On 01/05/2010 11:30 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 11:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
On the other hand, with the
guideline being so widely ignored, I'm not in a hurry to do work to
comply with it ...
Isn't that a chicken/egg problem?
It really is. I mean, we could create the
On 01/05/2010 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
What exactly do you mean 'no longer work' ? Can we expect to get a formal
RPM build error for this bogus construct, or will it silently build and
do the wrong thing ? From your long description, it sounds like the latter,
which means
On 01/05/2010 12:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Not for all packaging policies, but for some I think that would be a
good idea. Pick a set of policies we think are particularly important
to enforce can be automatically checked, and declare any non-compliant
ones will be dropped in the next
On 01/05/2010 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
But there's a general issue that new things keep getting added
to the packaging guidelines and there's no very good mechanism to
detect whether existing packages ever get updated to comply.
You're right. I'm hopeful that the items which can be checked
On 01/05/2010 12:23 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:16:13PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 01/05/2010 12:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Not for all packaging policies, but for some I think that would be a
good idea. Pick a set of policies we think
On 01/04/2010 04:25 PM, Ian Weller wrote:
I know Gwibber is widely used by Fedora users because there are a
crapton of abrt reports for it and I just can't keep up with it. :)
Let me know if you have a desire for maintaining Gwibber in Fedora. From
what I've heard, a release of 2.30 is on
On 12/30/2009 02:15 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
It would be nice if others could join in (be it virtual not necessarily
physically). So are there any takers for this ?
It might be useful to have a wiki page listing out the specific content
items which need to be replaced.
~spot
--
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
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
On 12/23/2009 01:38 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
As the patent license is non-Free, Moonlight still has to be considered non-
Free wherever software patents apply. So as far as I can tell, this is not
acceptable for Fedora, sorry. (But of course spot and/or RH Legal will have
the final word.)
On 12/23/2009 01:56 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
On 23/12/09 18:46, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
With that said, this new covenant does NOT change our stance on
Moonlight. It is still not permissible in Fedora.
Can I ask on what grounds? Is the patent license insufficient, or is
there some other
On 12/23/2009 02:10 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
On 23/12/09 18:58, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 12/23/2009 01:56 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
Can I ask on what grounds? Is the patent license insufficient, or is
there some other problem?
It's difficult to fix things if we don't know what's broken
On 12/19/2009 11:03 AM, Christopher Brown wrote:
2009/12/15 Adam Goode a...@spicenitz.org:
On 12/13/2009 06:16 AM, Christopher Brown wrote:
2009/12/11 Adam Goode a...@spicenitz.org:
We should definitely use Debian's key, right? Otherwise some Fedora CLI
libraries would be unnecessarily
On 12/18/2009 10:29 PM, Chris Weyl wrote:
I could go either way on this; but I think we should pick an approach
and stick with it, unless there's compelling reasons otherwise... And
the current approach seems to be working well.
Also... Even if we exclude these modules w/o providing them
On 12/19/2009 12:07 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Also... Even if we exclude these modules w/o providing them as
sub-packages, we ought to ensure that they're still pulled in by
perl-core (and perl itself, when we make the
perl-core/perl/perl-minimal switch).
What you say doesn't make sense:
On 11/24/2009 10:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
But I dunno if there's a policy
requirement that you should anyway.
FWIW, the policy says:
If a package contains a GUI application, then it needs to also include
a properly installed .desktop file. For the purposes of these
guidelines, a GUI
On 11/30/2009 08:42 AM, Pierre-Yves wrote:
gambas2-2.18.0-1.fc12.src.rpm
Gambas is... special. It needs these .la files to function.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 11/18/2009 10:29 AM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote:
Shouldn't I be getting f13 tags with make tag?
If you run: cvs update -d in the top level checkout directory, you will. ;)
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 11/18/2009 08:22 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
[At the risk of letting this get lost in the shuffle of this
thread...]
Seth Vidal wrote:
If there are pkgs which run daemons which are defaulting to ON when
installed or on next reboot - then we should be auditing those pkgs.
Last I checked we
On 11/12/2009 12:06 AM, Ding Yi Chen wrote:
Hi,
I've tried to build e-17 by hand.
When I try to build from eina from e-17,
however, I found that the package name, eina, is already been taken by eina,
the media player.
How should I do with them?
Off the top of my head, I'd suggest
On 11/12/2009 01:39 PM, Adrian Reber wrote:
There is ubuntu bug report against id3lib libid3 crashes (stack
smashing) when reading VBR MP3 file[1]. I am able to reproduce this on
ubuntu but not on Fedora and I do not understand why. The patch[2] looks
like it is doing the right thing but there
On 11/14/2009 05:59 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Hi folks,
After getting okays from a few folks I decided to fix the long
standing libsndfile bugs.
One of these was a request [1] to split the utilities that come with
libsndfile into a utils subpackage. I did this only for F-13.
Since
On 11/03/2009 03:23 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 11/03/2009 02:16 PM, Jerry James wrote:
My guess (and it is just a guess) is that this is triggering multiple
initializations of portaudio. Try this patch:
Well, it turned out to be a lot more complicated than that. Alienarena
uses OpenAL
On 11/04/2009 05:26 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 16:12:40 -0500,
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/03/2009 03:23 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Well, it turned out to be a lot more complicated than that. Alienarena
uses OpenAL-soft, which dlopens
On 11/03/2009 09:13 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 3.11.2009 02:55, King InuYasha napsal(a):
The only thing I can figure out from this conversation is that the CDDL
is supposed to be incompatible with the GPL. If that's the case, why not
simply ask the original creator to kindly dual license it?
On 11/03/2009 09:52 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de said:
-Redhat continues to distribute cdrkit although there are
known legal problems with it and Redhat has been informed more that
once about this fact.
it is Red
I need to rebuild alienarena for all targets due to a security issue, so
I decided to update to 7.32, but unfortunately, the 7.32 build segfaults
immediately on Fedora 12 (x86_64), and gdb isn't much help (gdb output
is at the bottom).
Now, it is worth noting that the alienarena client does
On 11/03/2009 12:16 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 11:45 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I need to rebuild alienarena for all targets due to a security issue, so
I decided to update to 7.32, but unfortunately, the 7.32 build segfaults
immediately on Fedora 12 (x86_64), and gdb
On 11/03/2009 02:16 PM, Jerry James wrote:
This seems to happen only when portaudio is installed. Uninstall
portaudio and alienarena starts up. I'm not sure exactly what is
going on here, but it seems that alienarena is both trying to dlopen
libopenal, and is linked against it. Check it:
On 11/02/2009 05:23 AM, Liang Suilong wrote:
Thank you for hard work. Crhomium browser in Fedora 12 looks perfect. Is
there any plan to push chromium into rawhide or updates-testing. I think
chromium has enough stability to make more users test itself.
Not until Chromium comes out of beta and
On 11/02/2009 03:47 PM, Denis Leroy wrote:
On 11/02/2009 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty
vacuous truth.
Out of curiosity, was that just because of the GPL2-CDDL mix ? Or was
there another reason ? Last I checked, only
On 11/02/2009 04:26 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
I did even contact Mr. Chuck Bigelow to find out any
possibility of licensing Luxi fonts under an open source license, when
Fedora decided to drop them.
For what it is worth, when we dropped them, I contacted the upstream
copyright holder as
On 10/30/2009 11:00 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
1:nant-0.85-30.fc12.i686 requires mono(NDoc.Core) = 0:1.3.3498.0
This one still needs attention from a Mono person to fix the rebuild. (A
rebuild would be all that's needed, but the problem is that it's failing to
build.
On 10/30/2009 12:03 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 10/30/2009 11:00 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
1:nant-0.85-30.fc12.i686 requires mono(NDoc.Core) = 0:1.3.3498.0
This one still needs attention from a Mono person to fix the rebuild. (A
rebuild would be all that's needed, but the problem
On 10/29/2009 09:09 AM, Liang Suilong wrote:
And then, Tom 'spot' Callaway has not pushed a new upgrade for chromium
browser. But I do not want to disturbing him. I just wait for him
silently. Haha!
There is a reason for the delay:
http://spot.livejournal.com/311443.html
The good news
On 09/10/2009 06:36 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
should get rid of it. The harder question is where to put that
command...
%post for abrt-gui ? :)
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 09/08/2009 01:50 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 09:11 +0800, Yuan Yijun a écrit :
Hi,
The package wine-fonts is not mentioned, why?
Excellent question, it certainly should have been, and I have no idea
why. Maybe it was not present in the source repo I used¹
On 09/08/2009 11:10 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
There's a related problem here - glibc32 .
I don't think we distribute glibc32.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 09/04/2009 03:06 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Also for there to be a security issue, there needs to be an attack
vector, and during early userspace, there is very little attack vector, no
other
programs are running, no network interfaces are up, etc.
I suppose this would be somewhat difficult
On 09/03/2009 10:57 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
It really is like having to support gentoo, versus having to support a
distro using pre build packages. And I would really like to move to the
having to
support a pre-build package model for the initrd.
The problem is this:
The kernel binary RPM
On 09/03/2009 11:35 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
The kernel binary RPM contains this pre-built initrd. The kernel source
RPM does not contain the sources necessary to make this pre-built initrd.
This makes me rather uncomfortable from a Licensing perspective.
True, but we do provide SRPMS with
On 09/03/2009 02:20 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Regeneration is as easy with dracut as it is with mkinitrd, actually they
have the same cmdline syntax.
The only extra step required with dracut when using pre-generated images
is:
yum install dracut
Okay, so is there any reason why we don't
On 09/03/2009 02:25 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Note that we have the same problem with any package which does static
linking against an lgpl library (such as glibc).
This is (one of the big reasons) why we only permit static linking with
explicit approval from FESCo.
I'm really very
On 09/03/2009 04:59 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
Koji's database has that information, sort of. It can tell you exactly
which other packages were installed in the buildroot, so that is the
superset of what-all bits could have been rolled into the output.
Yes, but I do not think we are in good
On 09/03/2009 05:46 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
The requirement is to provide a written offer to give someone the source
when they ask.
Well, that's true for GPL. Can someone generate a list of the binaries
used in the generic initrd and the packages that they came from?
~spot
--
On 09/03/2009 06:14 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
We don't distribute under that clause of the GPL, because the 3 year
timeline on it is entirely too vague and we don't want to fall into that
trap.
Ugh. I had conveniently forgotten about that, thanks for the reminder.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list
On 09/03/2009 04:27 AM, Martyn Plummer wrote:
Thanks for finding this. I passed this message on to the CRAN
maintainers (CRAN also distributes binaries for Windows and Mac OS X)
who also contacted the SparseM package author.
The good news is that Mr. Betten is still at ANL, and he replied
On 09/02/2009 11:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silva...@gmail.com) said:
Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
filesystem package.
Then the guidelines should
On 09/01/2009 09:34 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
rpm could start refcounting directories any day now and that'd be just
fine.
Is there an open trac ticket on this issue with the RPM upstream?
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 09/01/2009 11:34 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 11:10 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 09/01/2009 09:34 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
rpm could start refcounting directories any day now and that'd be just
fine.
Is there an open trac ticket on this issue with the RPM upstream
On 09/01/2009 11:53 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Tom spot Callawaytcall...@redhat.com
wrote:
[snip]
Yes... this is all correct. Any package that is using commas in the
license field should have a bug opened against it.
Unless it's Redistributable, no
Hi folks,
I need this package reviewed so that I can fix the broken dep on
xsupplicant in rawhide:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501017
I'd be happy to do a review trade, just let me know.
Thanks,
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 08/31/2009 11:28 AM, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
So, is /usr/bin/env the preferred one, or is it the same in
preference with /usr/bin/perl?
I would not say that either is preferred. IMHO, you should leave
upstream scripts in place, as long as they use either /usr/bin/env perl
or /usr/bin/perl.
On 08/27/2009 01:21 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
What is the policy regarding deletion of individual entries in the
middle of %changelog?
A developer added a %changelog entry to each of my cloud daemons'
packages, on the main fedora-cvs devel branch of each.
Then, a day or so later, after other
On 08/27/2009 12:11 PM, John J. McDonough wrote:
Alex Hudson wrote:
Living in a European milieu I generally prefer my page sizes to be set
to the likes of A4. One thing which keeps aggravating me is the myriad
places where I keep having to repeat to the computer my preference.
And then in
On 08/27/2009 02:18 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
I think that's a brilliant idea.
I'll undertake to do this in the next couple of weeks - I'll work on the
F12 set first, because obviously that's going to be very similar to F13
anyway.
Am I ok to re-activate the localisation feature for F13, or
On 08/20/2009 10:10 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:
Apologies for the late agenda, I completely blanked out today :(. The
following are the topics for tomorrow's meeting at 17:00UTC on
#fedora-meeting on freenode:
244 Reconsider Moblin Feature for Fedora 12
238 Can libvdpau go in Fedora?
For
On 08/18/2009 08:17 AM, Stepan Kasal wrote:
(The term perl-minimal would go nicely along with our
vim-minimal and Debian's python-minimal and php-minimal.
But vim-minimal is not required by vim-enhanced.
And Debian does not use perl-minimal; perhaps perl-base predates
the other *-minimal
On 08/06/2009 04:39 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
After requesting status updates, including direct email to the feature
owners, the following feature pages do not have a current status or their
ability to tested during the Alpha is unclear based on the lack of
information provided or
On 08/10/2009 12:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
spot:BADSOURCE:chemoelectric_-_Goudy_Bookletter_1.zip:oflb-goudy-bookletter-1911-fonts
Not sure why this failed. I confirmed that the .zip file available from
the site is identical to the one in the lookaside.
spot:BADSOURCE:daa2iso.zip:daa2iso
Fixed
On 08/17/2009 11:49 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This would make sense to me. Do consumers of openal not make use of the
pkgconfig files? If not, do they use configure scripts that make it
easy to do this?
In the case of my package which uses openal (alienarean), it dlopens the
openal
On 08/17/2009 09:21 AM, Stepan Kasal wrote:
I see no change that would significantly improve our overall image
and thus I would stay with the current state, which at least
minimizes the surprises.
I'm not sure that it does.
Right now, perl-core installs everything that comes with the perl
On 08/17/2009 12:42 PM, Stepan Kasal wrote:
perl-core installs perl+core, i.e. the perl interpreter plus all the
core modules. So I see _some_ logic behind that.
Well, I like to think that I tried to put some logic behind it
originally, but I think this is a better logic. :)
I still think
Out of the thread on p5p, I'd like to propose the following changes for
F-12:
* Rename perl-core to perl
* Rename perl to perl-minimal
The biggest change here is that there are still packages which Require:
perl, usually to specify a specific minimal version. Here is a list of
rawhide packages
or on p5p.
Thanks,
Tom spot Callaway
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
On 08/08/2009 07:52 AM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) wrote:
On 08/08/09 12:53, Gregory Hosler wrote:
Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) wrote:
On 08/08/09 12:37, Gregory Hosler wrote:
The printer is attached to a windows box. At the time of running
system-config-printer,
the windows box is on.
This
On 08/08/2009 06:15 PM, Mike Chambers wrote:
I take it
known problem already? Have anything to do with the boxes on the panel
in the notification area being there instead of the device icons?
Don't assume it is a known problem. Search bugzilla to see if you can
find the same bug already
On 08/05/2009 07:15 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
So if you create a piece of software that can equally link to X or Y,
and you never use/distribute X yourself you are simply not within
reach of X's licensing terms. If someone else takes your software and
X then sticks them on a CD, then they are
On 08/05/2009 03:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
The missing bit of the argument from before is whether we actually want
to care about people who only want 'stable' updates, and that tracks
back to the question of what Fedora actually is, which I don't believe
the Board has settled yet. If we
On 08/05/2009 04:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
The question is whether Fedora intends to be a distribution suitable for
day-to-day general purpose use by people who are not necessarily that
interested in Fedora per se - whether it's got an aim to be a
general-purpose operating system like other
On 08/04/2009 05:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 12:11 +0100, Tim Waugh wrote:
No, please look more closely. The above is a list of packages that
*use* or *require* ghostscript, not that link to it.
See my most recent contribution to this thread to see the correct list
On 07/31/2009 04:19 PM, Tim Waugh wrote:
On Fri, 2009-07-31 at 22:47 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
This might cause problems for a bunch of packages.
$ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatrequires --alldeps ghostscript ghostscript-
gtk --qf=%{NAME}: %{LICENSE} | grep -vP '\bGPL(v3|\S*\+)' | sort
On 07/29/2009 11:12 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
2009/7/29 Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com:
The link https://admin.fedoraproject.org/community doesn't seem to work with
konqueror. Just says 'loading' and nothing happens. Works in firefox.
Confirmed with Konqueror 4.2.98
Hmm. How to put this
. Questions about Fedora Community
2.0? Come to the brainstorming session! Can't make it to the session and
want to suggest something? Login to Gobby and add it to our notes before
the session.
Thanks,
Tom spot Callaway, Fedora Community Cat Herder
___
Fedora
Thanks to everyone who applied for this open seat. We got a lot of very
qualified individuals who were interested in filling the open seat on
the Fedora Packaging Committee. After much
discussion and thought, I've asked Jon Ciesla to fill the open seat and
he has accepted.
I'm sure that we will
On 07/23/2009 07:07 PM, Michał Bentkowski wrote:
kooldock -- Cool dock for KDE with great visual effects and enhancements
Please note this package is dead due to legal reasons. Please leave it
that way.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 07/21/2009 12:06 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-20 at 20:11 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
[snip]
Orphan: pcmanx-gtk2
gnash-plugin requires /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
gnome-chemistry-utils-mozplugin requires /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins
java-1.6.0-openjdk-plugin
On 07/20/2009 04:24 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
You can workaround that multilib/dep issue by installing the
nss-mdns.x86_64 package. And a dependency isn't a bug by the way. The
nss-mdns is as well installed when you install the latest wine builds.
No, that dependency actually is a bug because
On 07/14/2009 08:48 AM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
%dist should be used always.
As the person who invented %dist, I can assure you, this is false.
In the specific situation where a new noarch package with relatively
static content is being introduced, you have a few options:
* Use %dist
* Manually
On 07/10/2009 05:58 PM, Joshua C. wrote:
I made a custom x86_64 livecd (f11) and found that the following
x86_64 packages depend on i586 and i686. Is this an error when
compiling those packages or they do need the 32 bits?
mesa-libGL-devel.x86_64 needs
glibc.i686
libdrm.i586
On 07/08/2009 01:44 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 07:17:38PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But, once I do that, you'll abandon this reasoning too, once you realize
that it's a non-starter, and change the topic to something else. It'll
probably be line number changes.
Nonsense.
On 07/08/2009 08:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Case closed.
No, your argumentation is based on false premises.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in my last post. You two need to take this
offlist, or simply let this thread stop by agreeing to disagree. This is
the last friendly
On 07/04/2009 11:16 AM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:04:44 +, Rawhide Report rawh...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
glibc-2.10.90-2
---
* Thu Jul 02 2009 Andreas Schwab asch...@redhat.com 2.10.90-2
- Update from master.
* Fri Jun 26 2009 Andreas Schwab
On 07/02/2009 02:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 12:43 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I'm not sure how distributable the KJV is or isnt'
It's been out of copyright for some little time, now. Probably.(*)
* Of course, one could potentially make some quite interesting
On 06/28/2009 04:32 PM, Till Maas wrote:
Will I also loose my cla_done membership, once you notice that I removed my
phone number from FAS after I quit the contract for the telephone connection?
Or is it only required to provide a valid phone number at the time cla_done
membership is
On 06/12/2009 02:11 PM, Ricky Zhou wrote:
If
he legitimately only has one name (I'm sure there have been many special
cases like this), let spot know and he'll make sure to let the CLA go
through.
I am aware of exactly one legitimate case of a FAS account where the
user had a single word as
Hi, I'm Scruffy, the Fedora Janitor.
Today (and likely, over the next few days/weeks), I'll be going through
and making minor changes to packages in rawhide (and only in rawhide)
where there are cases of unnecessary duplicate directory ownership.
Please do not be alarmed!
As an example example:
On 06/05/2009 06:23 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
Heya,
Yesterday, I was browsing Ubuntu's Blueprints for their next release,
and saw this:
https://blueprints.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-karmic-gnomescan
gnome-scan is already packaged by Deji, but I gather that more
integration
On 06/05/2009 06:57 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Usually running pulseaudio -v in a terminal might give you a
hint what might be going wrong.
Lennart,
Maybe this is a stupid question (you know I am constantly full of them),
but is there any way for pulseaudio to detect this common
On 06/03/2009 07:48 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
Not necessarily. I don't see why the Fedora Project couldn't qualify
as a Sponsored Participant on Internet2 [1]. In fact, Red Hat is
already connected in Raleigh.
I think this is because they're technically on NC State University.
~spot
--
On 06/03/2009 04:55 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 04:24:16PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis (fed...@leemhuis.info) said:
The answers are quite interesting and as far as I can see can be quite
helpful to decide whom to (not) vote for. So if you plan to vote in
On 05/30/2009 04:15 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
No objections to BuildRoot and %install parts, but I'd suggest leaving
%clean out of it for the time being, as this is on direct collision
course with the above suggestion of built-in default %clean.
If a built-in default %clean is coming, then
On 05/27/2009 12:47 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
How hard is that, really?
Whenever someone says this on the -devel list, they are automatically
required to write the patch.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 05/27/2009 03:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
but I'm sure we'll muddle through - provided this is included in
upstream rpm.
I think the key here is that we're waiting to deal with this particular
dilemma when upstream rpm has this functionality set.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
On 05/23/2009 06:37 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Conflicts
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Conflicts#Other_Uses_of_Conflicts:
| As a general rule, Fedora packages must NOT contain any usage of the
| Conflicts: field.
| Keep in mind that
On 05/23/2009 11:03 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
I didn't know about this until this subthread... and I asked a rather
senior packaging person about it some months ago and didn't get this
information. So I think this is poorly publicized; and perhaps poorly
positioned in the packaging
On 05/22/2009 03:04 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
1: Has the flags policy, anything to do with RH becoming more prominent
on the site?
No problem with them becoming more prominent, they do sponsor a lot.
If yes, say so, likewise no
No. The fact that I authored the original flag policy had more to
are also responsible for compliance with foreign law requirements
applicable to the import and use of Fedora software and technical
information.
Tom spot Callaway, Fedora Legal
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 05/26/2009 12:13 PM, Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) wrote:
The penalties for export violation are steep and
serious, which is why all Fedora contributors are required to abide by
the export policies.
Maybe this should be mentioned in the CLA ? We (Fedora contributors)
have to sign it.
On 05/26/2009 02:39 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com said:
Historically, we've only highlighted the export details onto people who
are likely to redistribute Fedora as part of their normal activities
(FreeMedia, Mirrors), but there is no reason we
1 - 100 of 148 matches
Mail list logo
