On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 12/30/2009 07:29 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
One presumes that such auditing is expensive, lengthy, and not often to
be repeated. Committing to undertaking a full code audit on every update
would seem to be a little
All the existing ocaml-* packages in Rawhide depend on
ocaml(runtime) = 3.11.1
which means they will all have broken deps and need rebuilding. A
simple bumpspec + rebuild should be sufficient.
If any provenpackagers are feeling particularly bored this week ...
Otherwise I'll try to do it in
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 08:55 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
Hi,
I have this bz open for some time now, with no response.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544944
Can some one with proven packager access bump the EL-5 version to the
latest one in devel.
Even though any proven
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 08:55 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
Hi,
I have this bz open for some time now, with no response.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544944
Can some one with proven packager access bump the
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
Well, I disagree: If they want to use their auditied version, they haven't
understood how open source works. They qualify as jerks who prefer to use
proprietary forks instead of paying back to upstream and the wider
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 16:35 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
Even though any proven packager could do the change, that bug does not
fall in the items listed in the proven packager policy [1]. You haven't
listed any problems with the current package, you're just
Here's your chance! Join us for the upcoming weekly Fedora Sugar
meetings in #fedora-olpc starting tomorrow, Dec 31 on 1500 UTC [1].
We're going to talk about packaging (especially Sugar Activities) and
all kinds of stuff that helps us making the F13 Sugar experience better.
You don't know
On Wed, 2009-12-30 at 12:25 +0100, Martin Langhoff wrote:
Let's focus on the important bit: we need a frozen version of a
library (that, btw, is useful, and is not in Fedora yet :-) ). What's
the best practice for that? I don't see why we'd need to embed it
statically anywhere (except OFW of
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 09:40:13AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
If any provenpackagers are feeling particularly bored this week ...
Otherwise I'll try to do it in my spare time this week or next.
I did all but about 10 of them.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat
ons 2009-12-30 klockan 13:37 + skrev Daniel Drake:
I guess the approach I will take is to install our audited version as a
shared library under a different name (libtommath_olpc?) which the
libtommath-audited
No sense making it look like it's only for OLPC use. If others want
Martin Langhoff wrote:
Let's focus on the important bit: we need a frozen version of a
library (that, btw, is useful, and is not in Fedora yet :-) ). What's
the best practice for that? I don't see why we'd need to embed it
statically anywhere (except OFW of course).
It's just not allowed. Use
Daniel Drake wrote:
The upstream library is already in Fedora as a shared library.
I guess the approach I will take is to install our audited version as a
shared library under a different name (libtommath_olpc?) which the
components will then dynamically link against.
While that at least
Daniel Drake wrote:
OLPC has previously had a specific version of tomcrypt/tommath
profesionally audited for security reasons. So we obviously want to
stick with that version.
This is a bad idea and inconsistent with what Fedora is about. If you want
that sort of things, you need to go back
Michael Schwendt wrote:
What's wrong with ABRT?
My main beef with it is that it reports its crashes to the downstream bug
tracker when really the right people to fix them are the upstream
developers. KCrash/DrKonqi is much better there.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
On 12/30/2009 03:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Daniel Drake wrote:
The upstream library is already in Fedora as a shared library.
I guess the approach I will take is to install our audited version as a
shared library under a different name (libtommath_olpc?) which the
components will then
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
FWIW, I'm pretty sure this is not against current Fedora policies,
assuming that the libtommath maintainer signs off on it and there is no
conflict between the two packages.
I guess it's indeed not against the letter of the policies, it's still
against their spirit
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 04:42:35PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
FWIW, I'm pretty sure this is not against current Fedora policies,
assuming that the libtommath maintainer signs off on it and there is no
conflict between the two packages.
Indeed, it is just a compat library (and I think
On 12/30/2009 05:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
FWIW, I'm pretty sure this is not against current Fedora policies,
assuming that the libtommath maintainer signs off on it and there is no
conflict between the two packages.
I guess it's indeed not against the letter of
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=544245
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org
2009-12-31 01:54:45 EDT ---
rt3-3.6.10-1.el5 has been
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=544245
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
20 matches
Mail list logo
