commit 7167db27cf3982f1bca6a4c600acc45975220ba4
Author: Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr
Date: Sun Jan 4 22:33:22 2015 +0100
Remove bundled Flash files since they are not used by the application
(#1000245)
Add webdot directory perms to httpd configuration (#1070979)
bugzilla-httpd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000256
Bug 1000256 depends on bug 1092015, which changed state.
Bug 1092015 Summary: mojomojo-1.10-2.fc21 FTBFS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1092015
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000256
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000256
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
mojomojo-1.10-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000256
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |MODIFIED
Fixed In
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000256
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
mojomojo-1.10-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mojomojo-1.10-3.fc20
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000256
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ppi...@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000256
--- Comment #1 from Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com ---
swfupload can easily be removed, but I'm unable to rebuild at the minute due to
a change in perl-Encode that is causing test failures.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 12:36 AM, Panu Matilainen
pmati...@laiskiainen.orgwrote:
On 08/24/2013 03:12 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 02:28:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 23:15 +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
So anyway - I think we need some best
On 08/24/2013 03:12 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 02:28:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 23:15 +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
So anyway - I think we need some best practice on this. We definitely
need a 'if you absolutely must change a directory into
On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 22:05 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
As plupload is a .sh not a .as3 I *think* we may be able to build it
with swfc. I'll see whether that's possible.
plupload looks like, well, a giant pain in the ass. It
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 13:45 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf)
files,
but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these files.
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 13:45 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf)
files,
but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these files.
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 04:03 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Just nuking moxieplayer.swf doesn't stop tinymce generating HTML that
looks for it, so that's not really the way to go. But I think I found a
way to patch the plugin not to try and use moxieplayer.swf and just to
spit out nice clean
Thanks for tackling this!
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
So, tinymce has a 'media' plugin which lets you embed media in HTML
you're editing with it. If it thinks the media might need playing with
Flash, it'll generate HTML that tries to use a Flash
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 04:43 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
Thanks for tackling this!
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 4:03 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
So, tinymce has a 'media' plugin which lets you embed media in HTML
you're editing with it. If it thinks the media might need
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 05:40 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
However, to do this, I run into the fucking
convert-a-directory-to-a-symlink old chestnut, and RPM/yum just isn't
having it. Following the breadcrumbs all over this list and Bugzilla I
came up with this %pretrans:
%pretrans -p lua
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
All the upstream projects I found seemed to consider jumping to tinymce
4 a rather large move. Debian packages 3 and 4 as separate packages. I
rather think we should do the same rather than just pretend they're the
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Just to cover my ass, this kind of symlinking is explicitly allowed by
the draft new JavaScript policy:
Regardless, web applications may want to make subdirectories of
%{_jsdir} available under their own directory via
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 06:36 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:40 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
All the upstream projects I found seemed to consider jumping to tinymce
4 a rather large move. Debian packages 3 and 4 as separate packages. I
rather
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 11:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Any chance you could just use an Alias in the apache config? Then you can
just
delete the directory and not muck around with making yum happy.
Doesn't seem to work. Seems like it's just ignored: if I set it and move
tiny_mce/
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 11:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
You could just say screw anaconda installs and just use `rm -rf`. Though
I
tried that once, in *EPEL* even, and it only took a week for someone to
complain. :-(
I suppose we could do it that way wrapped in an 'if' statement so
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.comwrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 11:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
You could just say screw anaconda installs and just use `rm -rf`.
Though I
tried that once, in *EPEL* even, and it only took a week for someone to
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 13:57 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Sorry, just noticed the gist of this thread. Are you trying to
replace a directory with a symlink? Take a look at gallery2:
Example.
In %install:
#remove bundled Smarty.
rm -rf lib/smarty
ln -s ../../php/Smarty2
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.comwrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 13:57 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Sorry, just noticed the gist of this thread. Are you trying to
replace a directory with a symlink? Take a look at gallery2:
Example.
In %install:
Le vendredi 23 août 2013 à 14:19 -0500, Jon Ciesla a écrit :
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 13:57 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Pretty? Nope. Overkill? Maybe? Reliable? So far.
Are you
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 23:15 +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
No, I've mostly left it as is since written, and adapted to additional
bundled PHP libs as needed. Testing was heavy at the time but has
been mimimal since. Conversely, it's been a long time since I've had
a BZ on any of this,
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 06:36 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
Any chance you could just use an Alias in the apache config? Then you can
just
delete the directory and not muck around with making yum happy.
Doesn't
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 01:53 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 22:05 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
As plupload is a .sh not a .as3 I *think* we may be able to build it
with swfc. I'll see whether that's
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:15 PM, Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
So what we found on irc :
Since rpm first create the files for the new rpm that is installed, then
remove the files that should be removed still present from old rpm and
not in the new one, we fix the issue by waiting until
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
And, T.C., we probably need the Web Assets policy to set some
rules/guidelines on how best to achieve unbundling: should we always try
to patch the upstream to find the 'official' location of the shared
resource on
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 02:28:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 23:15 +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
So anyway - I think we need some best practice on this. We definitely
need a 'if you absolutely must change a directory into a symlink (or a
file, or the same operations
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 17:12 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 02:28:23PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 23:15 +0200, Michael Scherer wrote:
So anyway - I think we need some best practice on this. We definitely
need a 'if you absolutely must change
On 8/23/13, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-23 at 17:12 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
One further thought here:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:JavaScript#Static_Inclusion_of_Libraries
Taking a static library approach is also allowed. This can
On 8/23/13, T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
It's for case #2 that the exception got expanded to be allowed for
webapp packages, but it's really not intended to just permit bundling
to continue when you can just as easily unbundle. I'll look at
tightening
Bah, that was
fre 2013-08-23 klockan 16:46 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
But if
I'm going to do it, I'd rather get the replace-dir-with-symlink stuff
'right' (for whatever value we decide is 'right') first time.
The shortest scriptlet I saw to remove a directory in pretrans is:
(see e.g.
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 01:42 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 15:41 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
WordPress?
Not easy.
Two of the ones in wordpress are both in upload libraries - plupload and
swfupload. Both are present in the source tarball, it doesn't look like
On 8/22/13, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Looked into this a bit further this afternoon. Both swfupload and
plupload are open source projects, but Wordpress ships compiled binaries
in its 'source tarball', there is no build system in there for them at
all. Wordpress posts the
On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 20:20 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
What were the people who made this thing thinking, anyway?
UPLOAD WIDGETS FOR ALL THE THINGS!!!11, I think.
If we could actually build the blobs I was thinking of setting up the
package to build them in a separate tree then drop them
On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 20:20 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On 8/22/13, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
Looked into this a bit further this afternoon. Both swfupload and
plupload are open source projects, but Wordpress ships compiled binaries
in its 'source tarball', there is no
On 8/15/13, T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf)
files,
but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these
files.
On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 21:47 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
As plupload is a .sh not a .as3 I *think* we may be able to build it
with swfc. I'll see whether that's possible.
plupload looks like, well, a giant pain in the ass. It depends on a bit
called moxie which is just kinda smooshed into the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1000256
Bug ID: 1000256
Summary: mojomojo contains bundled Flash files
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: mojomojo
Assignee: iarn...@gmail.com
Reporter: tchollingswo
Subject: Re: Bundled Flash
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 09:09:09AM +0200, Johan De Taeye wrote:
T.C.,
Please remove this prohibited content from your packages, or ensure
that any included .swf files are built from source using a free
software toolchain like `swfc` during the %build phase.
The single
Hollingsworth tchollingswo...@gmail.com写道：
remi wordpress
What? Can you ensure it can work properly?
Thanks.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
...@fedoraproject.org;
swftools-ow...@fedoraproject.org; texlive-ow...@fedoraproject.org;
tinymce-ow...@fedoraproject.org; wordpress-ow...@fedoraproject.org;
wt-ow...@fedoraproject.org; wxpython-ow...@fedoraproject.org;
yourls-ow...@fedoraproject.org; zabbix-ow...@fedoraproject.org
Subject: Bundled
On 08/15/2013 02:45 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf) files,
but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these files.
:-(
It has
It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf) files,
but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these files.
:-(
It has never been permissible to included prebuilt files of
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 09:09:09AM +0200, Johan De Taeye wrote:
T.C.,
Please remove this prohibited content from your packages, or ensure that
any included .swf files are built from source using a free software
toolchain like `swfc` during the %build phase.
The single SWF file in the
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf)
files,
but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the
WordPress?
Not easy.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 15:41 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
WordPress?
Not easy.
Two of the ones in wordpress are both in upload libraries - plupload and
swfupload. Both are present in the source tarball, it doesn't look like
they're built during source compile.
It looks like we could lift
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 01:42:25AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I don't know how many plugins that affects, but at least not core
WordPress. The bad news is that, as that text mentions, Plupload is
Wordpress's library of choice, and it's the other thing with a .swf
file. I don't have Flash
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:45 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf)
files,
but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 09:09:09AM +0200, Johan De Taeye wrote:
T.C.,
Please remove this prohibited content from your packages, or ensure that
any included .swf files are built from source using a free software
toolchain like `swfc` during the %build phase.
The single SWF file in the
There are several options for uploading multiple files from browsers -
and the latest versions of all modern browsers support multiple file
selection.
A random example is this one:
https://github.com/blueimp/jQuery-File-Upload
With information about browser support here:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote:
I just fixed these and gallery3, no need to file BZs, unless you'd like to
for tracking. Additional testers welcome!
Nah, I'll rerun the query in the script that files BZs later on.
Although if one of you ends up
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 19:17 -0700, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote:
I just fixed these and gallery3, no need to file BZs, unless you'd like to
for tracking. Additional testers welcome!
Nah, I'll rerun the query in the script
It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf) files,
but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these files.
:-(
It has never been permissible to included prebuilt files of
On 08/15/2013 02:45 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth wrote:
It's come to my attention that a number of packages contain Flash (.swf) files,
but absolutely none of them have BuildRequires on a free software Flash
toolchain, nor do any of them seem to be shipping the source for these files.
:-(
It has
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com wrote:
Thanks. Turns out ckeditor also had a raw .fla file. I don't know if any
package would have a .fla without a .swf, but it might be worth checking
for.
Thanks for pointing that out!
.fla files are source files, so
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Orion Poplawski or...@cora.nwra.com wrote:
Thanks. Turns out ckeditor also had a raw .fla file. I don't know if any
package would have a .fla without a .swf, but it might be
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:46:36 -0700
Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:38 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth
tchollingswo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Orion Poplawski
or...@cora.nwra.com wrote:
Thanks. Turns out ckeditor also had a raw .fla file.
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Ananda Samaddar asamad...@myopera.com wrote:
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 15:46:36 -0700
Yes they are. Flash is slowly dying though, only to be replaced by DRM
in html5. Out of the frying pan...
Ananda
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Dan Mashal dan.mas...@gmail.com wrote:
Forgive me if I sound rude and correct me if I'm wrong, but arent the
free versions of Flash pretty useless as well?
We're talking about SWF compilers here, not players. There are free
compiler tools that work just fine
65 matches
Mail list logo
