Rex Dieter wrote:
> I'm convinced to revert, I'll run the change by my fellow cmake
> maintainers (I think we have buy-in from everyone though).
Please test that we really don't end up with standard paths like /usr/lib or
/usr/lib64 in the rpath of installed executables when doing that! Last time
James Antill wrote:
> Wow ... it's almost as if we need a place where developers could put
> _updates_ for a significant amount of time so that users could do some
> _testing_ on them, under each of their particular conditions. We could
> maybe use this instead of developers hitting the go button
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:40:46 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> In most cases, you can get that information from the original RPM
> compared to the system... if you have the RPM :).
>
> rpm -Vp
Which is pretty much what I want, just pulling the data from an external
(signed) source inste
A colleague of mine submitted a bug report regarding an infinite loop
triggered when calling `lsb_start_daemon` with the `-p` option[1]. This
bug has been around since at least Fedora 9 and is still present in the
beta for Fedora 12.
Considering the fact that `lsb_start_daemon` is supposed to be
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 12:51:01AM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > Not likely. dahdi-linux support is pretty spotty. atrpms can go a long
> > > time
> > > without having a version for a specific version Fedora. For example there
> > > is no rawhide version now and there was a long period witho
On 09-10-20 17:49:28, nodata wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What's with the extra rpmnew files on an upgrade?
>
> Some examples:
> # md5sum /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf.rpmnew /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf
> 7c8f8d809c5b618e1604207525161101 /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf.rpmnew
> 7c8f8d809c5b618e1604207525161101 /etc/pki/
sssd-0.6.1-2.fc12 skrooge-0.5.2-2.fc12 translate-toolkit-1.4.1-2.fc12
vhostmd-0.4-0.2.gitea2f772d.fc12 qtcurve-gtk2-0.69.0-1.fc12
qtcurve-kde4-0.69.0-1.fc12 gfs-ignacio-fonts-20090923-1.fc12
adf-tribun-fonts-1.13-1.fc12 gdl-0.9-0.7.rc3.fc12
Tagged these from the oldest bodhi requests. Need t
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:09 PM, Steven James Drinnan wrote:
>
> Well any ideas, for me Package Kit would be the way to go. Then users
> could add the packages or groups to the exclude list. Maybe an extra
> password (optional) for parents / supervisors.
>
> Or like was mentioned a way to create
On 10/20/2009 07:36 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 16:33 -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
OTOH, people did put effort into filing bodhi tickets and writing update
notes there. Perhaps this means that everything with bodhi tickets is
already good enough for tagging. We should auto-ta
Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2009, 17:01 -0700 schrieb Jesse Keating:
> On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 01:11 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >
> > What really scares me is that there is a number of security updates in
> > bodhi that don't have a tag request in trac. Are maintainers that
> > careless? We don't
Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2009, 20:01 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 01:11:23AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >
> >What really scares me is that there is a number of security updates in
> >bodhi that don't have a tag request in trac. Are maintainers that
> >careless? We don't
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 01:11:23AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2009, 17:27 -0400 schrieb Warren Togami:
>
>> Many Builds Not Tagged, but Probably Should Be
>> ==
>> # koji list-tagged --latest dist-f12-updates-candidate
>> This
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 01:11 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>
> What really scares me is that there is a number of security updates in
> bodhi that don't have a tag request in trac. Are maintainers that
> careless? We don't want F12 released with 6 weeks old security bugs, so
> it might be worth t
When: Wednesday, 2009-10-21 @ 15:00 UTC (11 AM EDT)
Where: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
Join us this **Wednesday** for an unscheduled [1] review of the Fedora
12 release blocker bug list [2]. Note, a regularly scheduled review is
planned for this Friday. However, given that the current
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:45 AM, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I was wondering the other day how much space the file information (i.e. the
> stuff that rpm -V checks against) takes up in an RPM file. And, going from
> there, how much space we would waste over the years if we kept this
> informa
Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2009, 17:27 -0400 schrieb Warren Togami:
> Many Builds Not Tagged, but Probably Should Be
> ==
> # koji list-tagged --latest dist-f12-updates-candidate
> This command shows over 400 packages are built for F-12 but not tagged
> for
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 12:00:23AM +0200, nodata wrote:
> Am 2009-10-20 23:48, schrieb Till Maas:
>> Having a hash list of well known files might also help in forensics
>> analysis to find suspicious files. Also with determining the correct RPM
>> NVR one could use the repo metadata to check wethe
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 23:49:28 +0200,
nodata wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What's with the extra rpmnew files on an upgrade?
It could be the hash change, depending on what you upgrading from and to.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/f
Am 2009-10-20 23:48, schrieb Till Maas:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:20:17AM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a known
bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would contain
known vulnerabilities and so knowing that you have
On 10/20/2009 05:54 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 17:27:45 -0400,
Warren Togami wrote:
This is just a reminder about the tagging policy for packages built
for Fedora 12 past the development freeze.
So is there some more example guidance with this?
For example I have a
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 17:27:45 -0400,
Warren Togami wrote:
> This is just a reminder about the tagging policy for packages built
> for Fedora 12 past the development freeze.
So is there some more example guidance with this?
For example I have a new release of the game colossus, that has some
Hi,
What's with the extra rpmnew files on an upgrade?
Some examples:
# md5sum /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf.rpmnew /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf
7c8f8d809c5b618e1604207525161101 /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf.rpmnew
7c8f8d809c5b618e1604207525161101 /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf
# ls -la /etc/pki/tls/openssl.cnf.
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 10:20:17AM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a known
> bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would contain
> known vulnerabilities and so knowing that you have a file that was once
> included in F
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 08:32:56AM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Původní zpráva
> Předmět: [opensuse-packaging] Junior Jobs
> Datum: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:46:58 +0200
> Od: Michal Hrusecky
> Komu: opensuse-packag...@opensuse.org
> lately we formulated concept of openSUSE Junior
This is just a reminder about the tagging policy for packages built for
Fedora 12 past the development freeze.
What Qualifies for Tagging?
===
* You must have tested the build yourself. Great shame to be bestowed
if you break things so close to the release! Great Shame
nodata wrote:
> Am 2009-10-20 22:26, schrieb Seth Vidal:
[...]
>>in fact you could even be super-duper cool and check the config
>>files into some sort of scm so you could record state...
>>
>>-sv
>>
>
> and in one swipe enterprise configuration file management becomes a
> piece of cake.
>
> bung i
Am 2009-10-20 22:26, schrieb Seth Vidal:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:15:46 -0400 (EDT), Seth Vidal wrote
Record original copies of the config files and tuck them away - heck
you could save off a copy of the pkg hdrs if you wanted to.
Hm. The conf
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 01:16:21PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:23:45AM -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> > Is there any process for handing over package ownership? I have a
> > package that I'm wanting to give to another maintainer. Can I simply
> > reassign ownership
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:15:46 -0400 (EDT), Seth Vidal wrote
Record original copies of the config files and tuck them away - heck
you could save off a copy of the pkg hdrs if you wanted to.
Hm. The config file copy might actually be pretty stra
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:15:46 -0400 (EDT), Seth Vidal wrote
> Record original copies of the config files and tuck them away - heck
> you could save off a copy of the pkg hdrs if you wanted to.
Hm. The config file copy might actually be pretty straigtforward to
do.
--
fedora-devel-list maili
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:23:45AM -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> Is there any process for handing over package ownership? I have a
> package that I'm wanting to give to another maintainer. Can I simply
> reassign ownership to him, or is there something else needed first?
>
Note, if you want to
Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
> There might be some other very good reason for keeping those lines, but
> I do not see it (Rex ? since you added the lines,
> maybe you remember what was the motivation ?).
I'm convinced to revert, I'll run the change by my fellow cmake maintainers
(I think we have
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 10:45 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:17 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>
> > What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a
> > known bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would
> > contain known vulnerabil
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:37:39 +0200, nodata wrote
It sounds like a solution looking for a problem to me.
Well, the problem is being able to determine whether the files on
your system have been compromised, which seems like a sensible idea
to m
Jeffrey Ollie wrote, at 10/21/2009 01:53 AM +9:00:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
I'm trying to build the latest Asterisk sounds package, but I'm
getting the following error:
error: Recognition of file
"/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/asterisk-sounds-core-1.4.16-1.fc13.noarch/u
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 11:17 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As the Dell Latitude D630 is one of the more common devices that smolt
> reports being used by Fedora I thought I'd mention my upgrade
> experience and issues for F-12.
>
> Probably the two usual things that people query are g
Hi guys,
the review process for EMBOSS was recently completed. A gcc bug (fixed
but not pushed) prevents it from getting built for F-12 and rawhide, but
other than that package is fine.
Unfortunately, due to the fact that jemboss bundles a load of .jar files
and seems to use some com.sun.net class
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 19:37:39 +0200, nodata wrote
> It sounds like a solution looking for a problem to me.
Well, the problem is being able to determine whether the files on
your system have been compromised, which seems like a sensible idea
to me.
> Here's a better idea:
>
> * Host the conf
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:47:50 -0600
Orion Poplawski wrote:
...snip...
> I just rebuilt:
>
...snip...
> xfconf-4.6.1-4.fc12 - added missing BRs
Wow. I didn't know this was still an issue. I thought I fixed this long
ago. ;(
Thanks very much for fixing it!
kevin
signature.asc
Description: P
Am 2009-10-20 14:12, schrieb Ralf Ertzinger:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:00:50 -0400 (EDT), Seth Vidal wrote:
You could, of course, just have koji keep the pkgs and then you could
use the existing metadata to grab the header from the pkgs and access
the information that way.
That would be a s
Orion Poplawski (or...@cora.nwra.com) said:
> I just rebuilt:
>
> itcl-3.4-5.fc12 - no changes from original failed rebuild
> irda-utils-0.9.18-10.fc12 - added a minor patch to fix install issue
> xfconf-4.6.1-4.fc12 - added missing BRs
>
> Does it make sense to tag them into F-12 at this point?
Start End Name
Thu 15-Oct Tue 20-Oct Stage & Sync Beta to Mirrors
Tue 20-Oct Tue 20-Oct Beta Release Public Availability
Tue 20-Oct Mon 02-Nov Beta Testing
Fri 23-Oct Fri 23-Oct Blocker Bug Day (F12Blocker) #1
Fri 30-Oct Fri 30-Oct Blocker Bug Day (F12Blocker) #2
Mon 02-Nov
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:23 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> I'm trying to build the latest Asterisk sounds package, but I'm
> getting the following error:
>
> error: Recognition of file
> "/builddir/build/BUILDROOT/asterisk-sounds-core-1.4.16-1.fc13.noarch/usr/share/asterisk/sounds/fr/digits/1.g729"
>
On 10/20/2009 03:48 AM, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
Hi,
On 10/19/2009 09:20 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Hi All,
I thought with the mass rebuild the i586 rpms were suppose to be gone
but it seems the F-12 repository still has quite a few of them. Are
the old packages that should have been blocked, one
This is a report of the weekly KDE-SIG-Meeting with a summary of the
topics that were discussed. If you want to add a comment please reply
to this email or add it to the related meeting page.
--
= Weekly KDE Summary
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
I would like to understand why the file macros.cmake as distributed in
fedora-10 defines:
%_cmake_skip_rpath -DCMAKE_SKIP_RPATH:BOOL=ON
Because otherwise installed binaries would end up with rpaths, even for
standard library paths. (Prob
On 10/20/2009 03:50 AM, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
Hi Orion,
- does local mock build fail too?
- could you upload the SRPM somewhere?
Ah, I ended up with conflicting BuildArch and ExclusiveArch statements
when I removed gcj conditionals.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 3
Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
Is there any process for handing over package ownership? I have a
package that I'm wanting to give to another maintainer. Can I simply
reassign ownership to him, or is there something else needed first?
Thanks.
Orphan it in pkgdb, and he can then take ownership. Migh
Is there any process for handing over package ownership? I have a
package that I'm wanting to give to another maintainer. Can I simply
reassign ownership to him, or is there something else needed first?
Thanks.
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Software Engineer @ Red Hat, Inc.
Virtual Machine Management
Peter Robinson wrote:
Hi All,
As the Dell Latitude D630 is one of the more common devices that smolt
reports being used by Fedora I thought I'd mention my upgrade
experience and issues for F-12.
Please do file bugs for any problems you encountered, they -should- get
more attention from the co
Fedora is a leading edge, free and open source operating system that
continues to deliver innovative features to many users, with a new
release every six months. We have reached the Fedora 12 Beta, the last
important development milestone of Fedora 12. Only critical bug fixes
will be pushed as upda
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 08:00:50 -0400 (EDT), Seth Vidal wrote:
> You could, of course, just have koji keep the pkgs and then you could
> use the existing metadata to grab the header from the pkgs and access
> the information that way.
That would be a solution, of course, but keeping the files f
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 07:35:11AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> $SUBJECT is currently in the stable repositories, but no matching
> version of thunderbird-lightning was pushed.
>
> thunderbird < 3.0-2.7.b5 is needed by package
> thunderbird
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:18:03 +0300 (EEST), Panu Matilainen wrote:
To make any use of that data you'll obviously need the file names
too, so:
[pmati...@localhost Packages]$ rpm -qap --qf "[%{filedigests} %{filenames}\n]"
*.rpm |wc
430716 8041
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:18:03 +0300 (EEST), Panu Matilainen wrote:
> To make any use of that data you'll obviously need the file names
> too, so:
> [pmati...@localhost Packages]$ rpm -qap --qf "[%{filedigests}
> %{filenames}\n]" *.rpm |wc
> 430716 804104 47467960
That has to be databased s
Compose started at Tue Oct 20 06:15:06 UTC 2009
Broken deps for ppc64
--
python-mwlib-0.11.2-3.20090522hg2956.fc12.ppc64 requires LabPlot
New package mathgl
Cross-platform library for making high-quality scientific
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
$SUBJECT is currently in the stable repositories, but no matching
version of thunderbird-lightning was pushed.
thunderbird < 3.0-2.7.b5 is needed by package
thunderbird-lightning-1.0-0.7.20090715hg.fc11.x86_64
This looks like the problem is due to a
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:17 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
What would this be good for?
To expand on the motivation for this:
The idea is to have a list of known good file hashes to test your local
files against, if you have reason not to trust you
Hi All,
As the Dell Latitude D630 is one of the more common devices that smolt
reports being used by Fedora I thought I'd mention my upgrade
experience and issues for F-12.
Probably the two usual things that people query are grahics and wifi.
The model I have has the Intel IWL-4965AGN device whic
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:17 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> What would this be good for?
To expand on the motivation for this:
The idea is to have a list of known good file hashes to test your local
files against, if you have reason not to trust your local RPM database
(which may have been comp
Hi Orion,
- does local mock build fail too?
- could you upload the SRPM somewhere?
Regards,
Milos
On 10/19/2009 04:58 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
This has happened two for two now:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1754220&name=build.log
ENTER do(['bash', '--login', '-c', 'rpm
Hi,
On 10/19/2009 09:20 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Hi All,
I thought with the mass rebuild the i586 rpms were suppose to be gone
but it seems the F-12 repository still has quite a few of them. Are
the old packages that should have been blocked, ones that's that
weren't rebuilt for some reason or
Hi.
On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:20:17 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a
> known bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would
> contain known vulnerabilities and so knowing that you have a file
> that was once included in Fe
Le Mar 20 octobre 2009 10:20, Tomas Mraz a écrit :
> What would this be good for? Actually for some files it would be a known
> bad file hashes because these files (binaries or scripts) would contain
> known vulnerabilities and so knowing that you have a file that was once
> included in Fedora d
On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 08:45 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I was wondering the other day how much space the file information (i.e. the
> stuff that rpm -V checks against) takes up in an RPM file. And, going from
> there, how much space we would waste over the years if we kept this
> infor
65 matches
Mail list logo
