https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Bug 1121601 depends on bug 1184792, which changed state.
Bug 1184792 Summary: RFE: Add fcontext to support rt
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184792
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #46 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
Just wanted to thank you for doing the heavy lifting here. I'm sorry I didn't
see this ticket much sooner; I only recently had occasion to mess with RT again
and was surprised to find
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #45 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
rt-4.2.9-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rt-4.2.9-2.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #41 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Next version of the rt-4.9.2 rpms (rt-4.2.9-0.20150124.0) available under
http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #42 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Created attachment 983633
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=983633action=edit
Log from running rt-4.2.9-0.20150124.0.fc21's testsuites
rt-4.2.9-0.20150124.0.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Bug 1121601 depends on bug 1185427, which changed state.
Bug 1185427 Summary: col_0_fix.patch breaks rt-4.2.x
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1185427
What|Removed |Added
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #43 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
I won't argue with that. I wish we could just go with 4.2.9 in F21 as well,
but that's entirely up to you. It would save you from having to maintain a 4.0
branch at all.
--
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #40 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Alex Vandiver from comment #36)
For the short term, you can remove lines 85-106 of t/mail/html-outgoing.t in
Fedora. I'll ponder what the most right fix is for code.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #36 from Alex Vandiver ale...@bestpractical.com ---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #34)
Fedora's perl-HTML-FormatText-WithLinks-AndTable has 2 patches applied:
c.f.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #35 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Created attachment 983480
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=983480action=edit
$m-content as requested in comment#31
Contents of t/tmp/web-install.t-*/rt.debug.log:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #34 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Alex Vandiver from comment #33)
Thanks, for your hints, Alex!
The first test failure on 4.2 is due to something _not_ failing as it does
everywhere else. That is, RT
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1185427
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #38 from Alex Vandiver ale...@bestpractical.com ---
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #37)
We could pretty easily mess with the packaging of that perl module if any of
this makes a difference. It appears that it's used
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #37 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
We could pretty easily mess with the packaging of that perl module if any of
this makes a difference. It appears that it's used only by publican (our
docbook publication system) so we'd
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #39 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
Shelling out will spell super fun for selinux, I'm sure.
So, basically we need to fix the policy to allow writes to /var/lib/rt and
/var/log/rt (which shouldn't be too difficult).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
rt-4.0.22-3.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/rt-4.0.22-3.fc21
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #32 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Created attachment 983414
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=983414action=edit
Log from running rt-4.2.9-0.20150123.0.fc21's testsuites
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #31 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
rt-4.0.22 now is in rawhide and f21's package queue. Thanks to tibbs' finding,
we're now at 0 testsuite failures on f21!
Should somebody still be interested in continuing with
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #33 from Alex Vandiver ale...@bestpractical.com ---
Huzzah for 4.0 in Fedora!
The first test failure on 4.2 is due to something _not_ failing as it does
everywhere else. That is, RT uses the HTML::FormatText::WithLinks::AndTables
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--
You
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #29 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends On||1184792
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #20 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
FYI rt-4.0.22 does not build for EPEL7:
...
Error: No Package found for /usr/share/fonts/google-droid/DroidSans.ttf
Error: No Package found for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #22 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Created attachment 982893
-- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=982893action=edit
Log from running rt-4.0.22-2.f21's testsuites
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #21 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Yet another update:
Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/rt.spec
SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/rt-4.0.22-2.fc22.src.rpm
Changes/Remarks:
- The
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #27 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #23)
Did you want me to work on the 4.2.9 version instead?
No. The 4.0.x version is OK. It's in much better shape and better tested than
the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-cvs?
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #25 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
Had no idea you were watching, Alex. Glad to know you folks are paying
attention, and hope you're happy that we're finally going to get an up-to-date
RT into Fedora.
Ralf, also, do
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #24 from Alex Vandiver ale...@bestpractical.com ---
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #23)
I think that one test fails because it assumes the files will be under
*/share/html but they're really under *share/rt/html. I
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #26 from Alex Vandiver ale...@bestpractical.com ---
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #25)
Had no idea you were watching, Alex. Glad to know you folks are paying
attention, and hope you're happy that we're finally going
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
Oh, good. For me personally it's no big deal to write a bunch of selinux rules
to make it work. A full list of even the less useful command-truncated AVCs
might help, though. I guess
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #16 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Sorry for replying a little late, but I missed this posting ;)
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #15)
And while I dig into the package, I guess my first question would be
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #19 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Jason Tibbitts from comment #17)
Anyway, regarding this package, most of the review work is actually done.
The package is extremely clean for its complexity, though
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ti...@math.uh.edu
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts ti...@math.uh.edu ---
And while I dig into the package, I guess my first question would be whether
you've had any better luck with 4.2 in the intervening months? Is the issue
just selinux or is it more
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #13 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Trevor Cordes from comment #12)
Hi, I just upgraded to F21 and (obviously) it broke my rt(3), so to my
dismay I come here and see there is no rtX in F21 (yet?). That
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Trevor Cordes tre...@tecnopolis.ca changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Another update:
Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/rt.spec
SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/rt-4.0.22-1.fc22.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #10 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Next update:
Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/rt.spec
SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/rt-4.0.21-4.fc22.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also|
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Next update:
Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/rt.spec
SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/rt-4.0.21-3.fc22.src.rpm
Note: I have retired the rt3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #8 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Bill McGonigle from comment #7)
Just in case anybody runs into this, my install of 4.0.21 has a problem
working with Pg - mysql code paths are called in some cases
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #7 from Bill McGonigle bill-bugzilla.redhat@bfccomputing.com
---
Just in case anybody runs into this, my install of 4.0.21 has a problem working
with Pg - mysql code paths are called in some cases (reason currently unknown)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #5 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
Update:
Spec URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/rt.spec
SRPM URL: http://corsepiu.fedorapeople.org/packages/rt-4.0.21-2.fc22.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #6 from Bill McGonigle bill-bugzilla.redhat@bfccomputing.com
---
(In reply to Ralf Corsepius from comment #3)
No. rt accesses the *.ttf files directly through hard-coded paths,
i.e. just requiring google-droid-sans-fonts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
David Nichols da...@qore.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||da...@qore.org
---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #2 from Bill McGonigle bill-bugzilla.redhat@bfccomputing.com
---
Built/smoke-tested the 4.0.21 package on EL7 and it looks good. My EL7
packages are here:
https://www.bfccomputing.com/downloads/fedora/rt/el7/rt4/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #3 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to Bill McGonigle from comment #2)
Built/smoke-tested the 4.0.21 package on EL7 and it looks good. My EL7
packages are here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1121601
--- Comment #4 from Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de ---
(In reply to David Nichols from comment #1)
I was not able to test the build due to issues reported above.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
I get your logic for packaging an
56 matches
Mail list logo
