Become maintainer of phoronix-test-suite
Hi, I would just announce that I am taking ownership of orphan package phoronix-test-suite. Regards Markus -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Review swap: phoronix-test-suite
Hi, i would like to offer a review swap for phoronix-test-suite (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737263) Regards, Markus -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: The question of rolling release?
On 01/26/2012 02:19 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:37:36 -0200 Henrique Junior wrote: I would like to see Fedora following the path of rolling release. openSUSE is doing a great job with the Tumbleweed, still keeping the same old system of releases and letting users choose whether or not using roling release. Particularly I wouldn't like to see this thread dying as happened in other occasions, after all, we know that discussions may not lead to anything, and sometimes small actions can be more productive than long threads [1]. I wonder if we could create a poll (for active members with FAS accounts) to determine what the community thinks about it. After the poll, if the idea of rolling release receives most votes then would be the time to discuss "how" and "when" doing the implementation. I would personally advise against this way forward. I'd like to suggest an alternative: * Gather folks interested in this (you should be able to see some from this thread). Perhaps announce that you are forming a group to look into this. * Get together and write up a wiki page / detailed proposal, answering: - How would this work? - What resources would you need? - What impact does it have on maintainers? users? release engineering? - Would this work alongside the current setup? Or would it be one or the other? - Try and answer questions raised by folks in this thread. - Try and list advantages. Why would we want to do this? what does it get us? * Post again once you have details and ask for more feedback. * Repeat cycle until you find it's ready and then ask fesco to take a look. Just a suggestion... kevin +1 Create suggestion I would like to join such a SIG. regards Markus -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
appdata handling
A new version of a package I maintain added an appdata.xml. As I haven't handled such files before, I looked up the internet for some information. The only helpful hint I found, was a commit adding appdata support to the qt-creator package in fedora git. [1] As more packages will add appdata file upstream, packagers will need information how to handle this within fedora. I suggest to these information to the Packaging Guidelines. What I'm interested in is: - Directory, Name, ownership and permissions for appdata.xml files - %post/%postun scriptlets (if needed) - If appdata-validate must be run during package build - How long does it take that the new appdata is propagated to gnome-software As a side note: build.log contains the following error: error: Couldn't exec /usr/lib/rpm/appdata.prov: No such file or directory [1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/qt-creator.git/commit/?h=epel7&id=812bac7be961483c992a3337fc8a35c524c73079 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Embedded SIG
Hi, I have started developing for embedded devices (aka microcontrollers) lately (mainly ARM cortex-M3 devices). Although fedora provides some of the needed tools, there are still some bits missing to provide a good out-of-the-box experience. So I have decide to ask if there are others like me, and if there are willing to form a SIG (special interest group) to enhance embedded developing with fedora. I think the main things to discuss within the sig are: - Finding out what fedora is missing to provide a good develepmont experience - Packaging (Cross-compilers, cross-debugers, ...) So if you are interested in helping to move thinks further or if you have any interesting/help-full information, I would highly appreciate your help. regards Markus -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Embedded SIG
On 04/21/2013 02:05 PM, Dan Mashal wrote: On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Markus Mayer wrote: Hi, I have started developing for embedded devices (aka microcontrollers) lately (mainly ARM cortex-M3 devices). Although fedora provides some of the needed tools, there are still some bits missing to provide a good out-of-the-box experience. So I have decide to ask if there are others like me, and if there are willing to form a SIG (special interest group) to enhance embedded developing with fedora. I think the main things to discuss within the sig are: - Finding out what fedora is missing to provide a good develepmont experience - Packaging (Cross-compilers, cross-debugers, ...) So if you are interested in helping to move thinks further or if you have any interesting/help-full information, I would highly appreciate your help. regards Markus -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel How does this differ from the already existing ARM sig? Dan Yes, there are many overlaps. But the goals are different (Bringing Fedora (as a whole) to arm devices vs. providing a good development environment/experience for developing for embedded devices). Maybe some examples make is more clear. Overlaps: - cross compiler for arm (please note that the arm sig is not required to provide it, because all builds must be self hosted) - Providing cross-platform gdb builds (right there is not such a package, so the arm sig apparently does not need one (but maybe it would also be usefull for them)) Differences: - Not tied to one platform (embedded devices also uses mips and others) - Focusing on embedded devices (like providing tools to debug via jtag (like openocd)) But of course I am not insisting on forming an sig. If a subgroup of the secondary arch sig would be a better choice, I would happily follow. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Embedded SIG
On 04/21/2013 04:11 PM, inode0 wrote: On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 7:01 AM, Markus Mayer wrote: Hi, I have started developing for embedded devices (aka microcontrollers) lately (mainly ARM cortex-M3 devices). Although fedora provides some of the needed tools, there are still some bits missing to provide a good out-of-the-box experience. So I have decide to ask if there are others like me, and if there are willing to form a SIG (special interest group) to enhance embedded developing with fedora. I think the main things to discuss within the sig are: - Finding out what fedora is missing to provide a good develepmont experience - Packaging (Cross-compilers, cross-debugers, ...) So if you are interested in helping to move thinks further or if you have any interesting/help-full information, I would highly appreciate your help. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Embedded While there is renewed discussion going on about who Fedora engages as a community and as a platform it is really a great time to move this forward and understand whether more could be done to make Fedora suitable for embedded development. Are there difficulties that go beyond tooling that can be identified? John Thanks for the link. Is there are reason that it is not listed on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:SIGs ? Regarding your last question: I think most difficulties are about tooling. Maybe some parts include creating guidelines/best-practices. But maybe at a discussion with some embedded devs some more tasks will occur. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Embedded SIG
On 04/21/2013 04:23 PM, John J. McDonough wrote: On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:01 AM, Markus Mayer wrote: So I have decide to ask if there are others like me, and if there are willing to form a SIG (special interest group) to enhance embedded developing with fedora. I have an interest in an Embedded SIG, although less for the ARM as for the Microchip devices (PIC, dsPIC) which are reasonably well supported. Not that I don't play with ARM, too, but it is somewhat less of a passion. --McD As it was pointed out to me, there already exists and embedded SIG (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Embedded). I am trying to contact and join them, but I do not know if they are still alive. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Review swap
Hi, I am seeking for a reviewer for jimtcl - A small embeddable Tcl interpreter: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959747 If anyone is willing to review this, I am happy to review a package of him/her instead. Regards Markus -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Review swap
On 05/05/2013 01:19 PM, Eugene Pivnev wrote: 05.05.2013 13:25, Markus Mayer: Hi, I am seeking for a reviewer for jimtcl - A small embeddable Tcl interpreter: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959747 If anyone is willing to review this, I am happy to review a package of him/her instead. Let's swap with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957333 ? Glad to do it... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Orphaning jcharts
I've just orphand jcharts in rawhide, because I don't use it anymore and no package depends on it. If you are interested in maintaining it, feel free to take it. regards, Markus -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation
On 11/01/2013 03:24 PM, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote: Hi everyone, Attached is the draft PRD for the Workstation working group. The proposal tries to be relatively high level and focus on goals and principles, but I have included some concrete examples at times to try to provide some clarity on how the goals and principles could play out in practice. I hope the community at large will take the time to read through it and provide feedback so that when the working group meet next we can use that feedback to start tuning in on the final form of the PRD. Also in the name of openness, before I sent this here, I showed the PRD draft to key stakeholders and decision makers inside Red Hat, to ensure that we have the necessary support for these plans to get the kind of engineering resources allocated from Red Hat we will need to pull this off. Sincerely, Christian F.K. Schaller P.S. I am celebrating both our wedding anniversary and my wifes birthday this weekend so I will not be able to be online a lot. That said I will make the time to go online to check my email from time to time so that I can respond to any questions that has come in, just don't expect immediate answers from me this weekend :) Hi Christian, thank you for writting up the product description. Here are some things that came to my mind while reading it: - What about watching films, listening to music? I think it is a basic requirement for students (at least for me). Maybe we should add a that a student should be able to play videos and listen to music. It should be easy to install required codes (free/nonfree/patente) if they are available in the repositories (yes, I mean rpmfusion) - You often refere to 'development environment with the latest web development tools'. Is there a reaseon why 'web development tools' are listed seperatly? What about C/C++ development tools? Are they just 2nd grade tools? Am I assuming correctly that 'development environment' includes IDEs, SCM-Systems, editors, ...? - Maybe we should add a statement, that it should be easy to install/use server components on a workstation install. Many developers need server components to test their code Regards Markus -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation
On 11/01/2013 03:24 PM, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote: Hi everyone, Attached is the draft PRD for the Workstation working group. The proposal tries to be relatively high level and focus on goals and principles, but I have included some concrete examples at times to try to provide some clarity on how the goals and principles could play out in practice. I hope the community at large will take the time to read through it and provide feedback so that when the working group meet next we can use that feedback to start tuning in on the final form of the PRD. Also in the name of openness, before I sent this here, I showed the PRD draft to key stakeholders and decision makers inside Red Hat, to ensure that we have the necessary support for these plans to get the kind of engineering resources allocated from Red Hat we will need to pull this off. Sincerely, Christian F.K. Schaller P.S. I am celebrating both our wedding anniversary and my wifes birthday this weekend so I will not be able to be online a lot. That said I will make the time to go online to check my email from time to time so that I can respond to any questions that has come in, just don't expect immediate answers from me this weekend :) And here comes the next tought... A small business developer, will also need (at least twice a year) basic image processing. Creating Icons, placeholder graphics... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation
On 11/05/2013 10:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 16:32 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 15:23 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:22 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: - What about watching films, listening to music? I think it is a basic requirement for students (at least for me). Maybe we should add a that a student should be able to play videos and listen to music. It should be easy to install required codes (free/nonfree/patente) if they are available in the repositories (yes, I mean rpmfusion) This would require approval beyond the WG, as it goes against Fedora's policies. Note, I am not saying you are incorrect, just that it's a conversation to be had elsewhere first. Ensuring that it's possible/easy to install plugins from third party repositories when appropriate if those third party repositories are defined is not, I don't believe, against any policies, or we could not have the automatic codec installation mechanisms in Totem and Rhythmbox. (Which, as I read it, is the kind of thing this comment was about). The codec search only works if you have repositories configured that have packages that match the Provides (as far as I understand). Fedora policy says that we do not promote or install such repositories. This is the "don't talk about RPMFusion" rule. So sure, we can have software that will pull things in if the user has done some manual intervention. We just cant, currently, do that thing for them. Right, that's exactly what I was saying. I just think this is all the _original poster_ was talking about, not any kind of automatic configuration of such repositories. (Or at least, you can read it that way). OK. I guess that's fine, but it seems like a non-goal to me. I mean, it already works that way. All adding it to the PRD would do would make an easy thing to check off the list as "met". I suppose we should go back to the OP and ask for clarification of exactly what the idea was, at this point :) All I was asking for is the status quo. 3rd party repositories must be installed manually, but once they are installed automated codec installation should work. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Should a working fedup in Fedora N's stable repository be a release criterion for N+1?
On 12/18/2013 08:22 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: OK, so I'll re-ask my original question. Fedora 20 was released with a broken update path from F19. Should the release criteria be amended? This particular issue would have been avoided if F19's fedup were frozen along with F20 and if all of the destined-for-stable versions were tested together as a release criterion. --Andy I'am definitely in favor of this. A working upgrade is as important as a working installation. A suggest that you create a draft of the release criteria change and fill a FESCO ticket. regards Markus -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
