devel June 2007

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

327 participants
364 discussions

586 kernels.
by Dave Jones 03 Jul '07

03 Jul '07

A day or so ago, I flipped the switch and killed off the 586 specific kernel, by making the 686 kernel bootable on older machines. Turns out it isn't that easy however. Rpm will refuse to install the 686 kernel a 586, because it checks the arch.. sudo rpm -ivh kernel-2.6.21-1.3228.fc8.i686.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] package kernel-2.6.21-1.3228.fc8 is intended for a i686 architecture (Oddly, the 586 kernel uname is reporting itself as 686 already, which I don't quite understand.. Linux equinox 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7 #1 SMP Wed May 23 22:11:19 EDT 2007 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux) Anyway.. To 'solve' this, I think I'm going to have to make the 686 kernel package an 'i386' package. Does anyone see anything flawed with this approach? (Modulo problems with yum doing exactarch matches and upgrades being more of a nightmare than usual). Dave -- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk

32 78

VTP (Virtual Terrain Project) on Fedora
by Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. 03 Jul '07

03 Jul '07

I have nearly completed a set of VTP packages for Fedora. To get VTP packaged and into the official Fedora distribution I have also packaged Mini, quikgrid and minizip (replacing the unzip library distributed with VTP). If anyone is interested in testing let me know and I'll post the srpms for Mini, quikgrid and minizip along with the current VTP patch that I'm working on.

3 3

koji.fedoraproject.org Unplanned outage | 6/28/07 - 6:00PM EDT
by Jesse Keating 02 Jul '07

02 Jul '07

O U T A G E R E P O R T F O R M =================================== Incident Date: 6/28/07 Incident Time: 6:00PM EDT Elapsed Time of Incident: Ongoing People/Groups Impacted: Package builders / update tool / koji web services Site Affected: koji.fedoraproject.org Description: The koji.fedoraproject.org server is experiencing very high load. Attempts to login and address the load issue are under way. Future Recommendations: Continue investigating process issues with httpd (if that proves to be the culprit once more). -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora _______________________________________________ Fedora-devel-announce mailing list Fedora-devel-announce(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce

11 20

Mail accounts in heterogeneous environments
by Dmitry Butskoy 02 Jul '07

02 Jul '07

I would like to consider a case where both Linux and Windows computers are in use, but mail servers are completely Linux-oriented (f.e., dovecot + postfix on Fedora hosts). In such a heterogeneous environment, to provide unique authorisation/authentication mechanism, either "OpenLDAP + Samba NT" or "AD + msSFU" solutions are used. It provides uniform accounts and passwords, independent of whether users use Linux or Windows on their desktops. There is one circumstance which can spoil this fine solution a bit. When a windows user creates its mail account (in OE or similar), he/she is compelled to specify login and password "manually". When sometimes the uniform password will be changed (either by Ctrl-Alt-Del from the desktop, or by a system admin), this "manual" specification in the local mail settings will not be changed automatically. The user then is compelled to change its password there too; or sysadmin should use different, seldom-changed account/password set just for mail subsystem... All modern windows mail programs provide an "SPA" option (secure password authentication). Using it, the mail program just uses the current desktop's login/password. This way the situation described above can be effectively avoided. But "SPA" uses NTLM (and spnego?) authentication mechanism, which is not supported properly now neither by dovecot or by postfix (it seems that another MTA and imap servers do not support it properly as well). Yes, I know that both postfix and dovecot actually "supports" NTLM now. But dovecot uses NTLM against a local database only, it cannot authenticate users against the windows domain. Postfix (and other MTA) could use cyrus-sasl library, which has a "ntlm" plugin (capable to do domain auth), but the actual blocker here is the dovecot issues. Since the postfix and friends can do SMTP auth against a dovecot-auth daemon, the solution seems to be focused in dovecot package only. By adding of proper NTLM support to dovecot-auth, we can use "SPA" on windows desktops and can forget about manual filling of login/password form. Samba team strongly recommends to use "ntlm_auth" helper binary and "winbind" daemon (both from the "samba-common" package), which provides a stable way to do "NTLM" and "GSS-SPNEGO" auth types against a windows domain. This way Squid and recently Apache do NTLM now. Hence I think about adding of "ntlm_auth + winbind" support for Dovecot. Before I shall begin it, I would like to ask: - Is this issue a corner case or not? - Are there some another solution for the support of "SPA against domain" by Linux MTA/pop/imap servers in Fedora? - Perhaps someone has already made something of it? At least partially? - Is the solution proposed the best way to solve the issue (for corporate systems etc.)? Regards, Dmitry Butskoy http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/DmitryButskoy

3 3

RFE: Use generic names in packages
by Rahul Sundaram 02 Jul '07

02 Jul '07

Hi A recent discussion in EPEL about whether README.Fedora would be confusing to EPEL users has brought into forefront what I consider a good packaging guideline for Fedora to follow which is to avoid using the "Fedora" name as much as possible in package names and files with exceptions like "Fedora directory server" and recommend using generic names wherever possible. This would certainly help in being a better upstream for distribution and other efforts that are based on Fedora including RHEL, EPEL or OLPC. In this specific instance I believe the guidelines should be mandating README.distribution instead. Refer to https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-June/msg00064.html for the discussion. Rahul

15 37

Re: rpms/libupnp/FC-6 .cvsignore, 1.8, 1.9 libupnp.spec, 1.12, 1.13 sources, 1.8, 1.9
by Michael Schwendt 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:34:30 -0400, Eric Tanguy (tanguy) wrote: > Author: tanguy > > Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/libupnp/FC-6 > %changelog > +* Wed Jun 13 2007 Eric Tanguy <eric.tanguy(a)univ-nantes.fr> - 1.6.0-1 > +- Update to version 1.6.0 > + Blacklisted for now together with ushare. It breaks dependencies in several packages. Run "repoquery --whatrequires libupnp.so.2", use rpmdev-diff, announce such ABI breakage on fedora-maintainers list, and if such a version upgrade is really necessary, coordinate rebuilds appropriately.

6 8

OpenSceneGraph
by Ralf Corsepius 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

Hi, I've several times been asked to upgrade OpenSceneGraph to OpenSceneGraph-2.0 (on rawhide and may-be FC7) So far, there remain a couple of details unclear to me, I'd like to see clarified: * OpenSceneGraph-2.0 is completely incompatible to OpenSceneGraph-1.x! * Packaging, features and all SONAME have changed! Questions: * Is there anybody out there who is actively using (esp. developing for) OpenSceneGraph-1? * Is there anybody out there who is actively using Producer or who has a package which depends on (OSG-1's) Producer (OpenSceneGraph-2 has dropped Producer). Should you answer to any of the questions above with "yes", please speak up ASAP. TIA. Ralf

3 7

Sunbird in devel
by Florin Andrei 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

Anybody working to include Mozilla Sunbird in devel? http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/sunbird/ -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/

5 9

kernel support for VE's (OpenVZ / Linux-vServer)
by Gerry Reno 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

Are there any plans on the roadmap to add kernel support for virtual environments (as opposed to virtual machines). I'm referring to OpenVZ and Linux-vServer here.

5 9

FESCo voting system
by Toshio Kuratomi 01 Jul '07

01 Jul '07

Hello all, According to FESCo's Election Policy [1]_ the upcoming FESCo election was supposed to use a variation of range voting [2]_. However, with the Fedora Project Board implementing a new voting method (approval voting[3]_) for the first time and the two elections being held so close together several contributors and FESCo members would like to use the same method to elect FESCo as used to elect the Board. This change would be aimed at reducing confusion over changing the voting method twice in such a short time. FESCo is going to vote on this on Thursday to make sure there is enough time to implement whatever decision is made. If you feel strongly that this is the wrong decision, please speak up before the Thursday Meeting [1]_: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Policy/FESCoElections#VotingSystem [2]_: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_voting [3]_: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting Thank you, -Toshio

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel June 2007