From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search


Fedora Weekly News Issue 114

Welcome to Fedora Weekly News Issue 114 for the week of December 31st, 2007 http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue114

In Announcement, "FUDCon Raleigh 2008" and "Fedora Unity announces Fedora 8 Re-Spin"

In Planet Fedora, "Red Hat's New CEO", "bugz.fedoraproject.org" and "Fedora Xfce Spin"

To join or give us your feedback, please visit http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/NewsProject/Join.


In this section, we cover announcements from Fedora Project.

In this issue, we've included all new announcements since last issue.


Contributing Writer: ThomasChung

FUDCon Raleigh 2008

MaxSpevack announces in fedora-announce-list[1] ,

"Whether you are a new Fedora user who just started with Fedora 8, a seasoned veteran who has been with Red Hat from the very beginning, or somewhere in between, you are all invited to FUDCon Raleigh 2008.


This year's FUDCon is a 3 day event, from Friday January 11th - Sunday January 13th."

[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2007-December/msg00006.html

Fedora Unity announces Fedora 8 Re-Spin

JeroenVanMeeuwen announces in fedora-announce-list[1] ,

"The Fedora Unity Project is proud to announce the release of new ISO Re-Spins (DVD and CD Sets) of Fedora 8. These Re-Spin ISOs are based on the officially released Fedora 8 installation media and include all updates released as of December 18th, 2007. The ISO images are available for i386 and x86_64 architectures via jigdo starting Sunday, December 23rd, 2007."

[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2007-December/msg00008.html

Planet Fedora

In this section, we cover a highlight of Planet Fedora - an aggregation of blogs from world wide Fedora contributors.


Contributing Writers: ThomasChung

Red Hat's New CEO

MaxSpevack points out in his blog[1] ,

"Matt Asay interviewed Red Hat's new CEO, Jim Whitehurst. I thought this was a great interview. A lot of the things that Jim says really resonated with me, and I think that all of the Fedora folks out there will find themselves nodding their heads as they read it too."

[1] http://spevack.livejournal.com/41708.html


SethVidal points out in his blog[1] ,

"Toshio, Will Woods and myself came up with something a little while back and each of us did a part in implementing it. It’s bugz.fedoraproject.org"

[1] http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/bugzfedoraprojectorg/

Fedora Xfce Spin

RahulSundaram points out in his blog[1] ,

"Fedora Xfce Spin is a variant of Fedora with a focus on low resource systems and in particular Xfce users. It is a live cd image that you can optionally install to hard disk or USB images."

[1] http://rahulsundaram.livejournal.com/17893.html


In this section, we cover Fedora Marketing Project.


Contributing Writer: ThomasChung

Is Red Hat still relevant? You bet

RahulSundaram reports in fedora-marketing-list[1] ,

"Many Linux users don't seem to realize just how much Red Hat contributes back to the Linux community. They are major software developers on a number of projects not the least of which is the Linux kernel. The Fedora Project site has a page entitled Red Hat contributions to Free and Open Source software which lists most of Red Hat's contributions."

[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/2008-January/msg00044.html

IcedTea 1.5 Adds PowerPC Java Port

RahulSundaram reports in fedora-marketing-list[1] ,

"The IcedTea project added a PowerPC Java port (both 32 and 64 bit) of OpenJDK. IcedTea 1.5 now also tracks the mercurial repo, provides better GNU/Linux integration by using standard system libraries (libpng, libjpeg, zlib, giflib) and can be bootstrapped with the free gcj/ecj/classpath toolchain. OpenJDK just accepted a new porters group and Gary Benson wrote a guide to porting IcedTea that might be the start of a lot of other Java ports."

[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/2008-January/msg00041.html

Installing Fedora 8 on Hyper-V

RahulSundaram reports in fedora-marketing-list[1] ,

"Microsoft developer's article about Fedora as a guest in a Windows virtualized environment."

[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-marketing-list/2008-January/msg00037.html


In this section, we cover the problems/solutions, people/personalities, and ups/downs of the endless discussions on Fedora Developments.


Contributing Writer: OisinFeeley

SELinux Rants

SELinux[1] was the subject of three distinct threads. The first was initiated when SteveGrubb responded[2] to the 22 Dec 2007 rawhide report with the information that all kernels for x86_64 subsequent to 2.6.24-0.81.rc4.git7.fc9 were failing to boot. PatriceDumas was able to confirm[3] the problem as was DavidZeuthen. A post from EricParis suggested that selinux-policy might be responsible for the problem and that manual (rpm) removal of the kernel followed by switching off SELinux enforcing mode and then updating the kernel and then re-activating enforcing mode might help. David stated[4] that he was not running enforcing mode. When DimiPaun expressed regret at this David produced[5] an "selinux rant, compressed version." In this David drew attention to the problem that SELinux policy is too complicated and requires a single maintainer, DanWalsh, to effectively know the quirks of every piece of software. In David's experience as a packager, user and developer SELinux had failed but he acknowledged that it might be useful for tightly-controlled servers. As a possible fix David suggested that policy files could be handled by rpm, but thought that this would be dismissed automatically as an option.

[1] http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/

[2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-December/msg01500.html

[3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-December/msg01677.html

[4] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00199.html

[5] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00219.html

JesseKeating countered[6] the assumption that the problem was rpm, stating instead that SELinux itself prevented rpm from being able to write files for which it did not yet have a context. Jesse wished that SELinux upstream would get a clue. David argued[7] that SELinux were not solely to blame and suggested that rpm and selinux could be used together by installing the policy before the files were copied. He suggested that a two-way conversation between the respective projects would be useful. Jesse also touched[8] on the current necessity of using permissive mode during installs to avoid failures.

[6] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00223.html

[7] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00226.html

[8] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00225.html

DanWalsh posted[9] a detailed rebuttal of David's contention that devolving policy to individual maintainers would work. His main points seemed to be assertions that maintainers would not do a good job and also that it was necessary for someone to take an overview of the complex interactions between many packages. Dan suggested that David was more likely to run into problems than most because of the frequent need for root permissions in his work. Dan also asked Jesse for specific details of problems that required running in permissive mode. Jesse's response indicated[10] the complexity of the problem involving at least two chroots. David asserted[11] was in essence confirming the idea that SELinux was too complicated and challenged Dan to allow him to maintain the policy for hal and to open up to other maintainers willing to help in this area. SteveGrubb differed[12] and suggested that rather than blame SELinux for complexity it was better to realize that it was describing the complex interactions between different pieces of software. Steve wondered if a tool to compare newly introduced syscalls with older versions could help out.

[9] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00237.html

[10] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00242.html

[11] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00246.html

[12] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00253.html

The second rant was posted[13] by EdSwierk in which he detailed the problems he encountered when he tried to copy old user directories into a fresh server installation. Ed noted that his solution was just to switch SELinux off and commented "For me learning SELinux seems as pointless as trying to remember iptables commands, or AFS trivia back when I was a student--all cause me trouble just infrequently enough to ensure I have to relearn them from scratch every time. If I were a full-time sysadmin of course it would be a different story[.] " EricParis asked how Ed had copied the files, and when it turned out to be with tar TomaszTorcz suggested[14] that he should have used the --xattrs option. Tomasz explained that all that was important was that the context labels were set correctly for the files and that file location was irrelevant. JohnDennis drew[15] attention to the setroubleshoot and setroubleshoot-server packages which help SELinux novices identify such problems and suggests resolutions for them. The setroubleshoot-server package was explained[16] by John to address the needs of those running headless servers.

[13] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00230.html

[14] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00267.html

[15] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00315.html

[16] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00331.html

Ed expressed appreciation for JohnDennis's help but wondered why the messages could be made clearer somehow. KonstantinRyabitsev suggested[17] using audit2allow and audit2why and John suggested sudo sealert -a /var/log/audit/audit.log.

[17] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00352.html

A less sanguine evaluation of setroubleshoot was expressed[18] by JonathanUnderwood who thought that it taught novice users that many problems were simply "due to bugs in selinux policy". TomLane agreed[19] with RalfCorsepius that it might not be appropriate to inform ordinary users about avc denials, but pointed out that at the present the policies were a work in progress and that feedback on them was essential.

[18] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00376.html

[19] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00414.html

The thread ended[20] amicably as discussion between Ed and AndrewFarris made it quite clear that Ed was reporting his experience as an insight into why some people disable SELinux. Closing posts indicated that perhaps improving the error messages could help.

[20] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00259.html

The third related discussion was initiated[21] by LinusWalleij when he asked why system-config-selinux or anaconda did not seem to disable all the selinux related services and daemons upon request. EricParis replied[22] that in general services were not coupled such that stopping one stopped others, and that for the specific cases of auditd, mcstrans, restorecond and setroubleshoot mentioned by Linus there was no necessity for it as auditd can work without the presence of selinux and vice-versa. Linus investigated[23] the other users of auditd in Fedora and came up with some non-default installed programs and the conclusion that "As it stands now, a human can advise the user (in this case me) to turn off auditd (and the other selinux services) on their travel laptop [...] but the system itself cannot." A very interesting post from SteveGrubb explained[24] the utility of auditd (which among other things prevents the syslog from becoming cluttered. Steve pointed out that the audit logs collected a large amount of information ranging from failed logins to segfaulting applications, all of which could be quickly eyeballed with aureport --start this-week. He also pointed out that the new security audit tool sectool[25] and aide and his own planned IDS plugin[26] would use this information, so that turning off auditd was possibly not desirable. EnricoScholz added[27] the caution that the local logging of auditd limited its usefulness on compromised machines.

[21] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00243.html

[22] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00244.html

[23] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00279.html

[24] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00296.html

[25] https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/sectool

[26] See FWN#100 "Layering An IDS On Linux" http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue100#head-051ea9b1b3a45c4c8cae083db32214ee8682a1f8

[27] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00299.html

Linus thanked Steve for the detailed explanation and proved his good intentions with a patch to add a better description to /etc/init.d/auditd. The patch was accepted with minor changes by SteveGrubb.

[28] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00372.html

Mass Rebuild Using GCC 4.3.0-0.4

The results of rebuilding Rawhide using the newest GCC were posted[1] by JakubJelinek. A snapshot of Rawhide dated 20th Dec 2007 contained 5118 src.rpms of which 1054 failed to build. In order to determine which of those failures were due to the new GCC Jakub attempted to rebuild using the older, stock GCC (4.1.2-36) and identified 547 that failed, leaving 507 which failed solely due to the new GCC. Jakub classified these failures in his post and listed the failing packages for the benefit of maintainers. The bulk of the errors seemed to be due to changes in the C++ Standard Template Library.

[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00128.html

Jakub answered a few queries from maintainers who needed further help and one useful practical point that emerged[2] was that in order to test the building of a package with the new GCC it is necessary to do a scratch build in dist-f9-gcc43 as suggested by "drago01". It also seemed that there was a problem with "gettext" depending on a newer Java. Jakub clarified[3] that he had rebuilt gettext in his original buildroots, but not for dist-f9-gcc43.

[2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00149.html

[3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00277.html

Later ThorstenLeemhuis provided[4] a version of the list with package owner names prepended to each line.

[4] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00145.html

HansdeGoede noticed[5] what seemed to be errors which were due to boost which was not itself on the list of packages failing to build.

[5] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00162.html

The possibility that some failures are due to problems in rawhide at the time that the snapshot was taken was highlighted[6] when ChristopherWickert sought and received Jakub's help in interpreting a cryptic error.

[6] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00154.html

[7] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00163.html

Failures experienced by HansdeGoede for a package depending on "allegro" and BradenMcDaniel for openvrml exposed[8] some problems due to the use of extern "C" . TomTromey pointed out[9] that a parameter list cannot contain a typedef to void instead of a type void in C++. JakubJelinek echoed[10] this and emphasized that any included header could only use the common subset of C and C++. Hans expressed[11] the opinion that this was a bug of C++, which TomTromey agreed with.

[8] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00262.html

[9] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00264.html

[10] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00278.html

[11] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00327.html

JonCiesla added[12] his voice to the many thanks that Jakub received and requested that the exercise be repeated before F9 Gold. The specific errors that he, IgnacioVazquezAbrams and GianlucaSforna were dealing with were in Python packages (eggs) which were failing to have their info included in the specfile.

[12] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00285.html

Call For Maintainers Of TeXLive-Related Packages

PatriceDumas asked[1] for volunteers to help maintain packages which had been bundled into TeXLive although they are not actually part of it[2] . Patrice offered to review any packages but was too busy to take on the burden of maintaining these programs.

[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00433.html

[2] TeXLive is a collection of software for working with TeX markup. It replaces the older teTeX collection

Discussion centered around the xdvi document renderer, which JonathanUnderwood suggested could be entirely eliminated if only evince had dvi support enabled. MatthiasClasen commented that the dvi backend of evince was actually enabled in rawhide for some time, which led Jonathon to ask[3] for the relevant bugzilla entry to be closed. When Patrice commented that the removal of xdvi would be a problem for him Jonathon concurred[4] after testing a local build and finding that evince does not automatically refresh when the file changes on disk.

[3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00471.html

[4] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00439.html

MamoruTasaka also thought that removing xdiv would be a problem because users of Japanese pTeX needed it. Jonathon responded[5] that he was hacking together a specfile to allow xdvi to be maintained.

[5] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00465.html

Policy Proposal For New Compatibility Packages

BrianPepple requested[1] feedback on a proposal concerning the maintenance of compatibility packages which will be voted on at the 10th January 2008 FESCo meeting. The proposal attempts to describe the limited conditions under which compatibility packages could be maintained and the manner in which disputes could be resolved.

[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00052.html

The issue of whether there should be a time-limit on the maintenance was raised by several people. NicolasMailhot made[2] a strong case that it was necessary, and raised the specter of "the path of least resistance" resulting in maintainers pushing such libraries for ever with the result that upstream development would receive no pressure to move to newer APIs. Although several others shared these concerns there was also a desire to avoid bureaucracy and trust packagers as expressed[3] [4] by PatriceDumas.

[2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00085.html

[3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00084.html

[4] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00094.html

Patrice wondered why extra veto powers were being given to the primary maintainers over those that wished to maintain compatibility libraries. BrianPepple responded that it was due to the increased work that would inevitably devolve onto the primary maintainer (due to security problems and misfiled bugs). Patrice remained unconvinced and stated[5] that the "asymmetry" introduced was unneeded as the primary maintainer could already raise concerns. JoshBoyer thought[6] that the emphasis on vetoes was misplaced and that the differences between Brian and Patrice were more apparent than real. Patrice finished[7] off with an examination of the language of the proposal which pointed out that as current procedures allow any packager to block a review with an escalation to FESCo there should really be no need for this apparently redundant guideline.

[5] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00098.html

[6] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00108.html

[7] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00122.html

Support for Brian's proposal was expressed[8] by LinusWalleij on the grounds that compatibility cruft would slow down the swift release cycle of Fedora. When Patrice wondered how this would actually happen JesseKeating suggested[9] that build failures and increased workload on the primary maintainer were two likely mechanisms. A small exchange between Linus and Patrice on the subject of breaking APIs versus publishing compatibility packages ensued[10] .

[8] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00155.html

[9] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00166.html

[10] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00170.html

An interesting reframing of the problem was posted[11] by ThorstenLeemhuis. Thorsten argued that proprietary applications frequently needed compatibility libraries. Rather than focusing on compatibility libraries as the problem Thorsten suggested that discouraging other non-proprietary applications from using the compat-packages should be a priority. Some practical reinforcement of the point was expressed[12] by "Alan". In response JesseKeating drew[13] a distinction between compatible libraries (which made sense to him) and compatible development packages (which did not).

[11] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00065.html

[12] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00066.html

[13] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00069.html

KevinKofler and LesMikesell argued the toss[14] over whether breaking the API was a good idea and how this affected proprietary code ... or not.

[14] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00072.html

GDB Messages Enhanced To Indicate Missing Debuginfo Files

A query from NealBecker asked[1] why running gdb on a program now produced many warnings of the form "Missing the separate debug info file: /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/XXXXXXX.debug". AndrewHaley responded[2] that the problem was that the appropriate "-debug" packages for the shared libraries were not installed and suggested that the absence of specific information as to which libraries were missing was a bug.

[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00300.html

[2] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00302.html

While acknowledging that it was slightly awkward to find the information MattMiller suggested[3] enabling the debuginfo repository so that YUM could be used to install the missing filename's package. JesseKeating added[4] that it was easier to use debuginfo-install <appname> which would automatically enable the debuginfo repository and install the requisite debuginfo packages. A very informative post from JanKratochvil, a Red Hat employee primarily focusing on GDB, followed[5] . Jan's post showed how to find the name of the library missing debuginfo ls -l /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/fa/XXXX.debug, how to find the RPM package name to install the debuginfo repoquery -qf /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/fa/XXXXX.debug and as suggested previously by MattMiller how to simply install the missing debuginfo package with yum install /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/fa/XXXXX.debug. Jan cautioned that debuginfo-install <appname> method might not work due to multiple simultaneous debuginfo versions present and he also encouraged discussion on how to improve the output.

[3] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00306.html

[4] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00307.html

[5] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00308.html

Further discussion between AndrewHaley and Jan on how to improve the ability of GDB to suggest the correct debuginfo packages uncovered some constraints. Jan pointed[6] out that debuginfo-install will have problems with dynamically opened libraries, that printing out a suggested RPM package would unacceptably tie GDB to Fedora. These debuginfo files are the result of work by RolandMcGrath and others on BuildID, which is a Fedora 8 feature[7] [8] , which extended the information in core files to include specific versions of binaries and dynamic shared objects. This enables precise replication of a problem for debugging. Implementing this required changes to the kernel[8a] , ld and other parts of the compiler toolchain and so are of general interest, non-exclusive to Fedora. AndrewHaley suggested[9] that a local (to Fedora) patch could produce his version of perfection, which would be to suggest a specific yum installation command. JamesAntill thought[10] that if perfection and local patching were being considered then tighter integration with rpm or yum could allow the use of debuginfo-install <packagename>.

[6] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00312.html

[7] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBuildId

[8] Section 15.2 of the gdb info file explains that a build-id is a section of the executable file which is a unique identification hash which remains constant across multiple builds of the same build tree.

[8a] http://www.uwsg.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0707.1/1702.html

[9] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00317.html

[10] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00339.html

When TomLondon experimented[11] with debuginfo-install and got a large list of dependencies Jan asked[12] why debuginfo packages were pulling in binary packages and suggested a patch to the redhat rpm macros. RolandMcGrath responded[13] with a suggestion that redhat-rpm-config should also change.

[11] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00350.html

[12] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00353.html

[13] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00362.html

In closing DavidNielsen suggested[14] that PackageKit might aid in figuring out which packages were missing and offering to install them for the user.

[14] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2008-January/msg00355.html


In this section, we cover the Fedora Documentation Project.


Contributing Writer: ThomasChung

FDSCo results

KarstenWade reports in fedora-docs-list[1] ,

"With a slight delay for the holidays to get the results :), the following persons will be staying or joining the Fedora Documentation Steering Committee (FDSCo): BartCouvreur, JohnBabich, JaredSmith"

[1] https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/2007-December/msg00351.html

Security Advisories

In this section, we cover Security Advisories from fedora-package-announce.


Contributing Writer: ThomasChung

Fedora 8 Security Advisories

Fedora 7 Security Advisories

Events and Meetings

In this section, we cover event reports and meeting summaries from various Projects and SIGs.

Contributing Writer: ThomasChung

Fedora Board Meeting Minutes 2008-MM-DD

  • No Report

Fedora Ambassadors EMEA Meeting 2008-MM-DD

  • No Report

Fedora Documentation Steering Committee 2008-MM-DD

  • No Report

Fedora Engineering Steering Committee Meeting 2008-MM-DD

  • No Report

Fedora Infrastructure Meeting Log 2008-01-03

Fedora Localization Meeting 2008-MM-DD

  • No Report

Fedora Marketing Meeting 2008-MM-DD

  • No Report

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting 2008-MM-DD

  • No Report

Fedora Quality Assurance Meeting 2008-MM-DD

  • No Report

Fedora Release Engineering Meeting 2008-MM-DD

  • No Report

Fedora SIG EPEL Meeting Week 01/2008

Fedora SIG KDE Meeting Week 01/2008

Fedora SIG Store Meeting 2008-MM-DD

  • No Report

Fedora SIG Astronomy Meeting Log 2007-12-28