From opk at opencsw.org  Wed Nov  2 11:15:59 2016
From: opk at opencsw.org (Oliver Kiddle)
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2016 11:15:59 +0100
Subject: default python version and vim
Message-ID: <67863.1478081759@hydra.kiddle.eu>

On my systems, I got rid of python 2.6 completely because 2.7 was needed
and I wanted to avoid having more than one python. In order to do this,
I had to rebuild vim against python 2.7 instead of 2.6 because it has a
python dependency.

I'm about to prepare to upgrade opencsw on all the systems where I
work again and notice that the vim package has fallen behind with
the last build being from a year ago. Has it been held back for a
specific reason such as build issues with newer vim or is just waiting
for someone to get around to it?

Would it perhaps make sense for python 2.7 to be the default more
widely? Does that require much work? Modules wouldn't need rebuilding
so it'd just be things like vim and perhaps they could be done
incrementally? Are there particular things that still need 2.6?

Thanks

Oliver

From dam at opencsw.org  Thu Nov  3 15:10:22 2016
From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen)
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:10:22 +0100
Subject: default python version and vim
In-Reply-To: <67863.1478081759@hydra.kiddle.eu>
References: <67863.1478081759@hydra.kiddle.eu>
Message-ID: <BB69F591-7612-443E-B6F0-F774A7737193@opencsw.org>

Hi Oliver,

Am 02.11.2016 um 11:15 schrieb Oliver Kiddle <opk at opencsw.org>:
> On my systems, I got rid of python 2.6 completely because 2.7 was needed
> and I wanted to avoid having more than one python. In order to do this,
> I had to rebuild vim against python 2.7 instead of 2.6 because it has a
> python dependency.
> 
> I'm about to prepare to upgrade opencsw on all the systems where I
> work again and notice that the vim package has fallen behind with
> the last build being from a year ago. Has it been held back for a
> specific reason such as build issues with newer vim or is just waiting
> for someone to get around to it?
> 
> Would it perhaps make sense for python 2.7 to be the default more
> widely? Does that require much work? Modules wouldn't need rebuilding
> so it'd just be things like vim and perhaps they could be done
> incrementally? Are there particular things that still need 2.6?

To my knowledge Peter is busy with other stuff at the moment.
Peter, would it be ok for you if Oliver bumped vim to Python 2.7?


Best regards

  ? Dago

--
"You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to do something,
and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20161103/9bc5514d/attachment.asc>

From pfelecan at opencsw.org  Thu Nov  3 16:57:56 2016
From: pfelecan at opencsw.org (Peter FELECAN)
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 16:57:56 +0100
Subject: default python version and vim
In-Reply-To: <BB69F591-7612-443E-B6F0-F774A7737193@opencsw.org> (Dagobert
	Michelsen's message of "Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:10:22 +0100")
References: <67863.1478081759@hydra.kiddle.eu>
	<BB69F591-7612-443E-B6F0-F774A7737193@opencsw.org>
Message-ID: <x660o3k2zq.fsf@felecan.org>

Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> writes:

> To my knowledge Peter is busy with other stuff at the moment.
> Peter, would it be ok for you if Oliver bumped vim to Python 2.7?

But, but... I'm not vim's maintainer!
-- 
Peter FELECAN
mailto:peter at felecan.org

From dam at opencsw.org  Mon Nov  7 11:07:41 2016
From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:07:41 +0100
Subject: default python version and vim
In-Reply-To: <x660o3k2zq.fsf@felecan.org>
References: <67863.1478081759@hydra.kiddle.eu>
	<BB69F591-7612-443E-B6F0-F774A7737193@opencsw.org>
	<x660o3k2zq.fsf@felecan.org>
Message-ID: <8EBF3188-C1D0-46D6-AC69-C01DBE5DC0C9@opencsw.org>

Hi,

Am 03.11.2016 um 16:57 schrieb Peter FELECAN <pfelecan at opencsw.org>:
> Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> writes:
>> To my knowledge Peter is busy with other stuff at the moment.
>> Peter, would it be ok for you if Oliver bumped vim to Python 2.7?
> 
> But, but... I'm not vim's maintainer!

Ah, you are right. I meant Laurent.
@Laurent: Fine with you?


Best regrads

  ? Dago

--
"You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to do something,
and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20161107/ec50ea19/attachment.asc>

From maciej at opencsw.org  Mon Nov  7 13:58:29 2016
From: maciej at opencsw.org (=?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_=28Matchek=29_Blizi=C5=84ski?=)
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 12:58:29 +0000
Subject: Conduct unbecoming of a hacker
In-Reply-To: <ee9669eb-795c-0883-b136-3a11ee21b3ad@opencsw.org>
References: <CALtRa-6TQFZK_m1DMXeJME1bzdV70b0XoL-+KS7tT84xqjftsg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtRa-6HTC=tUQyLseFpJxUzY2Ft+xOcScSEZZueLxNwiKj1GA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtRa-6FW+-frwDO4-HFcjgUvjyG66PugECKgUYQOjAtdzw6rg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtRa-7zCJ1ceRrn6GGGBmVR7XdTxejSO+GMXG=7intn503TQw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtRa-5JyAfSKVVyGb-uDrDDTJZbuz6eCkTkE7D-nj4ui2PUYA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtRa-6S8TkS0af8w2FOr8mgTseCUAR12+NaDEh459Td9L1zpg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtRa-5K+mkkAPQ=6GK_sQEiBhADWN5WKKuhReuCQEOx_e-s=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtRa-6hg+LKru0R225bZ+E90Ko2LJDyGLripq0APHyq=Bdq7g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtRa-6ogqOA1K9LVCbKBUa4Q6-z4ApmcxHy34r6gArBx7UsKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtRa-73DNem4aknySmJcBiK=0-AO7vE_1kEP8iOSraUpN3JFg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtRa-7BSP_rZ8QPfnY5xXAuH0vjXNmpNbwanz1JdCZkAfFRvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtRa-7GMSFHbxXFSCMyL0mfnSgs24T=hHogWiC4r0RzE7fm1w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALtRa-4DwCGmeEFhfiswmW7TX9C2Wqs706d4m6+EaXunfKW3kA@mail.gmail.com>
	<57f04c02-0412-b3e4-2392-427067b654b8@opencsw.org>
	<ee9669eb-795c-0883-b136-3a11ee21b3ad@opencsw.org>
Message-ID: <CALtRa-6ekPRbKjn9U7_J++V5LysVZkYO-LHLkCyqKdqzodtCaQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hey guys,

There are two main aspects to the article:

1. Rate of contributions dwindles down
2. When you try to contribute, you get turned down (
http://rachelnabors.com/2012/04/of-github-and-pull-requests-and-comics/)

I wanted to focus on the second aspect, and note that I think we're doing
rather well in that regard. The patch that the article autor proposes is
that possible grounds for patch rejection can be as follows:

- The patch has an obvious security vulnerability
- The project has a pre-existing, documented, design decision or policy
against the feature
- The patch violates a pre-existing, documented backwards compatibility
policy. In this case there should be a focus on merging the patch in a way
compliant with the policy, like in the next major version, etc.
- There is actual evidence, not mere speculation, that the patch has
significant downsides. For example, benchmarks showing degraded performance
on an important platform.
- The patch causes test failures

And the comment: "Notably absent from my list of objections is any concern
for project stability."

Maciej
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20161107/df0b35e2/attachment-0001.html>

From rupert at opencsw.org  Sun Nov 13 10:53:16 2016
From: rupert at opencsw.org (rupert THURNER)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:53:16 +0100
Subject: libserf makefile
Message-ID: <CAJs9aZ-SsmbZuJOhq6ruwpTfgO1zrpoxb-oBSt8x+imPx+Dypw@mail.gmail.com>

hi dago,

could you do me a favor and have a look at the libserf makefile please? as
it is currently it seems to put the .so files into the dev package. also i
am not sure about its version.

rupert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20161113/76edc162/attachment.html>

From dam at opencsw.org  Sun Nov 13 17:34:25 2016
From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen)
Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:34:25 +0100
Subject: libserf makefile
In-Reply-To: <CAJs9aZ-SsmbZuJOhq6ruwpTfgO1zrpoxb-oBSt8x+imPx+Dypw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJs9aZ-SsmbZuJOhq6ruwpTfgO1zrpoxb-oBSt8x+imPx+Dypw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <0E868774-4E35-4F02-A37B-4521E04A3AA3@opencsw.org>

Hi Rupert,

Am 13.11.2016 um 10:53 schrieb rupert THURNER <rupert at opencsw.org>:
> could you do me a favor and have a look at the libserf makefile please?

Sure!

> as it is currently it seems to put the .so files into the dev package. also i am not sure about its version.

This is very strange and definitely not ok, there is also no SONAME present in the library.
I suppose they broke something in the library generation code. I?ll have a deeper look.


Best regards

  ? Dago

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20161113/93a87467/attachment.html>

From ihsan at opencsw.org  Tue Nov 15 14:00:38 2016
From: ihsan at opencsw.org (Ihsan Dogan)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:00:38 +0100
Subject: Mailman Upgrade Test - please ignore
Message-ID: <20161115130037.GA82290@dogan.ch>

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean
commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque
penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus
mus. Donec quam felis, ultricies nec, pellentesque eu, pretium
quis, sem. Nulla consequat massa quis enim. Donec pede justo,
fringilla vel, aliquet nec, vulputate eget, arcu. In enim justo,
rhoncus ut, imperdiet a, venenatis vitae, justo. Nullam dictum
felis eu pede mollis pretium. Integer tincidunt. Cras dapibus.
Vivamus elementum semper nisi. Aenean vulputate eleifend tellus.
Aenean leo ligula, porttitor eu, consequat vitae, eleifend ac,
enim. Aliquam lorem ante, dapibus in, viverra quis, feugiat a,
tellus. Phasellus viverra nulla ut metus varius laoreet. Quisque
rutrum. Aenean imperdiet. Etiam ultricies nisi vel augue.
Curabitur ullamcorper ultricies nisi. Nam eget dui. Etiam
rhoncus. Maecenas tempus, tellus eget condimentum rhoncus, sem
quam semper libero, sit amet adipiscing sem neque sed ipsum. Nam
quam nunc, blandit vel, luctus pulvinar, hendrerit id, lorem.
Maecenas nec odio et ante tincidunt tempus. Donec vitae sapien ut
libero venenatis faucibus. Nullam quis ante. Etiam sit amet orci
eget eros faucibus tincidunt. Duis leo. Sed fringilla mauris sit
amet nibh. Donec sodales sagittis magna.

-- 
ihsan at dogan.ch http://blog.dogan.ch/

From ihsan at opencsw.org  Tue Nov 15 14:37:28 2016
From: ihsan at opencsw.org (Ihsan Dogan)
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2016 14:37:28 +0100
Subject: DMARC & our mailing lists
Message-ID: <20161115133727.GB82290@dogan.ch>

Hi,

As you have probably heard, bigger mail providers are started to
reject mails based on DMARC. DMARC is a technique to reduce spam
and phishing e-mails and relies on SPF on DKIM.

The problem with mailing lists are, that they are changing the
mail headers and this causes DKIM to fail - and therefore DMARC.

The solution for this is rewriting the From: field in the mail
header. I've upgraded our Mailman installation today to the most
recent version, which has propper support for DMARC.

--> https://wiki.list.org/DEV/DMARC

If you are forwarding your @opencsw.org e-mails to your private
e-mail address, please keep in mind that this also brakes DMARC.
If you want to have your mails forwarded, I stronlg recommend to
collect your @opencsw.org mail via IMAP.



-Ihsan

-- 
ihsan at dogan.ch http://blog.dogan.ch/

From dam at opencsw.org  Thu Nov 17 15:34:32 2016
From: dam at opencsw.org (Dagobert Michelsen)
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 15:34:32 +0100
Subject: libserf makefile
In-Reply-To: <0E868774-4E35-4F02-A37B-4521E04A3AA3@opencsw.org>
References: <CAJs9aZ-SsmbZuJOhq6ruwpTfgO1zrpoxb-oBSt8x+imPx+Dypw@mail.gmail.com>
 <0E868774-4E35-4F02-A37B-4521E04A3AA3@opencsw.org>
Message-ID: <B92BB71E-0FAD-4AB8-A4F3-55635724461B@opencsw.org>

Hi Rupert,

Am 13.11.2016 um 17:34 schrieb Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org>:
> Am 13.11.2016 um 10:53 schrieb rupert THURNER <rupert at opencsw.org <mailto:rupert at opencsw.org>>:
>> could you do me a favor and have a look at the libserf makefile please?
> 
> Sure!
> 
>> as it is currently it seems to put the .so files into the dev package. also i am not sure about its version.
> 
> This is very strange and definitely not ok, there is also no SONAME present in the library.
> I suppose they broke something in the library generation code. I?ll have a deeper look.

This is a known issue and will be fixed in the next release:
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SERF-141


Best regards

  ? Dago

--
"You don't become great by trying to be great, you become great by wanting to do something,
and then doing it so hard that you become great in the process." - xkcd #896

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20161117/910ba260/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/attachments/20161117/910ba260/attachment.asc>