On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 02:52:58AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
> > That you've implemented a depsolver for use with PK that does not match
> > yum nor anaconda is pretty bad. You've chosen intentional
> > incompatibility. That's neither helpful nor really embodying the goals I
>
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 23:22 -0400, Steve Clark wrote:
> Oh, I must have misunderstood - Gene's Mailist comment:
> .
> Temptinh as it might be, just please keep session management away from
> > the init daemon and let it do its one important job properly, robustly
> > and well and not suffer the
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 11:57:51AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 21:48 -0700, Jorge Gallegos wrote:
> > So, I gather no one can shed some light on this? anyone? bueller?
> >
> > The bug (point #2) doesn't really stop the plugin from working, but it is
> > annoying.
> >
On 09/17/2011 08:52 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 09/16/2011 11:03 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 09/17/2011 06:33 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>>> Were not? From:
>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/systemd
>>>
>>> systemd System and Session Manager
>> That page does answer your question. systemd
On 09/16/2011 11:03 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/17/2011 06:33 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
Were not? From:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/systemd
systemd System and Session Manager
That page does answer your question. systemd can work as a session
manager but it isn't part of Fedora yet
On 09/17/2011 07:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ra
> Unfortunately, zypp has some design flaws of its own. In particular, it
> spawns the rpm command line as an external process for some operations
> instead of using librpm as it's supposed to (yet other operations use the
> library).
Nothing tha
On 09/17/2011 06:33 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
> Were not? From:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/systemd
>
> systemd System and Session Manager
That page does answer your question. systemd can work as a session
manager but it isn't part of Fedora yet and this particular discussion
wasn't abo
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> If you have decided you are going to do something different with Zif
> anyway, you might as well as work with the zypper team and see whether
> you can make something out of it. So much of what we do in Fedora is
> built around yum though and I don't know what you have plan
seth vidal wrote:
> 2. a satsolver is going to require changing around how we truck the
> repodata around a good bit.
Yet zypp works fine with the same metadata format we use and using a SAT
solver…
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorapr
seth vidal wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 19:42 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> Installing 205 new i686 packages when updating the system is not
>> acceptable.
>
> I agree with that. The cases where that occurs are all tied up in
> insufficiently specified requirements.
So you came up with this r
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Richard Hughes
> wrote:
>>> I think I'm going to suggest to fesco that all non-yum depsolvers be
>>> removed from the distribution. It just creates more work than it does
>>> value.
>>
>> Ha! That's really funny, and it's just made my eveni
On 09/16/2011 08:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 08:48 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
On 09/16/2011 05:01 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 05:17:43PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
True. As far as GNOME goes, though, whenever you suggest 'bulletproof
session ma
seth vidal wrote:
> That you've implemented a depsolver for use with PK that does not match
> yum nor anaconda is pretty bad. You've chosen intentional
> incompatibility. That's neither helpful nor really embodying the goals I
> like to think of in fedora.
It's quite funny that you're accusing Ric
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 08:48 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 09/16/2011 05:01 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 05:17:43PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> True. As far as GNOME goes, though, whenever you suggest 'bulletproof
> >> session management', they say 'that's what sus
On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 12:26:15AM +0200, Stepan Kasal wrote:
>
> - halevt -- should be phased out; any volunteer that has read the
> End-of-life page on wiki?
Manuel retired it. Thanks Manuel!
--
Pat
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailma
Hello,
I have orphaned many packages today, as I have no longer any
capacities to conptribute to Fedora.
Full list follows below, please let me mention some of the packages
first:
- halevt -- should be phased out; any volunteer that has read the
End-of-life page on wiki?
- perl-* many of these
On Thu, 15 Sep 2011 00:32:01 +0100
Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
...snip...
> +1, also I would add to agenda:
>
> * Exchange ideas/tips on how-to test some pkg, etc...
> * Review the current test-cases (eg: I wrote/fixed a bunch of
> testcases but I'm not sure if they'll be correct in the future)
Gre
On 09/17/2011 01:02 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> SAT is pretty awesome, and there are some pretty clever guys who have
> got it to work really well with zypp. I can't say I understand all the
> subtle nuances, but it's clearly better than an iterative depsolver
> with random rules to steer things in
On 09/16/2011 08:49 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 18:26 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> The current logic where yum wants to install a hundred i686
>> packages on my x86_64 box when the repos get a bit screwy doesn't
>> seem to work very well in my opinion.
>
> There are still a la
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:49:36 -0400, SV (seth) wrote:
> There are still a largish number of packages out there that have things
> like:
>
> Requires: foo
>
> where they really want:
> Requires: foo(64bit)
Fixing this in some packages is not entirely easy.
Why? Because whereas the %{name}%{?_isa}
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 19:42 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> There's really nothing special about a package manager I assure you.
Assuming, for a moment, that You; Seth and I are all equally
experienced in package management and that while you would "assure"
that, we would ... not.
Given that, I'
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> > I'm assuming you've done this already. are there particular test
> > transactions where yum comes up with a different solution than zif using
> > your cutdown repodata that you would like to draw my attention to?
>
> No, I've not, but I
Dear list readers!
I have three packages on review. I'd be happy to get one or the other approved
some time soon.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737401
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=722709
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710648
I did a couple of reviews la
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 22:12 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 09:29 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> > Hi Fedora!
> >
> > Currently, the abrt reporting program does not seem to work for me, when
> > I try to submit to bugzilla I get
> >
> > Essential file 'duphash' is missing, can't continue..
On 16 September 2011 20:46, Jef Spaleta wrote:
>> Are you sure you didn't cut it down so much that you are hiding problems
>> that your depsolving rules don't solve well? Did you throw out someone's
>> baby with all that bathwater?
Perhaps I did; the tests were made intentionally simple.
> If
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 03:01:06PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> Of course, if you are doing all this, it does beg the question of why
> libguestfs couldn't simply mount both the root and boot partitions of
> the guest vm, chroot into the root fs, then issue all the above grub
> commands using the g
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> The transactions are all taken in spirit from real problems, but made
> as simple as possible. The repodata is all cut down to the bare
> minimum.
>
>
Uhm your repomd.xml in your repodata directory in git appears to have the
wrong sha256 ch
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Jef Spaleta wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>
>>
>> The transactions are all taken in spirit from real problems, but made
>> as simple as possible. The repodata is all cut down to the bare
>> minimum.
>>
>>
> Are you sure you
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:35 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> The transactions are all taken in spirit from real problems, but made
> as simple as possible. The repodata is all cut down to the bare
> minimum.
>
>
Are you sure you didn't cut it down so much that you are hiding problems
that your deps
On 16 September 2011 20:32, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> local: the package installed
Yup, the "installed" store.
> remote: the available provider(s) that satify the transaction requirements?
The packages available in remote stores.
> transaction: command performed
Yup.
> config: system state like w
On 16 September 2011 20:02, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Is Zif a SAT solver?
No, but I've been playing a few times with libsatsolver in the past year or so.
> We could really use a SAT solver to replace the current yum depsolver.
SAT is pretty awesome, and there are some pretty clever guys who
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> This is what I've come up with already:
> https://github.com/hughsie/zif/tree/master/data/tests/transactions
>
>
Okay just to make sure I understand what the manifest info is
local: the package installed
remote: the available provider(s)
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 13:54:00 +0200
Julian Aloofi wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am 16.09.2011 13:14, schrieb Caolán McNamara:
> > http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/releases.txt
> >
> > and correspondingly preupgrade is unable to find the repo. So which
> > of our c
On 16 September 2011 20:07, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> A methodology I could use to then verify suboptimal performance of any number
> of depsolving policies for myself in my own testing.
This is what I've come up with already:
https://github.com/hughsie/zif/tree/master/data/tests/transactions
Richard
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 03:01:06PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 9/15/2011 12:01 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > The most obvious case where it can fail involves grub being effectively
> > unmaintained, and so various vendors
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:10 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> As a point of fact we added a depsolving plugin hook for
> compare_providers over a year ago into the yum codebase.
>
> Specifically so anyone could do fun and exciting additions to
> compare_providers and/or request user input on the decisions
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 11:07 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote:
>
>
>
> And since we seem to only be talking about optimization of policy
> rules (which could and probably should equally apply to all depsolvers
> in Fedora) shouldn't it be possible to encode your possibly more
> optimal policy rules as a
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 12:14 +0300, Myroslav Opyr wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> What Xen implementation is considered "supported" for FC16 DomU? I'm
> asking because on "Xen implementation" we were testing yesterday FC16
> DomU installation failed compared to FC15 DomU success on the very
> same Dom0. Are fa
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 20:02 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Is Zif a SAT solver?
>
> We could really use a SAT solver to replace the current yum depsolver.
no, it is not a satsolver.
1. a satsolver is not the panacea that is purported to be - you end up
with some funny resolutions that do s
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> That's nonsense, sorry. Zif is quite capable of using the same
> metadata as yum and performing the same function with the same set of
> packages.
>
>
It's also capable of making different decisions? Isn't that your point? So
far I get the
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 01:43:53PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 19:31 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > On 16 September 2011 17:36, seth vidal wrote:
> > >> Here is how yum does comparison between multiple package pro
On 9/15/2011 12:01 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>> For grub1 guests, it has turned out not to matter which specific
>> version of grub [as long as it was grub1] was used, as apparently
>> grub-install updates all files needed in
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 19:48 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> 2011/9/16 Miloslav Trmač :
> > How about the 1126 members of the "packager" group - i.e. most of us -
> > that would have to create and maintain packages compatible with two
> > different systems?
>
> That's nonsense, sorry. Zif is quite c
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 19:42 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 16 September 2011 18:43, seth vidal wrote:
> > having different tools is not acceptable. Especially when one of them is
> > not even remotely covering the use cases of our actual users.
>
> Installing 205 new i686 packages when updatin
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> See my above comment about cross-compilers. There are certainly use
> cases for having the tool install and live on the host. As for
> security, if you assume that the host is locked down tight with no
> running services besides sshd and l
2011/9/16 Miloslav Trmač :
> How about the 1126 members of the "packager" group - i.e. most of us -
> that would have to create and maintain packages compatible with two
> different systems?
That's nonsense, sorry. Zif is quite capable of using the same
metadata as yum and performing the same func
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> I think I'm going to suggest to fesco that all non-yum depsolvers be
>> removed from the distribution. It just creates more work than it does
>> value.
>
> Ha! That's really funny, and it's just made my evening. While you're
> asking fesco,
On 16 September 2011 18:43, seth vidal wrote:
> having different tools is not acceptable. Especially when one of them is
> not even remotely covering the use cases of our actual users.
Installing 205 new i686 packages when updating the system is not acceptable.
> I think I'm going to suggest to
On 9/15/2011 10:53 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 10:36 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:31:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 03:27:16PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>
So I propose that we drop this conflicts and fix grubby
On 21:17:50 Friday 16 September 2011 Farkas Levente wrote:
> hi,
> the same problem happened against which i try to discuss earlier.
> gstreamer-java is pure java package so it'd have to package as a noarch
> package. which is true and can be working. but it has a subpackage
> gstreamer-java-swt wh
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 19:31 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On 16 September 2011 17:36, seth vidal wrote:
> >> Here is how yum does comparison between multiple package providing the
> >> same thing:
> >> http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/Compare
hi,
the same problem happened against which i try to discuss earlier.
gstreamer-java is pure java package so it'd have to package as a noarch
package. which is true and can be working. but it has a subpackage
gstreamer-java-swt which is depend on eclipse-swt but still arch
independent. but when i t
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 18:26 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 16 September 2011 17:36, seth vidal wrote:
> > Here is how yum does comparison between multiple package providing the
> > same thing:
> > http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/CompareProviders
>
> I don't think that works for all cases; surely "
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739172
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=523589&action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 16 September 2011 17:36, seth vidal wrote:
>> Here is how yum does comparison between multiple package providing the
>> same thing:
>> http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/CompareProviders
> In Zif, I'm doing something like:
...
I don't particu
On 16 September 2011 17:36, seth vidal wrote:
> Here is how yum does comparison between multiple package providing the
> same thing:
> http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/CompareProviders
I don't think that works for all cases; surely "grid-certificates = 2"
wins over "grid-certificates = 1" in all cases
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 11:33 -0500, Matyas Selmeci wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Hope it's okay to ask for general RPM/Yum advice here.
>
> We have several packages that require grid CA certificates to be
> installed. There are multiple sets of grid certificates, and we want to
> leave up to individual sit
Hi all,
Hope it's okay to ask for general RPM/Yum advice here.
We have several packages that require grid CA certificates to be
installed. There are multiple sets of grid certificates, and we want to
leave up to individual sites which set to install. We also want to give
the sites the option to i
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:50 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:35:23 +0200
> Iain Arnell wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> >
>> > Can you forward me the email (hopefully with headers) and I can see
>> > what I can find?
>>
>> The complete mail with
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 06:36:49PM -0400, Mike Blumenkrantz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was directed to contact this list about enlightenment packaging when I asked
> around in #fedora-devel.
>
> Our packages are (still) orphaned in Fedora, and we are hopeful that someone
> may decide to take up ownership
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:08:40PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:14:23PM +0300, Myroslav Opyr wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > What Xen implementation is considered "supported" for FC16 DomU?
>
> Any commonly available upstream Xen releases.
>
> Fedora itself
> (ie. https:/
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 08:14:24 +0200
Iain Arnell wrote:
> WTF! Broken deps for el5 packages in rawhide? For a build that doesn't
> exist in koji? And a package that's not branched for EPEL?
>
> Mail headers show that this seems to come from some private build
> infrastructure at tnsi.com:
>
> > R
Compose started at Fri Sep 16 08:15:02 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
389-admin-1.1.23-1.fc17.i686 requires libicuuc.so.46
389-admin-1.1.23-1.fc17.i686 requires libicui18n.so.46
389-admin-1.1.23-1.fc17.i686 require
On 09/16/2011 05:05 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 14:32 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>--
>> (i) Server.
>>--
>>
>> These run all the time - reboots are most often in maintenance
>> window (or evenings / weekends for home servers) primar
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Net-SSLeay:
b64d0167fe6497493e331f121a57fb52 Net-SSLeay-1.38.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman
On 09/16/2011 05:01 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 05:17:43PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> True. As far as GNOME goes, though, whenever you suggest 'bulletproof
>> session management', they say 'that's what suspend is for'...
>
> I'd like to see proper session management. Ho
commit 1e2b5d5222512012ef0b578c3a77359c062c9dbb
Author: Paul Howarth
Date: Fri Sep 16 13:23:58 2011 +0100
Update to 1.37
- New upstream release 1.37
- added X509_get_fingerprint
- added support for SSL_CTX_set1_param, SSL_set1_param and selected
X509_VERIFY_PARA
On 09/15/2011 01:11 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> EOL of Fedora 15 is more than 6 months, and shouldn't have a beta
> release of systemd, if systemd enter in a early stage in Fedora 15 ,
> should be upgradeable ... ( I think). So what is the point in have a
> early stage of a software, if we don't upda
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 16.09.2011 13:14, schrieb Caolán McNamara:
> http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/releases.txt
>
> and correspondingly preupgrade is unable to find the repo. So which of
> our components is the right one to log bugs for the "releases.txt" on
> mirrors
http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/releases.txt
The fedora 16 section has
...mirrorlist?pub/...
while the other sections have
...mirrorlist?path=pub/...
and correspondingly preupgrade is unable to find the repo. So which of
our components is the right one to log bugs for the "releases.txt" on
mirr
On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 12:14:23PM +0300, Myroslav Opyr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What Xen implementation is considered "supported" for FC16 DomU?
Any commonly available upstream Xen releases.
Fedora itself
(ie. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/XenPvopsDom0).
Also Xen in RHEL 5, although that's m
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 05:17:43PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> True. As far as GNOME goes, though, whenever you suggest 'bulletproof
> session management', they say 'that's what suspend is for'...
I'd like to see proper session management. However, the existing
X protocol is terrible (a KDE'er
Hi,
What Xen implementation is considered "supported" for FC16 DomU? I'm asking
because on "Xen implementation" we were testing yesterday FC16 DomU
installation failed compared to FC15 DomU success on the very same Dom0. Are
failures like we've encountered candidates for bugreports?
Is there a pl
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 14:32 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
>--
> (i) Server.
>--
>
> These run all the time - reboots are most often in maintenance
> window (or evenings / weekends for home servers) primarily if not soely
> for kernel updates.
>
>***
On 09/16/2011 07:00 AM, Dariusz J. Garbowski wrote:
>
> There is *some* activity on the bug tracker, as well as this post on
> 2011-May-01:
> https://answers.launchpad.net/jokosher/+question/155290
Yeah. that is mildly hopeful. I am just worried about the bugs in the
latest stable release. I am
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=738383
Joe Orton changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
# F16 Beta Blocker Review meeting #4
# Date: 2011-09-15
# Time: 17:00 UTC [1] (13:00 EDT, 10:00 PDT, 10:00 MST)
# Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
"Another blocker bug review meeting?! I can't wait!"
- Anonymous source
The next blocker bug revie
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 17:06 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 04:11 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> > On 09/15/2011 05:54 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> On 09/15/2011 09:42 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >>> On 09/15/2011 05:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Anyway, some mor
I wasn't able to install from the live CD,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738964
Anaconda didn't make a bootable system, some kind of bootloader config
problem by the look of it.
-Cam
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 18:05 +0200, Stefa
79 matches
Mail list logo
