for the quick reply. Will try that in 48. -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Firefox 48 v Electrolysis

Will Fedora build of FF 48 have this enabled or disabled? Or is this something every user will have to decide upon through options etc.? Thanks, -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Firefox build?

Neal Gompa gmail.com> writes: > Is there a simple way to test if the issue is a problem on Fedora? I > don't even know of any sites with TLS 1.2 using MD5 signatures, > especially when Chrome "broke" signatures that weren't SHA-256 or > better for SSLv3 and stronger a year ago... I guess one

Re: Firefox build?

Eric Griffith gmail.com> writes: > Is there any reason Fedora would not...? Regardless you could diff the source code that was used to make the 43.0.1-fedora RPM vs whats in 43.0.2 and see if the hole is unpatched. There may be a reason. Fedora relies on NSS/NSPR packages for some of the stuff

Firefox build?

Release notes for FF 43.0.2 say that a security issue was fixed (MD5 signatures accepted within TLS 1.2 ServerKeyExchange in server signature). Does this not affect Fedora builds? PS. The link to that security issue is broken (https://www.mozilla.org/ en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2015-150/), so

Re: Firefox build?

Reindl Harald thelounge.net> writes: > what do you try to tell us with that question? I'm trying to establish whether Fedora needs a 43.0.2 (or better) build of FF in order to close this security hole. -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

bind: CVE-2015-5722 and CVE-2015-5986

According to ISC, these two affect bind 9.10.2 as well (up to P3). There a no new builds (i.e. P4) for F22 of this package that I can see. Does anyone know why? Is there something Fedora specific that prevents these problems in F22 packages? ISC release notes are here:

Re: bind: CVE-2015-5722 and CVE-2015-5986

Paul Wouters nohats.ca> writes: > I just built it in rawhide, and it seems fine. I suspect it has just > been an "no time" issue. I'll ping Tomas and ask him. Thanks. -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

Kevin Fenzi kevin at scrye.com writes: So, IMHO, another repo wouldn't help us here. Perhaps it would save time on the signing, but it wouldn't on the mashing step, and it would add to confusion and things we need to make and care about. I'd much rather try and land all the improvements above

A proposal for Fedora updates

Hi there, I've been a bit perplexed by the Fedora updates recently (talking about F-21 specifically). Many of them appear to be obsolete the moment they hit stable, sometimes even testing. Take the kernel, for instance. 3.19.2-201.fc21 replaced the previous build in bodhi on the 24th. It is

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

Kevin Fenzi kevin at scrye.com writes: If you wish to test something before it's fully pushed to testing, you can download it directly from the buildsystem via the web interface, koji command line or bodhi client command line. I am fully aware of that. I'm making a different point entirely

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

M. Edward (Ed) Borasky znmeb at znmeb.net writes: As a bleeding-edge user I'd be in favor of this, although I thought that was what 'updates-testing' was. Maybe I'm misunderstanding how things work, but I think every package in updates-testing is signed by a human, on an offline machine (i.e.

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

Chris Murphy lists at colorremedies.com writes: That might be normal in that it takes a while for mirrors to update, although I'm not sure how long (it could be days). Just to avoid confusion, I am not talking about mirrors. I am talking about updates not appearing at all (i.e. here:

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

Corey Sheldon sheldon.corey at gmail.com writes: those ARE mirror list links the master mirror servers to be exact. Really not a file distribution problem I'm trying to get at here. If you check out these two URLs: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4457/kernel-3.19.2-201.fc21

Re: Firefox 29.0.1

On Wed, 2014-05-14 at 08:59 +0200, Martin Stransky wrote: Why do you think it's fixed in 29.0.1? I see only some Android and network fixes there (http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-release/). http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/29.0.1/releasenotes/ -- Bojan -- devel mailing list

Re: Firefox 29.0.1

On May 14, 2014 7:57:25 PM GMT+10:00, Martin Stransky stran...@redhat.com wrote: The release notes are wrong, the patch is not applied in 29.0.1 but only in an upcoming Firefox 30. Sure works in Windows with 29.0.1. -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Firefox 29.0.1

On May 14, 2014 9:05:39 PM GMT+10:00, Martin Stransky stran...@redhat.com wrote: Anyway, I'll update Fedora builds today. Cool, thanks! -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct:

Firefox 29.0.1

Could someone please build that. The blank PDF print thing is a bit annoying with 29. Thanks, -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: F21 System Wide Change: Wayland

On Tue, 2014-04-29 at 14:04 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: GNOME is being ported to Wayland. In particular GNOME shell is changed to run as a Wayland compositor instead of an X11 compositor. Does that mean that the shell will stop working on things like xrdp (which runs Xvnc behind the scenes)?

Pidgin rebuild

Hi folks, Could someone with requisite rights rebuild Pidgin, please? Apparently, there were quite a few security fixes in 2.10.8 and 2.10.9 is out as well. Thanks, -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code

Re: Pidgin rebuild

Dan Mashal dan.mashal at gmail.com writes: Trying my hand at it. Thank you! -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Pidgin rebuild

Dan Mashal dan.mashal at gmail.com writes: Pidgin updated to 2.10.9 on F19, F20, Rawhide. Very cool, thanks. I will test on F-20 once the pending packages hit testing. -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora

spampd: pinging maintainer(s)

This package appears to be a bit neglected (bugs open without replies etc.). So, if you are the maintainer, know the maintainer or otherwise have the powers to approve package commit access for this package, could you please do so for pending requests. Talking about:

Bug 894274: sqlgrey rebuild

Hi, Could someone with relevant privileges please pick up one of the attached patches (most likely the second one) to this bug and rebuild sqlgrey for F-18. With the default config, sqlgrey otherwise dies after receiving connection from Postfix and trying to process the e-mail. Thanks, -- Bojan

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 01:52 +, Bojan Smojver wrote: I know everyone is going to hate me for saying this, but wouldn't it make sense to just forget about F-18 and go for F-19 instead? After all, F-19 feature submission deadline will probably be only a few weeks after F-18 release

Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27

Jaroslav Reznik jreznik at redhat.com writes: Final Change deadline is rescheduled to Dec 18 with final Fedora 18 release on 2013 Jan 08 [2]. I know everyone is going to hate me for saying this, but wouldn't it make sense to just forget about F-18 and go for F-19 instead? After all, F-19

Component question

I filed a bug recently against remmina (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820815) which on second look would seem to be unrelated to remmina itself, but is rather a more generic issue affecting Gnome. Essentially, some applications that used to start their windows with the appropriate

  1   2   >