FYI,
I've replaced the self-signed certificate with a CACert signed one. See
http://www.cacert.org/ for the details ;-)
Matthias
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
--- Comment #11 from Chris Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-02 14:42:17 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
Packages look quite good; some mostly minor issues:
= common issues =
- I think the macro
%define kmod_name wl
looks odd and is not
On 02.11.2008 00:18, Xavier Lamien wrote:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S.: Who will actually send out the announcement and where do we send it
besides fedora-announce-list and fedora{-devel,}-list?
Given my new employer I won't be doing it. So I
On Sunday, 02 November 2008 at 14:02, Matthias Saou wrote:
FYI,
I've replaced the self-signed certificate with a CACert signed one. See
http://www.cacert.org/ for the details ;-)
Firefox 3.0.3 doesn't seem to recognize it as trusted.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Sunday, 02 November 2008 at 14:02, Matthias Saou wrote:
FYI,
I've replaced the self-signed certificate with a CACert signed one. See
http://www.cacert.org/ for the details ;-)
Firefox 3.0.3 doesn't seem to recognize it as trusted.
Regards,
R.
in some future the cacert will be reconized, this is the difference.
It is not trusted by FF by default, you can go here:
http://www.cacert.org/index.php?id=3
and click the PEM format certificate and FF will automatically install
the root certificate for you.
I'm not too sure why I would
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
--- Comment #12 from Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-02 15:03:38
---
(In reply to comment #11)
Validate you don't have loaded (or built into the kernel) the
Linux community provided driver for Broadcom hardware. [...]
Is
On Sun November 2 2008, Chris Nolan wrote:
I'm not too sure why I would trust a CAcert signed certificate over a
self-signed?
With the CAcert signed certificate, you can at least verify it somehow,
because the CAcert root certificate / fingerprints can be obtained by several
ways. A
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S.: Who will actually send out the announcement and where do we send it
besides fedora-announce-list and fedora{-devel,}-list?
Given my new employer I won't be doing it. So I think either you are Xavier
should do it.
Christopher Stone pisze:
On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Hans de Goede [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
P.S.: Who will actually send out the announcement and where do
we send it besides fedora-announce-list and fedora{-devel,}-list?
Given my new
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 11:44 -0200, Itamar - IspBrasil wrote:
the best is someone ask firefox ... team about this.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215243
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~perspectives/firefox.html
--
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
--- Comment #13 from Chris Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-02 17:39:07 ---
(In reply to comment #12)
Just a reminder for the next time: All packages normally should just work --
hence if you always need to do something manually to make the
2008/11/2 Thorsten Leemhuis [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
thx; I'd say a time somewhere around 14:00 or 15:00 UTC is likely the best
to send it out.
Before sending out the announcement, you should also delete the wiki
page called Configuration and rename ConfigurationNew as
Configuration.
Bye,
Andrea.
On Sunday, 02 November 2008 at 18:36, Matthias Saou wrote:
Hi,
In freshrpms, I had an ffmpeg-libpostproc sub-package in ffmpeg instead
of the ffmpeg-libs you have. Could you please add the following to the
rpmfusion ffmpeg-libs package?
Obsoletes: ffmpeg-libpostproc 0.4.9-0.11
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
--- Comment #14 from Chris Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-02 19:16:12 ---
Updated specs and SRPMs:
broadcom-wl:
http://www.cenolan.com/fedora9/broadcom-wl/broadcom-wl.spec
http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=96
--- Comment #15 from Chris Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-02 19:31:24 ---
One thing:
For the broadcom-wl package I couldn't decide whether it was better to chmod
the files in the %prep section and use -m0644 in %install or whether just to
Hi,
I tried building sdlmame today and jobs 1556 and 1557 got stuck at
downloading/done on build64.livna.org. I tried requeueing 1556 but the
results were the same. If the job sits there long enough, it will fail
with something like unable to download results from builder, please
contact system
Julian Sikorski pisze:
Hi,
I tried building sdlmame today and jobs 1556 and 1557 got stuck at
downloading/done on build64.livna.org. I tried requeueing 1556 but the
results were the same. If the job sits there long enough, it will fail
with something like unable to download results from
Packages built and released for RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) testing/9: 2
mednafen-0.8.10-1.0.8.A.fc9
sdlmame-0129-0.2.0128u2.fc9
Christopher Stone pisze:
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 11:33 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Packages built and released for RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) testing/9: 2
mednafen-0.8.10-1.0.8.A.fc9
Packages built and released for RPM Fusion (Fedora - nonfree) development: 1
sdlmame-0129-0.2.0128u2.fc10
Changes in RPM Fusion (Fedora
On Mon, Nov 03, 2008 at 08:18:47AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
- get the mirror manager that adrianr put in place (see
http://lists.rpmfusion.org/pipermail/rpmfusion-developers/2008-October/001393.html
listed as mirrors.rpmfusion.org in DNS;
Needs
* adrianr: IP address
*
22 matches
Mail list logo
