Hi,
On 03/04/2010 09:59 PM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Obviously, some people want this and some don't. It isn't appropriate
> to simply hand down an edict that things will be one way or the other if
> we truly consider Fedora a community run project. It must be a
> community decision. That means, a
On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
> Does that mean if Fedora N is released with KDE 4.x, the users get
> 4.x+1 only in Fedora N+1? It sounds diagonally opposite to the
> latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora.
>
If you would point me to such a "bleeding edge" policy
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:53 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> We should change or refine the Freeze Policy page then. Having different
>> definitions of what is required for alpha to go out and what can go in
>> after alpha leads to incorrect expectations on the part of dev
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 18:30 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 20:11 -0500, James Antill wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 00:14 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > Well, Fedora Extras 6 (x86_64) contained 5129 packages, which is only 300
> > > less
> > > than F11 stable updates.
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
[...]
> 3. adjust plans/policy wrt kde upgrades.
> a. implement kde stability proposal as is (to limit 4.x type upgrades to at
> most one per fedora release)
>
> b. simply do new 4.x versions only for fn+1? pros: less chance to disrupt
> curren
Doug Ledford writes:
> Limitations, yes. Current state, no. You can't make a policy to do the
> impossible and expect it to just happen. But you *can* make a policy to
> do the very hard and seemingly impossible and make it happen. To that
> end I reference the fact that man has in fact been t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have taken over the maintainership from Robert, and the new
usb_modeswitch rpms are in rawhide now.
Let me know if you guys need anything fixed on that :)
- --
Regards,
Huzaifa Sidhpurwala, RHCE, CCNA (IRC: huzaifas)
IT Desktop R&D Lead.
Globa
On 03/04/2010 06:27 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Doug Ledford wrote:
>> But let's be clear. That's a *policy* decision. One of the things that
>> got very confusing in the previous thread(s) was the intermixing of
>> policy decisions and technical issues. For instance, Kevin's response
>> to my pro
Greetings
I hope everyone is well. With the worst of the “snowpocalypse" behind us
(here in the Northern Hemisphere) and the branching of Fedora 13, there
is a bit of ‘spring cleaning’ the the bugzappers need to do. This
e-mail is designed to
let you know about the upcoming bugzilla changes hap
On 3/4/2010 9:38 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> That's the problem - it's just postponed to upgrade from update - you can
> choose one hell from 1. break update, 2. break upgrade. None of this should
> happen.
>
>
To reiterate - I would *much* prefer change around and upgrade than an
update. I
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> It's actually almost no extra work to build the updates also for the
> previous stable release. We have to build them for the current stable
> anyway. It just means doing the usual routine (copying the specfile,
> committing and running make tag and make b
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 20:11 -0500, James Antill wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 00:14 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:19:48 -0800, Jesse wrote:
> >
> > > Extras had significantly fewer packages,
> >
> > Well, Fedora Extras 6 (x86_64) contained 5129 packages, which is only
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 22:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> James Laska wrote:
> > To re-emphasize a point Adam made above, users of other desktop
> > environments are strongly encouraged to participate in community test
> > runs during release milestones. As it stands, we have one test result
> > [1
Hi Jesse,
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:16 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> Erm, dont take it personally please, but, have you ever used a
>> different distro? One example is openSUSE (yes, i use it on some boxen
>> here) does exactly that. What's
James Laska wrote:
> To re-emphasize a point Adam made above, users of other desktop
> environments are strongly encouraged to participate in community test
> runs during release milestones. As it stands, we have one test result
> [1] from the a desktop environment other than GNOME.
>
> While it
Doug Ledford wrote:
> [the whole nine yards]
I like this idea. As a user of fedora updates-
testing and kde-redhat, in order to get the
latest software the soonest onto my computer,
without having the burden of reinstalling my
system twice a year on 2 computers, x86_64
desktop and i686/PAE la
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I did explicitly explain to you and the other desktop SIGs at the start
> of the F13 cycle that, because we just hadn't had time to discuss all
> the thorny implications of the question, the desktop criteria would be
> considered only with regards to the default desktop. Wh
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> I think it is unnecessary to provide the latest
> releases for any releases except the current and
> rawhide. If people don't bother to upgrade to the
> current release, then they obviously don't care
> to run a cutting edge system, so there is no
> point in providing
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Alpha_Freeze_Policy
> # At Alpha Milestone, all packages should testable and feature
> complete--whether they are "official features" of the release or not
And kpackagekit is hardly testable if it doesn't work at all due to
unresolved symb
Doug Ledford wrote:
> But let's be clear. That's a *policy* decision. One of the things that
> got very confusing in the previous thread(s) was the intermixing of
> policy decisions and technical issues. For instance, Kevin's response
> to my proposal was all about technical issues he saw. Tech
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 00:14 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:19:48 -0800, Jesse wrote:
>
> > Extras had significantly fewer packages,
>
> Well, Fedora Extras 6 (x86_64) contained 5129 packages, which is only 300 less
> than F11 stable updates.
>
> http://archive.fedoraproj
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Could you try to run it manually and paste log/output somewhere?
>
> akonadictl start
Was it so that mysqld wants to communicate through fs sockets
which does not work on NFS $HOME?
[akonadiserver] Failed to use database "akonadi"
[akonadiserver] D
Author: kasal
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-RawIP/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv23559
Modified Files:
perl-Net-RawIP.spec
Log Message:
- use rpm macro perl_default_filter
Index: perl-Net-RawIP.spec
===
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> What bugfix releases would we be supposed to push? There are no further
> 4.3.x releases.
Nothing, if that's the case.
In case there is a major security hole and they only fix it in SCM
and notify about it without making a release - I expect you to add
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:19:48 -0800, Jesse wrote:
> Extras had significantly fewer packages,
Well, Fedora Extras 6 (x86_64) contained 5129 packages, which is only 300 less
than F11 stable updates.
http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/extras/6/x86_64/repoview/index.html
> no
Juha Tuomala wrote:
> For all those who say that "latest stuff is the
reason why
> I use Fedora!!!1", there is rawhide for you.
>
I have tried this, but that is not possible.
Generally, a few weeks after the release of a new
fedora, rawhide becomes unusable for a while,
even unbootable. My la
On 03/04/2010 05:13 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:02 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
>> On 03/04/2010 04:44 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> On 03/05/2010 03:09 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
Option two is one more repo for all "updates". Which may be well and
good, but might a
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 17:02 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 04:44 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 03/05/2010 03:09 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> >>
> >> Option two is one more repo for all "updates". Which may be well and
> >> good, but might also be less interesting than a more general appr
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 16:19 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
> Obviously this would require some tools work, but isn't it worth
> considering?
This is essentially serviced by KoPeRs
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/KojiPersonalRepos
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 03:59:16PM -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> But let's be clear. That's a *policy* decision. One of the things that
> got very confusing in the previous thread(s) was the intermixing of
> policy decisions and technical issues. For instance, Kevin's response
> So, I'm going t
On 03/04/2010 04:44 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 03:09 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
>>
>> Option two is one more repo for all "updates". Which may be well and
>> good, but might also be less interesting than a more general approach. In
>> #4, what I'm suggesting is essentially the possibili
On 03/05/2010 02:55 AM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
>
> OK, that sounds good. So, I withdraw objections after Rahul's question,
> as far as Fedora is concerned.
>
Great Dan Williams - Does it make sense to add as a dependency to
ModemManager or should I add it to comps?
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555420
--- Comment #8 from Ville Skyttä 2010-03-04 16:44:47 EST
---
Created an attachment (id=397930)
--> (https://bugzilla.redhat.co
On 03/05/2010 03:09 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
>
> Option two is one more repo for all "updates". Which may be well and
> good, but might also be less interesting than a more general approach. In
> #4, what I'm suggesting is essentially the possibility of a SIG having
> overlay repos for whatever dist
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 16:43 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
> > We already have systems for checking common guideline compliance
> > problems and things like dependency issues within a single
> > repository; we don't have tools for doing this across a bunch of
> > separate quasi-independent repos.
>
>
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555420
Ville Skyttä changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
On 03/04/2010 04:36 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:28 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>>> As a little gedankenexperiment, let's explore for a second a 4th option:
>>> Fedora-blessed/hosted/sponsored/whatever repos for things that we don't
>>> feel should be mandated on users
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:05:29PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:53 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> > > To give a practical example, if 'KDE X.Y with shiny new IM client' is
> > > listed as a feature for the Alpha, we'd say the freeze policy requires
> > > the new IM c
On 03/04/2010 04:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 16:19 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
>
>>> yup, this is very likely. One reason Mandriva's backports repository
>>> was initiated was because, when MDV allowed only conservative
>>> updates and had no official facility for adventuro
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:28 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > As a little gedankenexperiment, let's explore for a second a 4th option:
> > Fedora-blessed/hosted/sponsored/whatever repos for things that we don't
> > feel should be mandated on users, but which some users may want and some
> > mainta
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 16:19 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
> > yup, this is very likely. One reason Mandriva's backports repository
> > was initiated was because, when MDV allowed only conservative
> > updates and had no official facility for adventurous updates, a
> > forest of third-party repos offer
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 12:46:35 -0800
Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > > The problem is that there are a ton more devices that need modeswitching
> > > than just Huawei, and upstream USB developers are refusing to take
> > > patches that add more devices to the kernel modeswitching code because
> > > they as
On 03/04/2010 10:59 PM, Ryan Rix wrote:
> The problem is that there _aren't_ bug fixes for these old releases. When 4.x
> comes out, upstream pretty much drops development on 4.x-1 except for security
> issues which are backported from 4.x.
If upstream really issues security fixes for 4.x-1, then
On 03/04/2010 01:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:57 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> Whether it would be a separate backports repo or merely some more
>>> conservativeness in our update stream
>>
>> FWIW, for stuff like KDE, if we don't allow new feat
On 03/04/2010 01:03 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
Fixes for various memory leaks found during testing.
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
ack. (Thanks, Rich!!)
--noriko
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptograph
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:59 -0700, Ryan Rix wrote:
>
> The problem is that there _aren't_ bug fixes for these old releases. When 4.x
> comes out, upstream pretty much drops development on 4.x-1 except for
> security
> issues which are backported from 4.x. This leaves us in the tough position of
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:53 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > I'm not particularly sold on the definition in the freeze policy, and
> > honestly I suspect it's been honored much more in the breach than in the
> > observance. I'd be very surprised if all planned features of a given
> > release have
Fixes for various memory leaks found during testing.
>From 1d79c10d9d3351459fd52e84cb30e4b0e65a61b9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Rich Megginson
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:02:29 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] fix various memory leaks
var/tmp/run_gssapi.vg.25032:Memory leak: 99 bytes duplicates: 5
>
On Thu 4 March 2010 12:14:55 pm Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > So please, Fedora KDE users - comment
> > these changes!
>
> I prefer to get the releases as KDE releases
> them, instead of having to wait... and wait...
> and wait...
>
> I scanned the Stability Proposal
Obviously, some people want this and some don't. It isn't appropriate
to simply hand down an edict that things will be one way or the other if
we truly consider Fedora a community run project. It must be a
community decision. That means, as Adam Williamson pointed out, this is
likely a decision
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:01:42PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:22 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:47:28AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > > On one hand we have people complaini
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 19:00, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> John5342 wrote:
>> A simple way to encourage constructive input from users on both the
>> state of play and providing more bug reports might be to regularly
>> (perhaps even daily as soon as a significant update comes along) to
>> post a list of
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:07 -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> > The problem is that there are a ton more devices that need modeswitching
> > than just Huawei, and upstream USB developers are refusing to take
> > patches that add more devices to the kernel modeswitching code because
> > they assert it s
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 09:00:12 -0800
Dan Williams wrote:
> The problem is that there are a ton more devices that need modeswitching
> than just Huawei, and upstream USB developers are refusing to take
> patches that add more devices to the kernel modeswitching code because
> they assert it should b
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:22 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:47:28AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > On one hand we have people complaining about the quality of updates, on
> > > the
> > > other hand we're ha
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 10:47 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > James Laska wrote:
> > > Representatives from Fedora QA, Rel-Eng and Development met on IRC to
> > > review determine whether the Fedora 13 Alpha release criteria [1] have
> > > be
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:47:28AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > On one hand we have people complaining about the quality of updates, on the
> > other hand we're happily releasing crap we know is broken.
>
> It's an *alpha*. 'Crap we kn
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> So please, Fedora KDE users - comment
> these changes!
I prefer to get the releases as KDE releases
them, instead of having to wait... and wait...
and wait...
I scanned the Stability Proposal document that
had been linked. Here is what I think:
As I had expected, b
John5342 wrote:
> A simple way to encourage constructive input from users on both the
> state of play and providing more bug reports might be to regularly
> (perhaps even daily as soon as a significant update comes along) to
> post a list of all the bugs that are reported against the updates
> (bot
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:57 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > Whether it would be a separate backports repo or merely some more
> > conservativeness in our update stream
>
> FWIW, for stuff like KDE, if we don't allow new feature upgrades even in the
> current stable release
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 14:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> James Laska wrote:
> > Representatives from Fedora QA, Rel-Eng and Development met on IRC to
> > review determine whether the Fedora 13 Alpha release criteria [1] have
> > been met. The team agreed that the Alpha criteria have been met, and
On 03/04/2010 10:15 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> > In other words, SIG's current policy is doing more harm than good
>> > for Fedora.
> Not necessarily. There has also been some very positive feedback for the KDE
> 4.4 updates, and some people are using Fedora BECAUSE such updates get
> pushed.
>
Author: mitr
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-RawIP/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv19442
Modified Files:
perl-Net-RawIP.spec
Log Message:
* Thu Mar 4 2010 Miloslav Trmač - 0.25-4
- Filter out bogus Provides: RawIP.so
- Drop no longer required references to
Author: mitr
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Net-Ping-External/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv17413
Modified Files:
perl-Net-Ping-External.spec
Log Message:
Drop no longer required references to BuildRoot
Index: perl-Net-Ping-External.spec
===
Author: mitr
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-IPTables-Parse/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv17256
Modified Files:
perl-IPTables-Parse.spec
Log Message:
Drop no longer required references to BuildRoot
Index: perl-IPTables-Parse.spec
Author: mitr
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-IPTables-ChainMgr/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv17158
Modified Files:
perl-IPTables-ChainMgr.spec
Log Message:
- Drop no longer required references to BuildRoot
Index: perl-IPTables-ChainMgr.spec
=
On 03/04/2010 11:28 PM, John5342 wrote:
>
> In my opinion most of fesco has lost it's mind even contemplating the
> recent suggestions. Please don't destroy one of Fedora's greatest
> strengths for the sake of some morons who want Fedora to be RedHat
> with a different colored hat... I am getting f
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 16:20, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>
>> Alternatively, the KDE SIG could stop ignoring the problems that were
>> caused this week by the updates they released. Even an "I'm sorry I broke
>> your desktop" would go a long way. The update the busted my desktop
>>
On 03/04/2010 10:08 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
> That's the problem - it's just postponed to upgrade from update - you can
> choose one hell from 1. break update, 2. break upgrade. None of this should
> happen.
>
It has already happened and it will happen again and again and no amount
of i
On Thursday 04 March 2010, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 05:21 AM, Kalev Lember wrote:
> > On 03/04/2010 12:07 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> >> On 3 March 2010 21:45, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> >>> Here are the list of changes to the Fedora Packaging Guidelines:
> >> I've done some up
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 09:44 -0700, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:50:21 +0530
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> (adding linux-usb to cc:, see below)
>
> > Increasingly a number of broadband connections require usb_modeswitch to
> > connect online
> >
> > http://who-t.blogspot.com/2010/0
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
> > Alternatively, the KDE SIG could stop ignoring the problems that were
> > caused this week by the updates they released. Even an "I'm sorry I broke
> > your desktop" would go a long way. The update the busted my desktop
> > happen
Juha Tuomala wrote:
> a) how users are supposed to consume those bugfix releases only,
> when you push feature release in the middle of working week?
What bugfix releases would we be supposed to push? There are no further
4.3.x releases.
> b) why those different releases exist in the first p
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 11:34:20AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> Where is the module 'fedora_cert' packaged? I can't seem to find it.
It is in fedora-packager-0.4.0-1.fc12 from updates-testing.
Regards
Till
pgp7Sganx4A6n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproj
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 01:50:21 +0530
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
(adding linux-usb to cc:, see below)
> Increasingly a number of broadband connections require usb_modeswitch to
> connect online
>
> http://who-t.blogspot.com/2010/03/vodafone-australia-mobile-broadband-and.html
>
> Any opposition to add
Mike McGrath wrote:
> Alternatively, the KDE SIG could stop ignoring the problems that were
> caused this week by the updates they released. Even an "I'm sorry I broke
> your desktop" would go a long way. The update the busted my desktop
> happened on a pretty vanilla install, I suspect lots of u
On Thursday 04 March 2010 17:33:20 Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 07:18 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 03/04/2010 07:27 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> That said, IMHO the best solution is still to have this stuff in the
> >> official updates. But it's true that the kind of issues some users
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 02:40:38PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Perhaps this could be added into fedora-packager?
>
> Well, it's useful also for testers (or even just users) who are not
> packagers, so I'm not sure that's the best place.
I am more in favor of packaging by
Compose started at Thu Mar 4 09:15:19 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires lib
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:36:53PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> small nit: if a single update has, say, three packages in it, the script
> presents it for your feedback three times.
This is fixed in the current git release.
Regards
Till
pgp1JcxH9MT6j.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:26:17AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:23:30AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>
Great script here's a small set of changes to have easy-karma use yum as a
On 03/04/2010 07:18 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 07:27 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>> That said, IMHO the best solution is still to have this stuff in the
>> official updates. But it's true that the kind of issues some users are
>> having with KDE 4.4 are unfortunate. This particular Ak
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> > Alternatively, the KDE SIG could stop ignoring the problems that were
> > caused this week by the updates they released. Even an "I'm sorry I broke
> > your desktop" would go a long way. The update the busted my desktop
> > happen
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:26:17AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:23:30AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >> Great script here's a small set of changes to have easy-karma use yum as a
> >> module
> >> instead of via subprocess
Mike McGrath wrote:
> Alternatively, the KDE SIG could stop ignoring the problems that were
> caused this week by the updates they released. Even an "I'm sorry I broke
> your desktop" would go a long way. The update the busted my desktop
> happened on a pretty vanilla install, I suspect lots of
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 08:05 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 09:27:47PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Increasingly a number of broadband connections require usb_modeswitch to
> > > connect online
> > >
> >
Dear Rich,
the Problem is, that there is a second SSO system involved that also needs to
be checked, and we were thinking that we can utilize the passsync DLL as well
for that.
the logic for checking the other system is already available and only needs to
be implemented into the 64bit ready pa
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> That's why nobody can't enjoy the upstream's intended stability in bugfix
>> releases and plan major upgrades.
>
> You keep saying that, yet you have provided no evidence of such a stance
> from upstream. KDE upstream actually has no policy on what ver
Juha Tuomala wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> You mean the KDE stability proposal? As this is F11, i.e. "previous
>> stable", KDE 4.4 would actually not have been pushed to F11 under that
>> proposal.
>
> How i read it, you would still push *one* feature release in the
Soeren Malchow wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> i hope this is the right place.
>
> I am looking for a developer who can create personalized modifications
> to the passsync DLL, specifically we need to have a function that
> matches the password complexity against the DS ( and another LDAP )
> and then re
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Upstream has no policy about what kind of releases are to be provided as
> updates, this is a distribution decision.
They add features to own releases just for that reason, so
downstreams and users could avoid such mess that has just happened.
If you d
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> A less ugly script can now be found here:
> http://till.fedorapeople.org/tmp/easy-karma.py
> Improvements:
> - display update details, e.g. bugs and notes
> - use src.rpm to find matching update
> - skip updates that have already been commented
>
> With th
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:23:30AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> Great script here's a small set of changes to have easy-karma use yum as a
>> module
>> instead of via subprocess.
>>
>> http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/easy-karma-yum.patch
>
> There is
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> will pick up that role (for KDE, kde-redhat stable would probably be
> revived, currently it's mostly empty for Fedora as the kind of stuff
> which would be in there is usually just pushed as official Fedora
> updates).
Go ah
Juha Tuomala wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> I would argue having this within Fedora infrastructure would be better as
>> it would prevent proliferation of third-party repos replacing Fedora
>> packages and the resulting compatibility issues (see e.g. the chaos we're
>> having f
Dear all,
i hope this is the right place.
I am looking for a developer who can create personalized modifications to the
passsync DLL, specifically we need to have a function that matches the password
complexity against the DS ( and another LDAP ) and then reports back whether
the complexity is
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> Go ahead, make that to your kde-hardcore-followers-repo. In my
>> understanding, that's what it has been for past years already
>> anyway.
>
> Third party repos are highway to hell unfortunately.
Quite interesting statement from the KDE SIG who runs
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 08:54:28AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>M A Young wrote:
>> I don't know if this has already been raised but I notice on the
>> package-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org list that several Fedora 13
>> packages keep getting announced, for example, by checking the archives I
>>
On Thursday 04 March 2010 15:58:32 Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > On Thursday 04 March 2010 15:30:43 Juha Tuomala wrote:
> >> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> > current stable release nor support an official backports repo, an
> >> >
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Thursday 04 March 2010 15:30:43 Juha Tuomala wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> > current stable release nor support an official backports repo, an
>> > unofficial one will no doubt spring up, or an existing unofficial r
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
