Huawei E1552 no longer connecting?

2012-09-22 Thread Christoph A.
Hi, I have problems to get the Huawei E1552 UTMS modem working, it used to work with F14-16 (now I'm using F17) I suppose usb_modeswitch is working as it should (see logfile). But I'm not sure about these lines: line 152 - 154: NetworkManager[771]: /sys/devices/virtual/net/ppp0: couldn't deter

Fedora 14 -> 15 upgrade: libnih problems

2011-12-25 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, I did an upgrade from F14 to F15 using yum: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fedora_14_-.3E_Fedora_15 I run it with --skip-broken due to the problems with libnih, and completed the upgrade process (except libnih). Now I

Re: flash-plugin not working within SELinux sandbox (f14)

2011-10-12 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 10/11/2011 11:11 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > chcon -t textrel_shlib_t /usr/lib/flash-plugin/libflashplayer.so thank you, that fixed it! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iEYEAREKAAYFAk6VvjQACgkQrq+riTAIEg2ERQCfRBY9Q4DM2BauE2M/37pxXRwW c4YAn3XfL4IEKt

flash-plugin not working within SELinux sandbox (f14)

2011-10-11 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, since a recent flash-plugin it is no longer working within a sandbox. rpm -qa flash-plugin flash-plugin-11.0.1.152-release.i386 rpm -qa *selinux* selinux-policy-targeted-3.9.7-44.fc14.noarch libselinux-utils-2.0.96-6.fc14.1.x86_64 libselinux-2

Re: /var/cache/abrt-di

2011-10-07 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/02/2011 11:23 PM, Ranjan Maitra wrote: > Hi, > > Looking at my files and diskspace, I note the following: > > $ sudo du -sm /var/cache/* > 1961 /var/cache/abrt-di > 1 /var/cache/cups > 1 /var/cache/fontconfig > 1 /var/cache/fooma

Re: Update error (Test Transaction): glibc

2011-09-23 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/23/2011 02:47 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Oh no, you've messed up your installation further. ;) I almost thought so. Since it is a quite new VM I'll just setup a new one instead of trying to fix this. Thank you for your time! -BEGIN

Re: Update error (Test Transaction): glibc

2011-09-23 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/23/2011 11:51 AM, Christoph A. wrote: > On 09/22/2011 06:22 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> How have you managed to install those duplicates? >> Perhaps you've interrupted an update? > > that might be the case but I

Re: Update error (Test Transaction): glibc

2011-09-23 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/22/2011 06:22 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > How have you managed to install those duplicates? > Perhaps you've interrupted an update? that might be the case but I can't confirm it for sure. > Is there a message about > running yum-complete-tr

Re: How to permanently delete root CAs from mozilla products?

2011-09-22 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/17/2011 08:23 PM, Christoph A. wrote: > I'll probably make a feature request to add three columns (websites, > user, software) to the certificate manager to indicate (and modify) the > trust flags for a given C

Update error (Test Transaction): glibc

2011-09-22 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, when updating I get the following error message: Test Transaction Errors: file /usr/share/doc/glibc-2.13/NEWS from install of glibc-2.13-2.i686 conflicts with file from package glibc-2.13-1.x86_64 rpm -qa glibc glibc-2.13-1.i686 glibc-2.13-1

Re: How to permanently delete root CAs from mozilla products?

2011-09-19 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/19/2011 03:55 PM, Robert Marcano wrote: > On 09/17/2011 06:58 AM, Christoph A. wrote: >> >> ... > > >> By "non-persistent" I mean the following: >> - - I remove a root CA in the "Authoriti

Re: How to permanently delete root CAs from mozilla products?

2011-09-17 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/17/2011 06:42 PM, Craig White wrote: > that may have been the Macintosh that required 2 'deletes' to remove, I > forget. > > Again though, probably better to leave them in place and marked > 'untrusted' anyway just to ensure that they don't co

Re: How to permanently delete root CAs from mozilla products?

2011-09-17 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/17/2011 01:36 PM, Craig White wrote: > I remember having to delete a certificate 2 times to actually physically > remove them - the first time sets it to untrusted and the second one > finally purges it but I think from a safe point of view, it

How to permanently delete root CAs from mozilla products?

2011-09-17 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 > I believe that as part of your login/usage of Firefox & Thunderbird, a > profile is created in ~/.mozilla (FF) and ~/.thunderbird (TB) and within > each of your profiles is a file cert8.db file which is a personalized > version of the certificate s

Manually editing trusted root CA list in Thunderbird and Firefox

2011-09-16 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, I'd like to remove certain root certificates from my trusted list in Firefox but any changes I make are not permanent. Is there a way to have per-user trusted root lists instead of a system wide list? I suppose manual changes are not effective

Re: Firefox 3.6.18 (CVE-2011-0083, CVE-2011-0085, CVE-2011-2363)

2011-06-25 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/xulrunner-1.9.2.18-1.fc14,firefox-3.6.18-1.fc14,mozvoikko-1.0-22.fc14.1,perl-Gtk2-MozEmbed-0.08-6.fc14.27,gnome-web-photo-0.9-21.fc14.1,galeon-2.0.7-41.fc14.1,gnome-python2-extras-2.25.3-31.fc14.1,thunderbird-3

Re: Firefox 3.6.18 (CVE-2011-0083, CVE-2011-0085, CVE-2011-2363)

2011-06-21 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Christoph A. wrote: > f15 (firefox 4) is not affected. f15 is affected via Thunderbird. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=249666 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iEYEAREKAAYFAk4A5qgACgkQrq+riTAIEg16eACgmta8XcLWhCTFqzvJy+IaC

Firefox 3.6.18 (CVE-2011-0083, CVE-2011-0085, CVE-2011-2363)

2011-06-21 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 I hope to see Firefox 3.6.18 soon in f13/f14 f15 (firefox 4) is not affected. https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2011/mfsa2011-23.html https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=CVE-2011-0083 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/f

Re: outdated Tor version in Fedora (missing security fixes)

2011-06-10 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/10/2011 06:28 PM, Fennix wrote: > As to the SELinux policy questions...I am not sure. I have always compiled > and the TOR package has always worked without any SELinux complaints so for > this question I have never looked into this. the outpu

Re: outdated Tor version in Fedora (missing security fixes)

2011-06-09 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/07/2011 04:06 PM, Fennix wrote: > Umm, you could just download the source file and compile yourself... Yes, *I* could, but if Fedora ships a vulnerable package this affects a lot more people then just me. Compiling is always a possibility but

Re: outdated Tor version in Fedora (missing security fixes)

2011-06-07 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/07/2011 02:43 PM, Christoph A. wrote: > On 06/07/2011 06:53 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> I don't. Till the point it is EOL'ed, security updates are the only >> sort of the updates I would still want to definitely

Re: outdated Tor version in Fedora (missing security fixes)

2011-06-07 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/07/2011 06:53 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > I don't. Till the point it is EOL'ed, security updates are the only > sort of the updates I would still want to definitely see pushed. You are right. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?bu

Re: outdated Tor version in Fedora (missing security fixes)

2011-06-07 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/04/2011 11:20 AM, Enrico Scholz wrote: > for the other versions: there are simply no users who test the updates. > E.g. 0.2.1.29 was pushed to testing at 2011-01-22 and nobody tested it > for f13. According to bodhi you can push it to stable e

Re: outdated Tor version in Fedora (missing security fixes)

2011-06-06 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/05/2011 01:05 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Link to f13 update? I think it is ok if the package for f13 is not updated anymore because f13 will reach EOL soon. >> > Footnotes: >> > [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tor-0.2.1.30-1400

Re: outdated Tor version in Fedora (missing security fixes)

2011-06-04 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/04/2011 11:20 AM, Enrico Scholz wrote: > "Christoph A." writes: > >> I suppose you are the maintainer of the tor package in Fedora. >> I'm wondering why Fedora (13,14,15) currently doesn't contain the

outdated Tor version in Fedora (missing security fixes)

2011-06-03 Thread Christoph A.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi Enrico, I suppose you are the maintainer of the tor package in Fedora. I'm wondering why Fedora (13,14,15) currently doesn't contain the latest stable Tor version 0.2.1.30 which was released on 2011-02-23 and contains various security fixes (sinc

Re: assertion `G_IS_OBJECT (object)' failed? - pygtk2 broken

2011-04-19 Thread Christoph A.
On 04/19/2011 03:21 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > And if you upgrade again, the problem is reproducible again? Then it would > be a bug. Yes, if reinstalling pygtk2-2.17.0-8 the problems reappear. I tried that out - involuntary - broken packages got reinstalled because of my auto updater: Apr 1

Re: assertion `G_IS_OBJECT (object)' failed? - pygtk2 broken

2011-04-19 Thread Christoph A.
On 04/19/2011 01:24 AM, Christoph A. wrote: > Any hints? FYI: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/pygtk2-2.17.0-9.fc13?_csrf_token=67dbea4d02cade7e489bc62d18a0d94304553dd5 yum downgrade pygtk2 pygtk2-libglade fixed. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- us

assertion `G_IS_OBJECT (object)' failed?

2011-04-18 Thread Christoph A.
Hi, it seams that something got broken on my f13 system. Several applications crash when trying to start: $ system-config-services /usr/bin/system-config-services:149: Warning: g_object_unref: assertion `G_IS_OBJECT (object)' failed **{attrname: column}) /usr/bin/system-config-services:498: Wa

npviewer.bin segfault: libflashplayer.so

2010-12-14 Thread Christoph A.
Hi, I'm seeing some of these entries in my /var/log/messages log file: kernel: npviewer.bin[2940]: segfault at f73e304c ip 01192ee7 sp ffb197e0 error 4 in libflashplayer.so[df3000+b2e000] abrt[3031]: saved core dump of pid 2940 (/usr/lib/nspluginwrapper/npviewer.bin) to /var/spool

Re: Firefox at 3.6.7 that has known security bugs, all the while 3 newer versions where released in 54 days.

2010-09-20 Thread Christoph A.
On 09/20/2010 02:36 PM, Bram_Gro wrote: >> you need to signup at bugzilla.redhat.com and submit a bug there. >> > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635659 (priority should have > been urgent). Thank you for filing this bugreport. I was also asking for an update a week ago: http://l

Re: F13: no firefox 3.6.9 update?

2010-09-14 Thread Christoph A.
On 09/13/2010 03:21 PM, Christoph A. wrote: > What blocks the update of firefox in fedora 13? > (nss problems seam to be resolved?) > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=194231 > Has it something to do with this? http://www.computerworld.com/s/

F13: no firefox 3.6.9 update?

2010-09-13 Thread Christoph A.
What blocks the update of firefox in fedora 13? (nss problems seam to be resolved?) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=194231 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options

Re: [F13] update failure: nss*

2010-09-09 Thread Christoph A.
On 09/09/2010 12:17 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nss-3.12.7-4.fc13,nss-util-3.12.7-2.fc13,nss-softokn-3.12.7-3.fc13,nspr-4.8.6-1.fc13?_csrf_token=3804d3987eb4e49cb08ac9af125e9b6bbcb41783 > > No idea why the nss packagers seem to cause this sort of problem so

[F13] update failure: nss*

2010-09-08 Thread Christoph A.
Since today the automatic update process fails with the following notice: could not do simulate: nss-softokn-3.12.7-3.fc13.x86_64 requires nss-util >= 3.12.7 nss-tools-3.12.7-3.fc13.x86_64 requires libnssutil3.so(NSSUTIL_3.12.7)(64bit) nss-softokn-3.12.7-3.fc13.i686 requires nss-util >= 3.12.7 nss

Re: libselinux 2.0.94-2 testing [solved]

2010-09-08 Thread Christoph A.
On 09/07/2010 11:43 PM, JD wrote: > Why are you mixing 32 bit and 64 bit when you OS is 64 bit?? I'm using a 64bit system and downloaded the 64bit version, afterwords I saw that there was a i686 version installed... but now everything is fine as the packages was pushed to the updates-testing repo

Re: https://koji.fedoraproject.org -> invalid certificate

2010-09-07 Thread Christoph A.
btw: it would be great if http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org could be reachable via https too signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/u

libselinux 2.0.94-2 testing

2010-09-07 Thread Christoph A.
I just wanted to try the fix for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630592 and downloaded the rpm manually http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/libselinux/2.0.94/2.fc13/x86_64/libselinux-2.0.94-2.fc13.x86_64.rpm installed via: yum --nogpgcheck install I guess this was the wrong a

https://koji.fedoraproject.org -> invalid certificate

2010-09-07 Thread Christoph A.
koji uses a certificate that is signed by 'Fedora Project CA' which is not installed by default. Fedora owns a wildcard certificate: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/ -> *.fedoraproject.org why is this not used on koji too? kind regards, Christoph signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital si

Re: yum repository synchronization time?

2010-08-28 Thread Christoph A.
On 08/24/2010 07:49 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > When pushed into a repo, it will either be tagged with > "dist-*-updates-testing" or "dist-*-updates". Candidates are only > available in koji (and not even in the koji buildroot repos, depending > on what dist is built for). This http://koji.fedor

yum repository synchronization time?

2010-08-23 Thread Christoph A.
Hi, sometimes I'm looking for new package versions within the yum repositories because they should fix security issues. Therefore I go to http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packages and search for e.g. 'kernel' then I see there is already a new kernel build 2.6.34.4: http://koji.fedoraproject.or

Re: flash-plugin-10.1.82.76 not working within SELinux sandbox

2010-08-12 Thread Christoph A.
On 08/12/2010 06:01 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > Not sure what is causing the problem, but I would try to run restorecon > on the directory > > restorecon -R -v /usr/lib64 /usr/lib restorecon -R -v /usr/lib64 /usr/lib restorecon reset /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins-wrapped/nswrapper_64_64.libflashpla

Re: flash-plugin-10.1.82.76 not working within SELinux sandbox

2010-08-12 Thread Christoph A.
On 08/11/2010 03:36 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > On 08/11/2010 08:41 AM, Christoph A. wrote: >> Hi, > >> since the flash-plugin update (v10.1.82.76) yesterday, it is not working >> anymore within a SELinux sandbox. >> If firefox is not running within a sandbox flas

Re: flash-plugin-10.1.82.76 not working within SELinux sandbox

2010-08-12 Thread Christoph A.
On 08/12/2010 03:07 PM, n...@li.nux.ro wrote: > Christoph A. writes: > >> On 08/12/2010 02:43 AM, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: >>> >>> "Christoph A." writes: >>>> It seams that this didn't fix it entirely - in some cases it doesn't

Re: F13 - flash-plugin-10.1.82.76 not working AT ALL

2010-08-12 Thread Christoph A.
On 08/12/2010 06:03 AM, Joe Klemmer wrote: > Upon upgrading to flash-plugin-10.1.82.76 flash movies no longer play. > I get either nothing or a black box. Regular flash components don't > work either. > > I know we're using flash at our own risk but, until everything moves to > whateverthenextlat

Re: flash-plugin-10.1.82.76 not working within SELinux sandbox

2010-08-12 Thread Christoph A.
On 08/12/2010 02:43 AM, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: > > "Christoph A." writes: >> It seams that this didn't fix it entirely - in some cases it doesn't >> work again... >> I'll have to dig deeper.. > > Try just copying it. If the mozill

Re: flash-plugin-10.1.82.76 not working within SELinux sandbox

2010-08-11 Thread Christoph A.
On 08/11/2010 10:03 PM, Christoph A. wrote: > On 08/11/2010 09:56 PM, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: >> >> "Christoph A." writes: >>> If I open about:plugins in a sandboxed firefox flash does not even show up. >>> First I thought that flash is installed

Re: flash-plugin-10.1.82.76 not working within SELinux sandbox

2010-08-11 Thread Christoph A.
On 08/11/2010 09:56 PM, Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote: > > "Christoph A." writes: >> If I open about:plugins in a sandboxed firefox flash does not even show up. >> First I thought that flash is installed locally in ~/.mozilla/plugins >> but that was not the ca

Re: flash-plugin-10.1.82.76 not working within SELinux sandbox

2010-08-11 Thread Christoph A.
On 08/11/2010 03:36 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > On 08/11/2010 08:41 AM, Christoph A. wrote: >> Hi, > >> since the flash-plugin update (v10.1.82.76) yesterday, it is not working >> anymore within a SELinux sandbox. >> If firefox is not running within a sandbox flas

flash-plugin-10.1.82.76 not working within SELinux sandbox

2010-08-11 Thread Christoph A.
Hi, since the flash-plugin update (v10.1.82.76) yesterday, it is not working anymore within a SELinux sandbox. If firefox is not running within a sandbox flash works fine. Has anyone experienced the same issue and found the underlying problem? kind regards, Christoph signature.asc Description

Re: Resizing virtual display on virtual machine

2010-06-04 Thread Christoph A.
On 06/04/2010 07:43 PM, Dale J. Chatham wrote: > Using virtual machine manager > fedora core 13 vm > > > How do I change the display resolution in the virtual machine? 1024x768 > seems to be all I can get. > > I've scoured every way I can think of, Fedora docs, VMM docs, KVM, etc. > > TIA, > >

Re: F13: kvm guest screen resolution

2010-06-04 Thread Christoph A.
On 06/03/2010 11:25 PM, Phil Meyer wrote: > You can also 'trick' it by using the system-administration-display and > setting the display type to generic LCD at whatever resolution is > smaller that your actual display. Thank you for the hint! I got higher resolution but with a performance that is

Re: F13: kvm guest screen resolution / kvm broken setup

2010-06-04 Thread Christoph A.
On 06/03/2010 11:29 PM, Christoph A. wrote: > Traceback (most recent call last): > File "/usr/share/virt-manager/virtManager/engine.py", line 799, in > run_domain > vm.startup() > File "/usr/share/virt-manager/virtManager/domain.py", line 1256, in startup &g

Re: F13: kvm guest screen resolution / kvm broken setup

2010-06-03 Thread Christoph A.
On 06/03/2010 10:50 PM, Gilboa Davara wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 18:51 +0200, Christoph A. wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm running a kvm guest (F13) on a F13 host but didn't managed to get a >> reasonable screen resolution in the guest OS. I used cirrus and vga bu

F13: kvm guest screen resolution

2010-06-03 Thread Christoph A.
Hi, I'm running a kvm guest (F13) on a F13 host but didn't managed to get a reasonable screen resolution in the guest OS. I used cirrus and vga but was not able to get a resolution higher then 800x600. I tried also to manually add some resolutions to the xorg.conf but without success. Would be