Am 31.01.2011 22:47, schrieb Martin Langhoff:
Consider this file from nxt_python package:
cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-lego.rules
BUS==usb, SYSFS{idVendor}==0694, GROUP=lego, MODE=0660
Is it safe sane to include an identical udev rule file in the nbc
package with different filename? To
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 11:04 +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote:
Am 31.01.2011 22:47, schrieb Martin Langhoff:
Consider this file from nxt_python package:
cat /etc/udev/rules.d/70-lego.rules
BUS==usb, SYSFS{idVendor}==0694, GROUP=lego, MODE=0660
Is it safe sane to include an identical
Hi,
I've submitted my first Fedora package for review and sponsoring recently:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673175
I want to submit it for Fedora and EPEL 5. The differences between the two are
minimal, there are just some programs missing in EPEL which need to be
commented out
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Gerd v. Egidy li...@egidy.de wrote:
Hi,
I've submitted my first Fedora package for review and sponsoring recently:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=673175
I want to submit it for Fedora and EPEL 5. The differences between the two
are
minimal,
GvE == Gerd v Egidy li...@egidy.de writes:
GvE What is the best way to handle this? Can I keep one spec for both
GvE and use conditionals to always build the right way?
You can. Do keep in mind, however, that the amount of conditional
garbage you have to pile into the spec file can get to be a
Hi Steve,
I want to submit it for Fedora and EPEL 5. The differences between the
two are
minimal, there are just some programs missing in EPEL which need to be
commented out in the default config.
This page
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistTag
and the buildsys macros RPM on EPEL5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/31/2011 04:04 PM, Naheem Zaffar wrote:
There seems to be an SElinux denial for me which stops it from starting
(I upgraded from Fedora 14 and its NOT a live machine).
I would assume its the same error?
On 31 January 2011 07:22, Braden
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=667935
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=476412action=diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=476412action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Gerd v. Egidy wrote:
I've seen code like %if 0%{?rhel} somewhere on the net, but that didn't
work for me. I guess the %rhel-macro should be defined in
/etc/rpm/macros.dist where I usually find stuff like %fedora but that
doesn't exist on my Centos 5.
%{rhel} is defined in the EPEL build
On 02/01/2011 09:27 AM, Gerd v. Egidy wrote:
How can I make sure that buildsys-macros is installed?
BuildRequires: buildsys-macros
won't work because there is no buildsys-macros on Fedora. And
You don't need to do that as buildsys-macros is part of the buildroot in
koji for EPEL5.
$ koji
MC == Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com writes:
MC I don't know why, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to have it in the
MC repository like a normal package, IMO.
Not that this will really explain anything, but:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563176
- J
--
devel mailing list
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 17:30UTC (12:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
= Followups =
#topic #516 Updates policy
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:16 AM, Jonathan Dieter jdie...@lesbg.com wrote:
FWIW, I'd really like to see the console user have access to this by
default. Then, uploading a file to the NXT brick would be plug and
play.
Yeah. Trouble is - I know nothing about ConsoleKit policy. What's the
trick to
I'll approve it as a fesco member. ;) Just ping me in 3 days and we can
add you to the package.
Sorry got caught up with some other stuff, pinging you as requested.
(trying to get these openid packages to work with yahoo, it's
apparently broken =(.
-Kurt
--
devel mailing list
On 1/31/11 4:04 PM, Naheem Zaffar wrote:
There seems to be an SElinux denial for me which stops it from starting
(I upgraded from Fedora 14 and its NOT a live machine).
I would assume its the same error?
So far, I have not identified an SELinux denial that appears to be
associated with this.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/01/2011 05:05 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On 1/31/11 4:04 PM, Naheem Zaffar wrote:
There seems to be an SElinux denial for me which stops it from starting
(I upgraded from Fedora 14 and its NOT a live machine).
I would assume its the same
Agreed with others, I can't see Network Manager having issue with SELinux.
Can you post SELinux reporting details?
--
Chris Jones
PHOTO RESOLUTIONS - Photo - Graphic - Web
C and L Jones - Proprietors
ABN: 98 317 740 240
WWW: http://photoresolutions.freehostia.com
@: chrisjo...@comcen.com.au
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: perl-Inline-Files-0.64 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674259
Summary: perl-Inline-Files-0.64 is available
Product: Fedora
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674259
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Inline-Files:
d777282872ecc642033ca01fffed8f73 Inline-Files-0.64.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit d0016ad7b8d76e3ac2ef2cd47b0107e064d3f691
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Feb 1 10:19:08 2011 +0100
0.64 bump
And some spec file clean-ups.
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Inline-Files.spec | 29 ++---
sources|
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674259
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
perl-RPM2 has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-RPM2-0.68-9.fc15.x86_64 requires librpmio.so.1()(64bit)
perl-RPM2-0.68-9.fc15.x86_64 requires librpm.so.1()(64bit)
On i386:
perl-RPM2-0.68-9.fc15.i686 requires librpm.so.1
commit 3a393e2d8fa796988b5e123cb19ce8db16663bfa
Author: Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Feb 1 14:35:45 2011 +0100
Upload specfile.
perl-Mail-MboxParser.spec | 59 +
1 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
---
diff
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=671445
--- Comment #3 from Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com 2011-02-01 10:04:03
EST ---
(In reply to comment #2)
Created
On 01/31/2011 04:36 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 01/31/2011 04:21 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Hello,
because some questions and blocked reviews [1]. I feel that we really
need discuss our @INC paths once again.
Thanks for trying to launch such a discussion.
I am blocking these reviews,
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=674117
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670616
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=476468action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
28 matches
Mail list logo
