2011/11/23 Adam Williamson
> > Is https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4975 an example of such a
> > ticket?
>
> No; that's someone using the old buildroot override process. You used to
> have to file a ticket to request a buildroot override.
>
Yes, I saw that. But I did not find any ticket f
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 22:33 -0500, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't use it anymore and haven't been giving it much attention. It's
> needed for at least gobby.
gedit has a plugin for it too, which is kind of neat.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedo
On 11/21/2011 07:04 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> Is anyone willing to swap a couple of reviews? I need reviews for:
>
> cryptominisat: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=721174
> In spite of the name, there's nothing cryptographic about this
> package. The author thinks it would be a useful
Hi,
I don't use it anymore and haven't been giving it much attention. It's
needed for at least gobby.
--Ben
pgpcuRDA0cstk.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
tis 2011-11-22 klockan 17:28 -0800 skrev Adam Williamson:
> We could tweak the rules here for sure, that's kind of the attraction. I
> was focusing on the critpath case as an obvious one that benefits, but
> indeed, we could look at interpreting certain negative results more
> aggressively for non
tis 2011-11-22 klockan 14:03 -0800 skrev Adam Williamson:
> The proposal is to treat a PT hitting the panic button even more
> dramatically than a registered user hitting it, the idea being that PTs
> should be somewhat better informed and hence less likely to trigger it
> falsely, and that we hav
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 02:19 +0100, Henrik Nordström wrote:
> tis 2011-11-22 klockan 13:03 -0800 skrev Adam Williamson:
>
> > * Any custom choices the package maintainer opts to provide, via some
> > kind of interface to Bodhi
>
> * Checkboxes per bug assigned to the update for indicating that the
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:07 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 10:34 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> so complain rpmfusion why they are ALWAYS behind the fedora-kernel-packages
>> and all their kmod and so on are making troubles days and weeks before
>> they are push at fedora-stable repo, so
tis 2011-11-22 klockan 13:03 -0800 skrev Adam Williamson:
> * Any custom choices the package maintainer opts to provide, via some
> kind of interface to Bodhi
* Checkboxes per bug assigned to the update for indicating that the
update have been verified to fix that specific bug.
* When the update
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=755907
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 01:49 +0100, Denis Arnaud wrote:
> I guess that you are referring to the following procedure:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_HOWTO#Requesting_special_dist_tags,
> aren't you?
Pretty much, yep.
> Is https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4975 an example
tis 2011-11-22 klockan 17:51 + skrev "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
> package ownership model?
ownership is some times misappropriated with others doing all the work,
but it's also of little practical meaning in the end.
Would pro
2011/11/22 Adam Williamson
> [...]
> Surprising, no, but it could certainly handled better.
>
You are absolutely right. I fully agree, but what's done is done: I made
that mistake, Petr did not. I intended to perform a scratch-build, but
omitted the "scratch" work... Sorry for that. I have learn
lör 2011-11-19 klockan 00:23 -0500 skrev Gregory Maxwell:
> This use to be more true, but there are multiple levels of -Wstrict-aliasing
> and
> I would be _highly_ surprised if the default gave a false alarm. I think you
> can reliably say that if you get a warning at the default level then you
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:44:26PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:33PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Really. Use common sense. You appear to be the only person who's
> > strongly confused on this issue.
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-Nov
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 15:47:32 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> but that's a separate problem. The shear amount of
> documentation/guidelines there are.
Hey, :) you know what? Troublesome newbies would like even more
documentation, guidelines and policy documents. Also a book about koji,
bodhi, package
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 23:28 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:03:05PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > * The list of test cases associated with the package, with a PASS / FAIL
> > choice for each
>
> A "Did not test" choice is missing here.
Sorry, indeed I didn't make that
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:03:05PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> * The list of test cases associated with the package, with a PASS / FAIL
> choice for each
A "Did not test" choice is missing here.
Regards
Till
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org
On 11/22/2011 10:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The proposal is to treat a PT hitting the panic button even more
> dramatically than a registered user hitting it, the idea being that PTs
> should be somewhat better informed and hence less likely to trigger it
> falsely, and that we have the mechan
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:21:40PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> We have considered it. A really long time ago. At that time, it was
>> decided that we consider out-of-tree modules to be something we don't
>> support, don't care about, and won'
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 21:58 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> With the above information what benefits/value will we have by having
> proven tester over fas tester hitting the panic button
> ( since no addinal testing is being performed by the proven tester over
> fas-tester thus it makes
On 11/22/2011 09:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 21:31 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> On 11/22/2011 09:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> 2. Any update marked as 'critpath breaking' by a proven tester would be
>>> blocked from being pushed stable at all - automaticall
* "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [22/11/2011 19:28] :
>
> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
> package ownership model?
Pro: it enforces responsibility. The way things currently work, it's
relatively obvious whose work it is to fix a given bug.
Con: the thing that kicked
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:46:17PM +0100, Thomas Moschny wrote:
> 2011/11/22 Matthew Garrett :
> > If you interpret "The ABI" as "Any property of the binary that another
> > package could conceivably depend on" then your position makes sense. But
> > since nobody would interpret it that way, the ob
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 20:24:46 +0100
Till Maas wrote:
> But I remember reports that contained similar information. Therefore
> some kind of script must have existed. Maybe it was related to some
> FTBFS reports where someone else reported that his script would have
> reported certain packages to b
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 21:31 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 09:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > 2. Any update marked as 'critpath breaking' by a proven tester would be
> > blocked from being pushed stable at all - automatically or manually -
> > until the PT modified the feed
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "RS" == Richard Shaw writes:
>
> RS> Yes. If the informal review is for an existing packager then,
> RS> there's no guarantee that a sponsor will even see that informal
> RS> review because there's no requirement for a sponsor to
2011/11/22 Matthew Garrett :
> If you interpret "The ABI" as "Any property of the binary that another
> package could conceivably depend on" then your position makes sense. But
> since nobody would interpret it that way, the obvious conclusion is that
> "The ABI" means "The supported ABI". Attempti
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:33PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:50:40PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:28:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > If you interpret "The ABI" as "Any property of the binary that another
> > > package could
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 22:18 +0100, Petr Machata wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 14:49 +0100, Petr Machata wrote:
> >> Bruno Wolff III writes:
> >>
> >> > It looks like there was a soname bump in boost yesterday. Boost affects
> >> > enough stuff, that there really s
On 11/22/2011 09:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 2. Any update marked as 'critpath breaking' by a proven tester would be
> blocked from being pushed stable at all - automatically or manually -
> until the PT modified the feedback or it was overridden by someone with
> appropriately godlike powers (
> "RS" == Richard Shaw writes:
RS> Yes. If the informal review is for an existing packager then,
RS> there's no guarantee that a sponsor will even see that informal
RS> review because there's no requirement for a sponsor to approve the
RS> review request in that scenario.
You must have misun
Adam Williamson writes:
> On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 14:49 +0100, Petr Machata wrote:
>> Bruno Wolff III writes:
>>
>> > It looks like there was a soname bump in boost yesterday. Boost affects
>> > enough stuff, that there really should have been a heads up message posted
>> > to
>> > the devel lis
Hi all,
Below is my introduction as per [0]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy. I have
recently changed over to Fedora as my main desktop currently running
on an Apple Mac. Professionally the company I work for are Red Hat &
JBoss partners and I enjoy working with RHEL in ent
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:30:47 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> How does someone who needs to be sponsored make sure that their
> informal reviews get noticed? Not everyone will 'toot their own horn'
> so to speak. That doesn't mean they are not a good prospect as a
> packager.
Similar answer as before
Hey, folks.
So in the recent proven tester discussion, and in various other threads,
I've oft stated that the limits of the current Bodhi karma system are a
significant problem, and the planned Bodhi 2.0 karma system has to
potentially to significantly improve our update testing process. But it
oc
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:50:40PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:28:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > If you interpret "The ABI" as "Any property of the binary that another
> > package could conceivably depend on" then your position makes sense. But
> > since nob
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 15:37 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> I believe any MP3 file containing a tag will be affected. This is
> the "Unique Identifier Technology Solution", which appears to be
> required by a number of media distributors. Therefore, I believe (but
> have not confirmed yet) that this
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:28:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:09:26PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 07:53:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > No. You're simply interpreting things incorrectly.
> > >
> > *sigh* You miss the point. I
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:46 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "RS" == Richard Shaw writes:
>
> RS> How does someone who needs to be sponsored make sure that their
> RS> informal reviews get noticed? Not everyone will 'toot their own
> RS> horn' so to speak. That doesn't mean they are not a
> "RS" == Richard Shaw writes:
RS> How does someone who needs to be sponsored make sure that their
RS> informal reviews get noticed? Not everyone will 'toot their own
RS> horn' so to speak. That doesn't mean they are not a good prospect as
RS> a packager.
Well, the documentation says to incl
> "RS" == Richard Shaw writes:
RS> Perhaps this has been discussed before I'm
RS> not aware of it but do we really need to hold up a package because
RS> the submitter needs a sponsor?
Yes, definitely.
RS> Does this make sense?
Yes, it makes a lot of sense. We need to set some minimal limi
Hi Bastien,
Thanks for your help with this. I'm glad a fix is in upstream now.
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 11:12 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 14:36 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> > Folks,
> >
> > Can someone please push the update that I made (with permission) to
> > shared-mime-i
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:25:35 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> question: How does a sponsor find future sponsors? Just because I
>> complete an informal or formal review doesn't mean that a sponsor sees
>> it, unless there's some sy
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:09:26PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 07:53:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > No. You're simply interpreting things incorrectly.
> >
> *sigh* You miss the point. I'm perfectly willing to be interpreting it
> incorrectly. The problem is t
On 11/22/2011 06:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> > That problem can be solved technically as in be made transparent to
>> > reports and maintainers ( reporters using our bugzilla but
>> > maintainers using their relevant upstream one )
> Not sure how off hand. ;(
>
The rough idea I had in my head
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 13:20 -0500, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence
> > would
> > make every contributor an "proven packager"?
>
> Well, everyone becoming a proven packager is going too far from the
> beginning.
> Though I have to s
Le 22/11/2011 21:10, Josh Boyer a écrit :
>
> Because Oracle hasn't submitted it. Guesses as to their reasoning for
> that mostly boil down to them no longer being able to ship the
> userspace and driver code in a single "version" and make whatever
> API/ABI changes they wish to between releases.
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 17:04 +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> (picking this example because it affects me), I don't think that logging
> in should fail because of problems the scanner library may have. Or
Well, you'd think so, but reality frequently offends. ;)
There is, for instance, a bug in Fed
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> What's the story with this VirtualBox driver ... why can't it go upstream?
Because Oracle hasn't submitted it. Guesses as to their reasoning for
that mostly boil down to them no longer being able to ship the
userspace and driver code
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 14:49 +0100, Petr Machata wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III writes:
>
> > It looks like there was a soname bump in boost yesterday. Boost affects
> > enough stuff, that there really should have been a heads up message posted
> > to
> > the devel list about this.
>
> Yes, Denis Arna
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 07:53:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:44:59AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:57:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > This case requires no clarification.
> > >
> > The fact that you and I are continuing to ar
On 11/22/2011 10:34 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> so complain rpmfusion why they are ALWAYS behind the fedora-kernel-packages
> and all their kmod and so on are making troubles days and weeks before
> they are push at fedora-stable repo, so the rpmfusion-maintainers should
> consider to use UPDATE
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 14:06 +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 10:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > red_alert (sandro mathys): critpath packages should have detailed test plans
>
> Hm. The list of (implicitly labeled) critpath packages seems to have
> proliferated recently
On 11/22/2011 06:46 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:51:31 +
> "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
>> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
>> package ownership model?
>>
>> Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence
>> would make e
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:25:35 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> [...]
> question: How does a sponsor find future sponsors? Just because I
> complete an informal or formal review doesn't mean that a sponsor sees
> it, unless there's some system that provides visibility that I'm
> unaware of.
Well, one w
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 13:26:27 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> Also along these lines...
>
> Perhaps this has been discussed before I'm not aware of it but do we
> really need to hold up a package because the submitter needs a
> sponsor?
>
> What I mean by that is, if I'm not misunderstanding the pro
What's the story with this VirtualBox driver ... why can't it go upstream?
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
ht
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:44:59AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:57:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > So just to be clear on this, you believe that if a user is relying on
> > byte 0x9e0 of /bin/ls to be 0xdf on x86_64, then that is something that
> > would have
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:59:58 +, TH (Tom) wrote:
> > Uh, come on, ... package submitters waiting on the NEEDSPONSOR list
> > could _really_ work a little bit more actively on persuading potential
> > sponsors of their packaging skills. Instead, some wait silently for
> > months without doing an
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:57:30PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:49:28AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:28:06PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > Consuming the output of ls is a supported way to use ls. Building third
> > > party modules
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:51:31 +, JBG (Jóhann) wrote:
> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
> package ownership model?
Understand a package's owners as some sort of micro-SIG. The people who
sign up as a package's team of owners are the ones who want to be
respons
Also along these lines...
Perhaps this has been discussed before I'm not aware of it but do we
really need to hold up a package because the submitter needs a
sponsor?
What I mean by that is, if I'm not misunderstanding the process, that
a person who submits their first package must be sponsored b
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:51:52AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:40:52 +0100
> Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> > > This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
> > > can seem to agree on what
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:21:40PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> We have considered it. A really long time ago. At that time, it was
> decided that we consider out-of-tree modules to be something we don't
> support, don't care about, and won't hold up updates for because of
> the aforementioned hea
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 11:55 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> And still there have been self-nominations before.
>>> You could look up FESCo tickets of past nominations.
>>
>> I never
I'd like to add/note:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Become_a_co-maintainer
is another way to become a packager.
Simply work on/with an existing maintainer on their package (submit bug
reports, help test, submit patches, etc) and then ask them if the
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:49:28AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:28:06PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Consuming the output of ls is a supported way to use ls. Building third
> > party modules is not a supported way to use the kernel.
> >
> That's not the criteria
2011/11/22 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
> package ownership model?
I can't speak for anyone else. But for me I'm more than willing to see
other contributors work with me to fix things in packages that I
"own." I'll even take the hea
>> "TH" == Tom Hughes writes:
>
> TH> As somebody who is in exactly that situation all I can say is that
> TH> if doing informal reviews is an essential prerequisite to getting
> TH> sponsored then the wiki could be a lot clearer. Currently it reads
> TH> more like it's just one thing that ma
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:40:52 +0100
Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> > This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
> > can seem to agree on what an appropriate "sign of life" would be, no
> > has made a serious FESCo pr
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:16:30 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Hum not so sure that will effectively work at least the cleanup
> process needs have take place before we start the next development
> cycle atleast no later then GA so basically the "performance" review
> of the maintainer would
>
> As much as we have disagreed on the previous topic we might have similar
> thoughts here :).
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:51:31 PM
>> Subject: Dropping the owner
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:28:06PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:08:18AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:12:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > I don't know how much clearer I can make this. The update policy applies
> > > to the suppor
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 07:24:20PM +0100, Thomas Moschny wrote:
> 2011/11/22 Dave Jones :
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:55:59AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Consideration implies that the following thought process will occur
> >
> > "This update will break out of tree modules, perhaps we
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:51:31 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
> package ownership model?
>
> Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence
> would make every contributor an "proven packager"?
I'm not sur
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:57:24AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> First of all why do I need to come up with a concrete proposal to FESCO
> why dont they come up with something to try to improve the distribution.
Because demanding that other people do work generally doesn't result in
t
Am 22.11.2011 18:00, schrieb 80:
> The failure is due to Fedora *non-upstream* versionning scheme,
> VirtualBox has *already* fixes the API/ABI issue upstream relying on
> the kernel version (since 3.2 RC). It has nothing to do with the
> kernel non-stable ABI policy (which is notorious).
> The
On 11/22/2011 11:55 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt
> wrote:
>>
>> And still there have been self-nominations before.
>> You could look up FESCo tickets of past nominations.
>
> I never thought about that, perhaps it should be added to the contributo
On 11/22/2011 06:51 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
> package ownership model?
ownership <=> responsibility
> Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
> make every contributor an "proven packager"
On 11/22/2011 05:27 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> First of all why do I need to come up with a concrete proposal to FESCO
> why dont they come up with something to try to improve the distribution.
>
> Does that governing body only exist to say yay or nay to others proposals?
FESCo exists
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:08:18AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:12:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I don't know how much clearer I can make this. The update policy applies
> > to the supported ABI of the package. For instance, if I have an
> > application that
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:37 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
>
>> 2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III:
>> > One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
>> > packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new pack
2011/11/22 Dave Jones :
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:55:59AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Consideration implies that the following thought process will occur
>
> "This update will break out of tree modules, perhaps we shouldn't push it."
>
> That isn't going to happen.
To me, this sounds like k
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> I wouldn't want to get rid of the ownership model altogether, I think
> there should be a specific person responsible for handling bug
> reports/RFEs. When a group is responsible to handle something not
> really pleasant to do, often no single member of that group feels
> p
> "TH" == Tom Hughes writes:
TH> As somebody who is in exactly that situation all I can say is that
TH> if doing informal reviews is an essential prerequisite to getting
TH> sponsored then the wiki could be a lot clearer. Currently it reads
TH> more like it's just one thing that may help.
It
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:08:14PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:13AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> > According to the updates policy the
>> > maintainer needs to consider that their change will cause probl
As much as we have disagreed on the previous topic we might have similar
thoughts here :).
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:51:31 PM
> Subject: Dropping the ownership model
>
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:55:59AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> So, yes, it may be fully expected that issuing an update will break out of
> tree modules but that doesn't stop it from being one factor to *consider*.
Consideration implies that the following thought process will occur
"This
On 11/22/2011 05:59 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> 2011/11/22 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
>> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
>> package ownership model?
>>
>> Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
>> make every contributor an "proven pack
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:12:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:13AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 04:23:28PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > The kernel ABI is the syscall interface, /sys and /proc. There is no
> > > stable module AB
On 11/22/2011 09:51 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> -#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(3, 1, 0)
It may have be helpful for the faked 2.6.4x kernels to still present a
3ish LINUX_VERSION_CODE. AFAIK, faking the number is for the benefit of
userspace, not any kernel module. Perhaps it's not
On 22/11/11 17:53, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Uh, come on, ... package submitters waiting on the NEEDSPONSOR list
> could _really_ work a little bit more actively on persuading potential
> sponsors of their packaging skills. Instead, some wait silently for
> months without doing any package review
2011/11/22 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
> package ownership model?
>
> Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
> make every contributor an "proven packager"?
Allowing any packager to commit to most pack
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:08:14PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:13AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > According to the updates policy the
> > maintainer needs to consider that their change will cause problems for
> third
> > party kernel module packagers and end use
> "VO" == Vít Ondruch writes:
VO> It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle,
VO> to publish a list of packages which were not touched by it
VO> maintainer in previous release.
I certainly hope you realize that there are very many packages in the
distribution that sim
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:37 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> 2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III:
> > One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
> > packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
> > still come in by packaging a new package. I think we re
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
make every contributor an "proven packager"?
Would it be viable to move to something like language SIG based
ownership of packages?
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Just use my attached patch.
It helps if I attach the correct patch.
--- /usr/share/virtualbox/src/vboxhost/vboxpci/linux/VBoxPci-linux.c.orig 2011-08-09 01:30:24.0 -0500
+++ /usr/share/virtualbox/src/vboxhost/vboxpci/linux/VBoxPci-linux.c 2011-11-22 11:50:24.
Genes MailLists wrote:
For those having trouble - one pragmatic way is just to download the
f16 3.1.x source rpm and rebuild it on F15 - VB will now work fine.
You don't need to do that. Just use my attached patch.
(Only use the patch on F15 systems with F15 kernels.)
--- /usr/share/virtual
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
