triage February 2015

triage@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
23 discussions

[Bug 245949] php_value session.save_path ignored
by Red Hat Bugzilla 25 Feb '15

25 Feb '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=245949 Andreas Thienemann <andreas(a)bawue.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |andreas(a)bawue.net Component|php |mod_suphp -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Xu34wBXFhG&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 115909] Do the right thing with the numlock state
by Red Hat Bugzilla 25 Feb '15

25 Feb '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115909 --- Comment #40 from Fred New <fred.new2911(a)gmail.com> --- I've been installing numlockx to turn "on NumLock after starting X", but now I see that something is turning NumLock off. For one thing, GDM turns it off when I hit the Shift (not NumLock) key while entering my password. Grr. Here I go to file another bug... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ck9fsfwvGp&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 115909] Do the right thing with the numlock state
by Red Hat Bugzilla 25 Feb '15

25 Feb '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115909 --- Comment #39 from Trevor Cordes <trevor(a)tecnopolis.ca> --- Good luck on this 2004 bug. Though I am a bit surprised CentOS6 is any different from recent Fedora. I've noticed steady improvement on Fedora numlock handling since 2004. It's mostly right now. I think I stopped seeing the magically-turns-off problem a few Fedoras ago, but I can't be positive. Make sure you aren't just accidentally hitting numlock when you go to hit page-up like I always do. The main issue I still see (but can't nail down) is when you hit numlock with a modifier key, or when scroll-lock is also on. Sounds weird, but I often do shift or alt or ctl and page-up and I do it without looking and sometimes go a touch too far. That can put the numlock into a weirdo state where it's actually backwards, just as you describe. This should be easy to test. However, "normal" "non-mistake" usage for me almost never results in wonky numlock anymore. Like I said, they've been improving. I think we'd have to provide them with concrete, simple, repeatable steps before anything new is going to get done on this. PS: you might have better luck by telling BIOS to have numlock off and trying to configure Fedora to turn it on. That might avoid the extra 1-2 state changes you are seeing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KI09myFkR0&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 115909] Do the right thing with the numlock state
by Red Hat Bugzilla 25 Feb '15

25 Feb '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=115909 Robert Mason <nullpost-redhat(a)yahoo.co.uk> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nullpost-redhat(a)yahoo.co.uk --- Comment #38 from Robert Mason <nullpost-redhat(a)yahoo.co.uk> --- I've just gone from CentOS 6 (where numlock worked fine) to a new install of Fedora 21. The numlock behaviour is very odd. It is set to be on in the BIOS, and indeed, numlock is on after switching the computer on, but it turns off at some point while Fedora is booting up. What's even stranger is it turns off while the computer is on. At first I thought it was just when the lock screen comes on that it forgets the numlock state, but I have just turned numlock on three times, and each time it went off again after a few minutes while I was in front of the computer. I've also noticed that sometimes numlock IS on, but the light on the keyboard is off. So I can use the numpad, even though it says numlock is off. When this happens, the numlock key has to be pressed twice to get numlock AND the light on. I think the default behaviour should be to follow the BIOS setting. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fP1fM7dDVp&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 253530] Kernel refuses to mount NFS share
by Red Hat Bugzilla 20 Feb '15

20 Feb '15

1 0

[Bug 253530] Kernel refuses to mount NFS share
by Red Hat Bugzilla 20 Feb '15

20 Feb '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253530 Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW CC| |praiskup(a)redhat.com Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Keywords| |Reopened --- Comment #22 from Pavel Raiskup <praiskup(a)redhat.com> --- I've been bitten by this issue today. Going through strace did not help too much, lucky googling gave me link to this bug report. Uff. Is this documented somewhere at least? Or is this so well known issue? It was like facing some magic :) mount-a options: rw,context=system_u:object_r:httpd_sys_content_t:s0 mount-b options: rw Well, I tried to switch mount-b options to 'rw,sync' and it worked (sometimes?) :), having context= there also worked, having other options did not work. I see that there is hard to guess real reason for EBUSY, but it does not seem to be impossible based on already existing mount points. Well, I'll never do the same mistake again, but others may do and we should tell them, somehow. In the worst case, making the warning more verbose mentioning that it "could be this, see rhbz#253530" could save some painful hours of debugging .. Pavel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5bv4QfW8Z1&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 207470] Need ability to handle duplicate VG names for Xen or kvm
by Red Hat Bugzilla 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=207470 Fedora End Of Life <endoflife(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |EOL Last Closed| |2015-02-18 06:56:26 --- Comment #31 from Fedora End Of Life <endoflife(a)fedoraproject.org> --- Fedora 19 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2015-01-06. Fedora 19 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this bug. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=AbYJcctcGf&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 132514] system-config-display enhancements
by Red Hat Bugzilla 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=132514 Bug 132514 depends on bug 123503, which changed state. Bug 123503 Summary: Resolutions not using proper multiply sign in firstboot https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=123503 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |EOL -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=k6QivxKD83&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 226662] Merge Review: yelp (not started)
by Red Hat Bugzilla 11 Feb '15

11 Feb '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226662 Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|Package Review |yelp --- Comment #5 from Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com> --- Mass reassigning all merge reviews to their component. For more details, see this FESCO ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1269 If you don't know what merge reviews are about, please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews How to handle this bug is left to the discretion of the package maintainer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hRquJtaSm7&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 226339] Merge Review: Pyrex
by Red Hat Bugzilla 11 Feb '15

11 Feb '15

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=226339 Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Component|Package Review |Pyrex --- Comment #16 from Cole Robinson <crobinso(a)redhat.com> --- Mass reassigning all merge reviews to their component. For more details, see this FESCO ticket: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1269 If you don't know what merge reviews are about, please see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Merge_Reviews How to handle this bug is left to the discretion of the package maintainer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kQHGpD0tUn&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

triage February 2015