Simon stopped by in IRC today and worked with Mel on getting FASAuth to properly use FAS groups for granting privileges. They tested this successfully. I grabbed the changes and committed them to the git repository and branched 0.3 I kicked off a new srpm which you can find here: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/zikula-module-fedora-fasauth-0.3-1.fc13.src.r...
So action items from this:
1. We need to test that this RPM did in fact grab all of the changes and that it works as it is supposed from the RPM. 2. We need someone in sysadmin-main to look at commit the above package to the infra repo. 3. Mel - you can now take me off your nag list :)
I'll try and participate in #1 in coordination with others, though it may be the weekend before my schedule frees up enough to sink any serious effort into it. If someone else wants to pick this up and run with it, feel free to.
Thoughts/comments/flames?
I can commit this to the repo when I get home if no one gets it before.
On 3/31/10, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
Simon stopped by in IRC today and worked with Mel on getting FASAuth to properly use FAS groups for granting privileges. They tested this successfully. I grabbed the changes and committed them to the git repository and branched 0.3 I kicked off a new srpm which you can find here: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/zikula-module-fedora-fasauth-0.3-1.fc13.src.r...
So action items from this:
- We need to test that this RPM did in fact grab all of the changes
and that it works as it is supposed from the RPM. 2. We need someone in sysadmin-main to look at commit the above package to the infra repo. 3. Mel - you can now take me off your nag list :)
I'll try and participate in #1 in coordination with others, though it may be the weekend before my schedule frees up enough to sink any serious effort into it. If someone else wants to pick this up and run with it, feel free to.
Thoughts/comments/flames? _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:34 PM, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
Simon stopped by in IRC today and worked with Mel on getting FASAuth to properly use FAS groups for granting privileges. They tested this successfully. I grabbed the changes and committed them to the git repository and branched 0.3 I kicked off a new srpm which you can find here: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/zikula-module-fedora-fasauth-0.3-1.fc13.src.r...
So action items from this:
- We need to test that this RPM did in fact grab all of the changes
and that it works as it is supposed from the RPM. 2. We need someone in sysadmin-main to look at commit the above package to the infra repo. 3. Mel - you can now take me off your nag list :)
I'll try and participate in #1 in coordination with others, though it may be the weekend before my schedule frees up enough to sink any serious effort into it. If someone else wants to pick this up and run with it, feel free to.
Thoughts/comments/flames?
Can either you or Mel make a ticket in the appropriate queue so we can track this in FI meetings as needed? (If you agree that it is necessary... I just don't want it to get lost.)
Is this fixing the admin FASauth issue or is this fixing the "we want editors to have their own fas group and get authorized to the same group in zikula" as well?
logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Robyn Bergeron robyn.bergeron@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:34 PM, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
Simon stopped by in IRC today and worked with Mel on getting FASAuth to properly use FAS groups for granting privileges. They tested this successfully. I grabbed the changes and committed them to the git repository and branched 0.3 I kicked off a new srpm which you can find here: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/zikula-module-fedora-fasauth-0.3-1.fc13.src.r...
So action items from this:
- We need to test that this RPM did in fact grab all of the changes
and that it works as it is supposed from the RPM. 2. We need someone in sysadmin-main to look at commit the above package to the infra repo. 3. Mel - you can now take me off your nag list :)
I'll try and participate in #1 in coordination with others, though it may be the weekend before my schedule frees up enough to sink any serious effort into it. If someone else wants to pick this up and run with it, feel free to.
Thoughts/comments/flames?
Can either you or Mel make a ticket in the appropriate queue so we can track this in FI meetings as needed? (If you agree that it is necessary... I just don't want it to get lost.)
Ticket 109
Is this fixing the admin FASauth issue or is this fixing the "we want editors to have their own fas group and get authorized to the same group in zikula" as well?
This fixes the 'editors having their own fas group and essentially get authorization via fas in addition to authentication'
Thank you!
I'll add this to the meeting agenda for tomorrow.
Cheers, -robyn
On 3/31/10, David Nalley david.nalley@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Robyn Bergeron robyn.bergeron@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:34 PM, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
Simon stopped by in IRC today and worked with Mel on getting FASAuth to properly use FAS groups for granting privileges. They tested this successfully. I grabbed the changes and committed them to the git repository and branched 0.3 I kicked off a new srpm which you can find here: http://ke4qqq.fedorapeople.org/zikula-module-fedora-fasauth-0.3-1.fc13.src.r...
So action items from this:
- We need to test that this RPM did in fact grab all of the changes
and that it works as it is supposed from the RPM. 2. We need someone in sysadmin-main to look at commit the above package to the infra repo. 3. Mel - you can now take me off your nag list :)
I'll try and participate in #1 in coordination with others, though it may be the weekend before my schedule frees up enough to sink any serious effort into it. If someone else wants to pick this up and run with it, feel free to.
Thoughts/comments/flames?
Can either you or Mel make a ticket in the appropriate queue so we can track this in FI meetings as needed? (If you agree that it is necessary... I just don't want it to get lost.)
Ticket 109
Is this fixing the admin FASauth issue or is this fixing the "we want editors to have their own fas group and get authorized to the same group in zikula" as well?
This fixes the 'editors having their own fas group and essentially get authorization via fas in addition to authentication' _______________________________________________ logistics mailing list logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:34 PM, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
- We need someone in sysadmin-main to look at commit the above
package to the infra repo.
Package looked decent to me - that being said, the standard is lower than a Fedora package review, so I built and pushed it to the infra repo. If it were a Fedora package review, I'd nitpick that there weren't empty lines between the versions in the changelog, making it harder to read. But oh well :)
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Jon Stanley jonstanley@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 7:34 PM, David Nalley david@gnsa.us wrote:
- We need someone in sysadmin-main to look at commit the above
package to the infra repo.
Package looked decent to me - that being said, the standard is lower than a Fedora package review, so I built and pushed it to the infra repo. If it were a Fedora package review, I'd nitpick that there weren't empty lines between the versions in the changelog, making it harder to read. But oh well :)
John:
Thanks for pushing it up.
Ha, if you really want another iteration, I'll be happy to push a new srpm with the empty lines your way :)
Thanks,
David
logistics@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
David Nalley -
David Nalley -
Jon Stanley -
Robyn Bergeron