Jon Stanley wrote:
Well they haven't been interested for quite some time, I think
they've finally come to realize that gitweb as is is crap.
But John made an interesting point to me at FUDCon that might be
disincentive for upstream to accept this: there are probably 20
people in the world
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
And it was fairly easy ;-) For those interested:
- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553055
$ curl -I http://www.kanarip.com/custom/SPECS/gpxe.spec
HTTP/1.1 403 Forbidden
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:33:18 GMT
Server: Apache/2.2.13 (Fedora)
Content-Type:
Jon Stanley wrote:
I think that gitweb-caching will help a lot here, I just need to
ping warthog9 and get him sponsored, packages built and in
epel-testing.
That and continuing to get the caching stuff pushed upstream would be
good. The discussion I've seen on the git list is generally
Mike McGrath wrote:
I was under the impression that gitweb-caching was a massive step away
from gitweb proper. Can anyone correct me on that?
It is, but John H. sent a patch series to the git list to try and get
his code into git proper, which would be the best of both worlds.
It's still being
AlannY wrote:
Hi there. I'm a developer. I can build RPM package of my software in
Fedora with rpmbuild. But now, I want to build deb package for
redistributing my software on Debian-based distros.
I think, I need dpkg tool for building deb file. But where to find
it? I tryed to search all
Chris Tyler wrote:
Suggestions for new text values are welcome -- but you will have to
sell your proposal.
IMO, the current description should be changed, but I'd prefer to not
see a lengthy debate on the list about it. It just doesn't seem
important enough nor terribly on-topic. With over
Andrew Jamison wrote:
Did you make sure the new Fedoral-list address was added to your
safe list? Recently the Mailing lists switched to Fedora
infrastructure and off of the Red Hat servers.
That hasn't happened yet. I am sure that we'll announce it when it is
completed (and probably again
Manuel,
You wrote:
For the past TWO distributions of FC (11 and 12) the only
information I was able to get from the disks after 8 hours of
torrent download from your source site, was SIX DISKS OF THE SAME
THING - disk one,
This has happened TWICE in a row. I wind up installing from the
Jim wrote:
FC12/KDE
How would I do a yum command to enablerepo=updates-testing to
update python. I did it this way but it won't work.
yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing python
You should give options (--enablerepo) _before the command (update).
The yum man page and help output say:
Sawrub wrote:
I don't see that al this a problem of torrent . As mentioned earlier
[though i'm still confused] its some issue in the signing of the
ISO. let me give a try creating the boot-able USB under windows.
No, the problem is that your download is not complete. You stated
earlier:
Fred Yontz wrote:
Dear Fedora Webmaster
First off, I'm not sure whether you are the appropriate person to
contact about the problem I'm having, and if I'm in the wrong place,
please excuse me. I've looked at the lists of other places ---
mailing lists, forums, IRC, community websites ---
Rick Stevens wrote:
This has been discussed before on the list.
The header indicates that the checksum file _itself_ was signed with
an SHA1 checksum. The checksums _inside_ the checksum file are the
SHA256 checksums of the various .iso images.
And this is why we added the large red warning
Rick Stevens wrote:
I know that and you know that, but there seems to be a lot of folk
who haven't seen the page, forgotten about it or are simply
confused.
Indeed. I figured mentioning it once again might help spread the
information. I realize it will remain a problem until F-13 when we
add
Aaron Konstam wrote:
When is this migration going too occur? And where is it described? I
did not see it on the announce list.
Check the announce list archives, it's there.
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2009-December/thread.html
--
ToddOpenPGP - KeyID:
Simo Sorce wrote:
But for anyone that does not using master as the default branch
will be a problem. If you never used git you have to learn a lot of
things anyway.
I think the target audience is not mostly git users. Most of the SCM
integration will be wrapped up in fedpkg calls anyway. For
Frode Petersen wrote:
A minor confusion here...
I noted that the new ID's do not include any information on the
source of the lists. I.e. 'Fedora-music-list' becomes just 'music'.
Isn't this a bit too generic and a source for conflicts with lists
from other sources?
Well, the list-id is made
Björn Persson wrote:
To prepare for the change I need to know the complete list-IDs of
the new lists. So, piecing this together, when the mapping maps
fedora-announce-list to announce, this means that the list-ID
fedora-announce-list.redhat.com becomes
announce.lists.fedoraproject.org,
Gene Heskett wrote:
Mike Oliphant, the author of grip, needs to update his address on
his web page at nostatic.
Does anyone have a current address for Mike?
I don't know of one, but grip is certainly not actively maintained by
Mike any longer. It's still a fine app for ripping and encoding
Andreas Schwab wrote:
There are also author names that where expanded to user
u...@fedoraproject.org.
These are for accounts that have set the private flag, so their name
and other data is not available. (Nevermind that they end up putting
a name in the rpm changelog most of the time.)
--
Jesse Keating wrote:
fpkg checkout --full kernel
that would give you kernel/devel kernel/F-12 kernel/F-11 etc...
where each of those subdirs map to the appropriate origin/F-1? (or
in the case of devel, to origin/master). Any git push/pull from
those dirs would do the right thing.
I'd like
Jesse Keating wrote:
I'm willing to listen to other opinions on this. Personally I'd
really rather not change the meaning of origin/master. devel
would show up as a directory in the classic view only to match
what CVS did. I'd even be willing to make two directories, one a
symlink to the
Hello,
Timothy Hunt wrote:
My name is Timothy Hunt
I believe you own the co.uk website of my name, I would like to get
that for myself, how would I go about this?
You may be seeing a test page that is installed as part of the Fedora
Operating System. That is a test page included with our
Mike Chambers wrote:
If I understand what is happening now (and over the past weekend),
the datacenter machines are moving to a new location, AND the
package building is moving from cvs to git (will be, or already in
process)?
Only the former is taking place now. A move from cvs to git is
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 that I can't
imagine anyone wanting to spend much time on, just to let
Tim wrote:
It'll take quite some effort, not impossible, but very difficult, to
get a signed compromising package into the repos.
One rogue package maintainer could do it easily. In fact, if one
rogue upstream provided a tarball with a backdoor in it, it might slip
into many distributions
Aaron Konstam wrote:
/proc/cpuinfo displays cpu flags below. Is this system capable of
visualization?
flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov
pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx lm
constant_tsc pebs bts pni dtes64 monitor ds_cpl cid cx16
Aaron Konstam wrote:
Aws someone pointed ort it is virtualization I mean. You seemed to
understand that but you did not answer the question. For example,
you web page seems to imply that a vmx flag is needed. The list of
kernel options I included above has no vmx flag. Is virtualization a
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
You've committed the following no-nos:
1) Replying to a Digest. Never do this, not ever. Signing up for the
non-digest version is trivial, and that's the preferred method, but
it's also easy to reply from various aggregation sites such as
Gmane.
With respect, I
Hi Steve,
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:26:52AM +1300, Steve Wray wrote:
I am noticing that the link
http://www.fedoraproject.org/en/get-fedora
is instructing me how to download the Fedora 12 Desktop Edition.
I'm wondering where the link to the Server Edition might be?
There isn't any
Steve Searle wrote:
I have just upgraded to 64-bit Fedora, and have a mysql appliation
where the build fails with:
/usr/bin/ld: cannot find -lmysqlclient
I know that this is because the library is in lib64, and my
Makefile.am contains:
bin_PROGRAMS = scraperes
scraperes_SOURCES =
Adam Jackson wrote:
Can we get an X-Fedora-Upload: header in these or something?
Filtering by subject line always makes me feel dirty.
How about using the Keywords header? That way we can also use it to
create a topic for the fedora-extras-commits list. Something like:
Keywords: Fedora file
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
You can also set it as a user's background via the normal
preferences setting and then make that the system default (via the
bottom Make Default button).
Oh nice. I had looked right past that, even after reading Bill's
message. :/
That works fine here as well.
knol wrote:
Author: knol
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/getmail/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv25409
Added Files:
getmail-4.14.0.tar.gz
Log Message:
another try
--- NEW FILE getmail-4.14.0.tar.gz ---
[...snip binary...]
More important than getmail.spec not
Bill Davidsen wrote:
Could you explain a little more what you are trying to do?
If you're just trying to change the wallpaper, what happens when you
just use the standard menu to do that? Or are you trying to do
something more?
What behavior do you get when you (from memory)
fred smith wrote:
I've looked thru the forums and done some googling but I don't see an
answer THAT WORKS for this question:
How to change the default GDM background/wallpaper to some other image?
I've tried all the things listed in the forums and none of them works,
including (but not
fred smith wrote:
all the images in that dir have the same owner and permissions.
selinux is not in enforcing mode, but I tried the command above
anyway. result: no change.
Is it possible that /usr/share/backgrounds/images isn't the right
place? there are several other dirs in
Hi Azyaka,
azyaka azyaka wrote:
hi. please help me fedore core 12 ppc ınstalling ps3 Somehow I can
not be successful ve done everything. I made the choice I would
choose the keyboard clock and then install the repo file and install
the system restarts I do not do please help
Mike McGrath wrote:
We've got a new sponsor, bodhost.com!
Cool!
Also can we add them to the new site specific sponsors that we've
been working on? Should I send requests like this to
webmas...@fp.o or should I be using the new websites ticketing
system?
IMO, it doesn't hurt to send a
Some of you might be aware that the instructions for verifying our
*-CHECKSUM files on Windows have been broken since we moved to SHA256.
Previously, we linked users to a sha1sum.exe built by the GnuPG
project. With SHA256, we don't have that ability.
Fortunately, the good folks working on MingW
Jesse Keating wrote:
Well, if you have to use a tool from the project, to verify other
bits from the project, the verification just became a lot less
trusted. If you don't trust the bits you got from the project, why
would you trust the tool the project gives you to verify the bits?
Here use
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
The goal is, of course, to verify the .iso against what is listed as
it's sha256sum. Whether the tools ultimately come from the same
source doesn't matter. It should, though, be advisable to not
include the sha246sum.exe on the mirrors, and only serve the file
over
Jesse Keating wrote:
I agree, I just wanted to point out the catch-22.
Heh. I'm sorry if I came off a bit defensive. :)
--
ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~
The most overlooked advantage
Allen Kistler wrote:
I have the same opinion of signing the page with the hashes. The pages
that list the hashes for F12 are:
https://fedoraproject.org/static/checksums/Fedora-12-i386-CHECKSUM
https://fedoraproject.org/static/checksums/Fedora-12-x86_64-CHECKSUM
They are PGP-signed using
Mike McGrath wrote:
I just moved several hosts to using our new iptables module from the
old configs template. It shouldn't have any impact on the firewalls
as the rules haven't changed. But if people see anything... odd
going on. Let me know.
In the No good deed goes unpunished category:
Jon Stanley wrote:
The message will contain the name of the file, the package
concerned, the md5sum, and the user that uploaded it. An example is
below:
File upload.cgi for package sportrop-fonts has been uploaded to the
lookaside cache with md5sum 26489f9e92601f0f84cfbb278c2b98e1 by
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
Woudld it be possible to do the signature using SHA256 also? On one
of the iso's I recently burned did have a checksum file with a gpg
SHA256 signature hash. That was enough to remind me that I should
be using the SHA256 for checksumming the iso.
Yes, that is
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
um ... ok. in that case, why is fedoraproject.org explicitly
pointing people at rpmfusion.org here?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/OtherRepositories
IIRC, it's because it is allowed to do so in such a general sense.
But pointing directly to a particular codec package
Gene Heskett wrote:
Is there any chance of getting the fixed openssl-0.9.8i for F10?
This has stopped my ability to do any online banking, and with all
the horror stories about regarding loss of X when upgrading to F12,
I really don't want to destroy a working system just to get this
Gene Heskett wrote:
True, but I have little control over that other than threatening to
move my money. That has generally been sufficient so far, and has
cured several cases of blue smoke emitting from both my ears. :-)
But this was I read, a problem on my end, not the banks problem.
This
Robert P. J. Day wrote:
where's the proper place to request a package version update? as
in, a new source version just came out, could fedora eventually look
at it and rpm package it for update. or is that done as a regular BZ
request for that package?
Yes, bugzilla is the proper place to
Tom Horsley wrote:
I don't see logwatch installed by default in f12. Is there a
preferred substitute these days, or should I just yum install
logwatch to get it back?
I poked around some and didn't find any info on some substitute, so
yum install logwatch has been executed :-).
I installed
Antonio Olivares wrote:
--- On Sat, 11/21/09, Felipe Nunez gatopa...@codetel.net.do wrote:
[...]
when I verify the sha1sum
for the twice download files I get the same value in both
cases:
$
sha1sum f12/Fedora-12-x86_64-DVD.iso
97a018ba32d43d0e76d032834fe7562bffe8ceb3
Skunk Worx wrote:
On f12 I see a package called oprofile-gui depends on the qt3-3.8b
rpm.
What command(s) can I run inside a local repo (where all the rpm
packages are) that will tell me how many f12 Everything packages
are still using qt3?
What command(s) can I run for the locally
Tom Horsley wrote:
I installed from the DVD iso image. I guess it isn't on that (I
didn't add any network repos at install time either).
Apparently it's not. Good call. I guess that settles that minor
mystery. :)
--
ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
Hi Lee,
Lee Clark wrote:
I down loaded Fedora-12-i686-Live.iso and then downloaded both of
the windows Hash programs I ran them both and found this for the
SHA1 results. Seeing it was not the same as below from your web
site I down loaded the file again changing the name to.
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I happened to install func the other day on several Fedora and
CentOS boxes and was surprised that both services defaulted to on.
Please file a bug here.
I do intend to, just hadn't gotten to it yet. :)
--
ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL:
[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 default to OFF and that should continue to be the
Allen Kistler wrote:
I think that thread is talking about some other page than the one
that confused Jeff. In particular, this thread refers to changing
some string value on a page from SHA1 to SHA256.
1. If you alter a GPG-signed message, you've just screwed the
signature, since most of
Till Maas wrote:
It would also help to add an explanation about how to use the
*-CHECKSUM files within the checksum file, e.g. above the list of
sha256 checksums.
Agreed. I asked Jesse Keating about this yesterday and he said he had
a ticket opened to do so.
Btw. for F11 there was also
Hi Richard,
Richard Taylor wrote:
I have recently downloaded a copy of Fedora 11 using a Windows PC (I
know - go wash my mouth out) and I hit a problem when I tried to
follow the instructions for verifying the download.
The instructions were on the following page:
Andre Costa wrote:
Just a warning: I just downloaded Fedora-12-x86_64-Live.iso using
http://torrent.fedoraproject.org/torrents/Fedora-12-x86_64-Live.torrent and
CHECKSUM file contains a SHA256 checksum although it says it is SHA1.
According to the file:
Hash: SHA1
That Hash: line is part
Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
The source package that I am interested in building and installing
for F11 is here:
http://packages.ubuntu.com/source/karmic/ufsutils
After extracting the tarball, I could not find any configure script.
This doesn't have much to do with Debian/Ubuntu
Greg Woods wrote:
I have tried twice to download the Fedora 12 DVD ISO's for i386 and
x86_64 through the torrents. In both cases, the SHA1 checksums do
not match what is in the CHECKSUM file. Both of my downloads match
each other. Is this a problem with the ISO's, with the CHECKSUM
file, or a
Stuart Green wrote:
The links for the latest checksums aren't working on this page:
https://fedoraproject.org/en/verify
This has been fixed. Thanks for reporting it.
--
ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
Ben Norman wrote:
Just an FYI, these links (on https://fedoraproject.org/en/verify) to
checksum files take me to the error page (Sorry! We couldn't find
that file):
https://fedoraproject.org/static/checksums/Fedora-12-x86_64-CHECKSUM
Robert Shanks wrote:
The link to the Fedora 12 checksum files is bad.
This has been fixed. Thanks for reporting it.
--
ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~
Every actual state is corrupt.
James Bridge wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/static/checksums/Fedora-12-x86_64-CHECKSUM
doesn't work!
This has been fixed. Thanks for reporting it.
--
ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~
aquag...@gmail.com wrote:
In the file Fedora-12-i686-Live-CHECKSUM (linked on
https://fedoraproject.org/en/verify), it lists the Hash as being SHA1.
Yet carrying out a shasum -a 1 on the .iso gave me a checksum which
looked too short. When I performed the checksum using SHA256 instead,
it
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Cameron Cross wrote:
i downloaded the torrent for fedora 12 live cd and the sha sum
thing is labeled as sha1 when it is actually sha256. That could
confuse people
eg.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Steven W. Orr wrote:
Does it cause problems? Does it work ok?
It's been used in rawhide for many months now, and what will be Fedora
12. I've seen various minor issues reported and fixed on the bug-bash
list. Fedora 12 currently has bash 4.0.33 (which is only slightly
behind upstream's 4.0.35
Marcel,
Marcel Rieux wrote:
With all due respect...
I'll echo what I sent to you privately: this is _entirely_
inappropriate for the fedora-list. Please drop this thread now and
refrain from posting such off-topic messages in the future.
--
ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL:
Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 07:45 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
[...]
a followup question would be, is there an ls option that would
*prevent* that security setting character from being printed? i
ask since i'm working with a software project (openembedded) that
Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
I may need to build audacity with the Makefile modified to set
__WXDEBUG__ . The natural way to do this would seem to be to invoke
$ rpmbuild -bb SPECS/audacity.spec
edit the Makefile, and then run something like
$ rpmbuild --short-circuit -bb
Mr. Teo En Ming (Zhang Enming) wrote:
Sigh...Another six months wait...
This is a complaint that should be made to the Xen folks for not
getting their stuff upstream sooner (I'm sure they would appreciate
complaints in unified diff format). It's completely unreasonable to
expect the Fedora
L wrote:
please do not police users.
Patrick merely pointed out the list guidelines. There is nothing
wrong with that, especially when someone has apparently missed them in
the list welcome message and the footer of ever post.
For reference, those guidelines are at:
Timothy Murphy wrote:
I upgraded from CentOS-5.3 to CentOS-5.4
(and earlier from CentOS-5.2 to CentOS-5.3)
just by running yum update.
Why can't I upgrade to Fedora-12 like that?
Is it just that the CentOS makers are cleverer...?
No. When CentOS-6 is released, a yum update on a CentOS-5
Timothy Murphy wrote:
But couldn't yum just have an option to look for RPMs on the local
network? Ie look first in local cache, then on LAN, then at remote
repo. I would have thought that would be easy to implement.
It's trivial to change the yum repo settings to look anywhere you
want.
Timothy Murphy wrote:
Concretely, I want yum to look first in /var/cache/yum/updates on my
laptop, then in alfred:/var/cache/yum/updates on a local machine,
and then in the remote repository.
Why would you want yum to look in /var/cache/yum/updates on the local
system? The only thing that
Dan Track wrote:
Thanks for that, any thoughts on how it fits in with my script:
for i in server1 server2;do ssh r...@$i
DNSNAME=\basename\`hostname\`\;echo $DNSNAME;done
What are you trying to achieve with DNSNAME=\basename\`hostname\`\;
anyway? If you want the domainname, dnsdomainname or
Dan Track wrote:
The basename command works well.
At what? Unless your hostname contains a /, I don't see how basename
would do anything the way you are using it.
--
ToddOpenPGP - KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
Rather than have multiple .gitignore files throughout the repository
(many of which are identical across the various sites), use one
top-level .gitignore.
---
Does anyone mind using a top-level .gitignore instead of individual
.gitignore files?
Also, I was thinkig I'd push this only to master.
Tim wrote:
Hmm, I hadn't thought about using that to clear away personal files.
I've occasionally wiped out that directory, but hadn't looked at it
recently. I see mine's wasting lots of drive space:
~]$ du -h .thumbnails/
560M .thumbnails/large
361M .thumbnails/normal
Sounds extreme,
Hi Vladimir,
Vladimir Benes wrote:
I have just downloaded XFCE live F12 via torrent, burned, rebooted
and supprisingly anaconda showed up. Please, change name or point
torrent to the right iso.
Can you provide more details so we can verify this?
What is the URL of the torrent file you used?
Hi Haïkel,
Haïkel Guémar wrote:
Author: hguemar
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/python-mpd/F-10
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27941
Modified Files:
python-mpd.spec sources
Log Message:
Updated to 0.2.1
Any reason to update this for F-10 (or any Fedora branches
I wrote:
Hi Haïkel,
Haïkel Guémar wrote:
Author: hguemar
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/python-mpd/F-10
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27941
Modified Files:
python-mpd.spec sources
Log Message:
Updated to 0.2.1
Any reason to update this for F-10 (or any Fedora
Haïkel Guémar wrote:
This is personal policy to always push latest stable unless it's broken,
since it wasn't critical, i had always delayed it.
Why i pushed the update on older branches ? Maintainers are asked to
support branches until EOL and it worked on my test VM.
Maybe, i'm just a bit
Eugeneapolinary Ju wrote:
I just can't find a script that generates a valid MAC address :S
Has anyone has one?
There's one in the cobbler source code (which was pulled from xen).
Something like this perhaps:
$ cat /tmp/genmac.py
#!/usr/bin/python
import random
def generate_random_mac():
Hi Julian,
富满堂 wrote:
hello,
I need opensslconf-ppc.h,but I don't konw how to get it.
So,I need help.If you have it ,please send one copy to me.
The file should be in the openssl-devel package on ppc. Each
architecture has an opensslconf-$basearch.h file.
Please note that the
Till Maas wrote:
Imho the link should go to the https version of the page to make it
more likely that people use the https link, e.g. when they bookmark
the page for later use.
This is true. It's a change that would need to be made to the
get-fedora and verify pages as well, since both use
Paula Domalewski wrote:
I don't appreciate receiving emails of this sort from your website
and consider it abuse. Please remove me immediately from your
expletive mailing list. If you don't speak spanish, this person is
doing a scam.
I suspect that you've gotten the message you quoted from
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 in a file
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
I think its not Ed. Its the service he is using for his email. Look
at the message by Steve in this very thread, it has been copied
too. Looks like both of them use the same service and it is broken.
Perhaps (I already deleted the offending messages and the list
Rick Stevens wrote:
You can only encrypt entire devices (e.g. partitions), not
individual directories or directory trees.
I'm not sure how your partitioning is set up, but if you used the
default, then you have a /boot partition and a / partition
(which contains the /home directory). If
Please keep the webmas...@fedoraproject.org address in the Cc: header.
Debashis Maitra wrote:
I dont know why developers have to release new version every year.
To be precise, Fedora releases a new version every 6 months.
Most of the time new release is buggy one. Isn't it better to make
one
Cameron Simpson wrote:
This is all beautiful, but I think you need to use single quotes
instead of doubles.
You are correct, of course. I was only concerned with testing the
escape character stuff and I totally overlooked the problem that using
double quotes causes with ${PWD}. Thanks for
Donald Russell wrote:
On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 11:36, Petrus de Calguarium kwhisk...@gmail.com
wrote:
Donald Russell wrote:
Any ideas/suggestions?
None, except to report the bug.
I have noticed this problem on and off for years and it doesn't
have anything to do with the PS1 prompt. Try
Dr. Michael J. Chudobiak wrote:
I use revelation for storing encrypted data like that. It is very
simple and easy to use. Just yum install revelation.
I use revelation as well. It's perhaps not as good for storing random
personal data, but for passwords, login info, credit cards, ans such,
it
Dan Track wrote:
On another note I see that stripe-width option in mkfs.ext3 is
missing. Any reasons why that may be the case?
You set stripe-width using the -E option. This is documented in the
man page on F-10 and F-11 at least. I didn't check rawhide, but I
expect it's the same there.
--
Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
I'm really sorry. I went through reviews of many packages with
script, which has many false positives. Your package was perfectly
okay as it was before.
:) No worries, I'm glad I asked. Will you handle reverting this
change or shall I? It wasn't ever built, just
Hi Marcela,
Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Modified Files:
libid3tag.spec
Log Message:
* Mon Oct 12 2009 Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com - 0.15.1b-10
- rebuilt of package with correct licence
[...]
-License:GPLv2+
+License:GPLv2 or GPL+ or MIT
I could easily be
1 - 100 of 565 matches
Mail list logo
