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 Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Todd Zullinger t...@pobox.com wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
If done right, the move to git can still service CVS requests in
some capacity... that may make the transition a little less abrupt
and painful.
Perhaps. But git-cvsserver is a rather limited crutch
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Martin Langhoff
martin.langh...@gmail.com wrote:
branches AFAIK. (It's not that awkward, but for developers resisting
change... ah, every changed comma is a slight :-) ... ).
To be clear, I mean developers with better things to do with their
time than dealing
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
Thanks! Got it working as follows:
1. extract ISO
2. copy in new ks file
3. add more RPMs to Packages/ (using creative use of yumdownloader to
make sure that deps come with the new RPMs)
4. createrepo --database
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Daniel Drake d...@laptop.org wrote:
I then tried to create a F9 chroot using mock, with the intention of
running revisor or pungi inside. This doesn't work, because mock
creates a v9 berkeley DB inside the chroot, but the libraries/apps
inside the chroot only
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 10:13 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
The non-responsive packager procedure could
have been started _several_ months earlier. Perhaps one year ago already.
There have been dead silent bugzilla tickets that ought to have raised an
alarm-bell.
Is this
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Richard Hugheshughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/7/22 Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com:
Amazingly, Richard fixed quite a few of the incoming bugs already, while
the test day was still ongoing, and people were able to confirm that the
fixes are working. Well
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Matthias Clasenmcla...@redhat.com wrote:
To achieve this, we will hold regular test days, each of which will
focus on use cases in a certain area. A few ideas for test day topics
Overall, an excellent idea and plan. We had some very good results
with an OLPC
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:18 AM, Matthew
Woehlkemw_tr...@users.sourceforge.net wrote:
So... 60% smooth sailing rate isn't terrible, especially since I /was/
able to reassemble all the pieces I got to keep without too much trouble.
...
The problem with preupgrade is that it needs user
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 4:48 PM, Bill Nottinghamnott...@redhat.com wrote:
Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
I know of *no one* in the community who tests on i586 to ensure that it
works. (If this drags them out of silence, so be it!) It is certainly not
part of the QA matrix for
On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Bill Nottinghamnott...@redhat.com wrote:
+arch_compat: geode: i686
...
That should do the trick. :)
Cool. Didn't know we had that compat mechanism available.
Back to my humid cave then...
m
--
martin.langh...@gmail.com
mar...@laptop.org -- School Server
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM, Lennart Poetteringmzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
Gah. Allowing packages to pierce the firewall just makes the firewall
redundant.
True
A firewall is an extra layer of security that
simply hides the actual problem.
Um!? Layered security is a _good thing_. *All*
In my neverending quest for the School Server, I am looking for a
'unix socket superserver', something akin to xinetd listening on
oldstyle unix sockets. Connecting to the right socket triggers the
superserver to spawn a (potentially memory-heavy, privileged) process
to handle the connection, with
13 matches
Mail list logo
