On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 16:32 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> if things are working fine they do not need to be reinvented
> and developed forever - the problem i see the last years is
> that way to often are wroking things replaced because people
> can not life with the fact that things sometimes are
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 12:47 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:22:16PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> > > Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
> > > systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already
On 06/19/2012 07:04 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 18/06/12 21:18, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On 06/18/2012 01:43 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> what competition damned?
>>> grub is the best example for things which did not reinvented
>>>
>>> grub1 was easy to understand and configure
>>
>> And grub1 would
On 18/06/12 21:18, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 06/18/2012 01:43 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
what competition damned?
grub is the best example for things which did not reinvented
grub1 was easy to understand and configure
And grub1 would get left behind as new filesystems come out and new
firmwares c
On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> If I don't agree to the license, then I'm not to use the software.
The iOS license says if I don't agree to the license, then I'm not to use the
*hardware*. Haha. The most specious aspect of SLA's, however, is the phrasing
"by using the device
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 18:57 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> As far as I'm aware, there is in fact no reason why you can't remove
> grub2 and replace it with grub (legacy) if it has the exact behaviors
> you prefer and require.
This is broadly true, but I'd say it's fairly inevitable it'll get more
On Jun 18, 2012, at 6:36 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>>> Chris Murphy wrote:
Grubby does not work fine with GRUB 2, it creates sloppy menu lists that
eventually break the advanced menu entries, as well as t
Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> Grubby does not work fine with GRUB 2, it creates sloppy menu lists that
>>> eventually break the advanced menu entries, as well as totally departing
>>> from any user customization of /etc/defa
> I wonder if it would be possible to do it on shutdown instead of during
> start up?
Perhaps on shutdown, the default shutdown target gets replaced with the
"system update" target, so that this doesn't affect start up speed.
My issue with this is not the concept or the technical merits, but th
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:30 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> >That is to stop reinventing the wheel.
>
> This would just result into stagnation while the competition invents
> much better wheels and leave us behind.
Right. The phrase 'reinventing the wheel' is easy to misunderstand. The
practice it skew
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> What I should have said is that we have no God-given right to demand
> that any computing device offered for sale must be explicitly designed
> to accommodate the retrofitting of other operating systems or software,
> or indeed to demand th
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> 18:23:37 #topic ticket 868 F18 Feature: MiniDebugInfo -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MiniDebugInfo
> 18:23:37 .fesco 868
> 18:23:42 nirik: #868 (F18 Feature: MiniDebugInfo -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MiniDebugInfo) – FESCo -
> https://fedorahoste
On Jun 18, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Re-reading my paragraph above, I admit I phrased it somewhat badly. A
> convincing case could at least be made, under the first sale doctrine,
> that you have the right to _try_ and retrofit alternative operating
> systems onto any device you
Jay Sulzberger writes:
> If I understand correctly, Fedora has now formally allowed
> Microsoft to lock Fedora out of many coming ARM devices.
As I understand it, you have the freedom to purchase a $99 key from
Microsoft which you can then use to install Fedora on those locked ARM
devices design
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 17:04 -0400, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:21:40 +0200, you wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> >
> >> I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
> >> but it reads to me as if Jay and others are
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:21:40 +0200, you wrote:
>
>
>Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>
>> I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
>> but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an incorrect
>> That premise is to assume that there is a God-
On 06/18/2012 01:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an incorrect
That premise is to assume that there is a God-given right f
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> Well, even if Mozilla "fixed" that, such a solution wouldn't work for OS
> updates, already due to privilege reasons. i.e. "pre-staging" changes as
> root which are applied when a user does something simply cannot work if
> you care abou
On Mon, 18.06.12 15:25, Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jesse Keating
> wrote:
> > On 06/18/2012 09:24 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> >> I run Mozilla's nightly builds and receive updates every day. They
> >> disrupt nothing because Mozilla has built
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 14:27 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> >
> >> I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
> >> but it reads to me as if Jay and others
On Jun 18, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>
>> I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
>> but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an incorrect
>> That premise is to assume that there
Adam,
Thanks, this helps a lot understanding a bit more around shared libraries;
NM
2012/6/18 Adam Williamson
> On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 18:23 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> I have a doubt regarding the '.so's' in devel packages... From my
>> understanding they go in devel packag
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 19:03 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> currently here are much more problems that firefox needs SIGKILL
> without any firefox update - so many of this 0.01% coming
> from users only updated extensions, confirmed restart and nothing
> happend
>
> i still can't count how often th
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> 2) Government. If a large enough set of national governments required
>> that secure boot be disabled by default then we could assume that
>> arbitrary hardware would work out of the box.
Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
> but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an incorrect
> That premise is to assume that there is a God-given right for
> people who own computing devices to r
Am 18.06.2012 18:58, schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 18 June 2012 17:36, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> and now you come the road and thell us firefox can not be
>> updated while it is running? strange that i apply FF updates
>> since years in my daily workload and after all are finished the
>> browser ge
Greetings.
We have some users who are owners or initialcc on Fedora packages, but
have no bugzilla account that matches up with the email they have
listed in the Fedora account system.
See:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/861
for more details.
If anyone knows any way to contact the f
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 09:24 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> I run Mozilla's nightly builds and receive updates every day. They
>> disrupt nothing because Mozilla has built infrastructure to make that
>> possible. Firefox must be restarted for the updat
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 18:23 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> I have a doubt regarding the '.so's' in devel packages... From my
> understanding they go in devel packages to allow the installation of
> several packages with different versioning
Not really, no. They go in -devel pac
On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 2) Government. If a large enough set of national governments required
> that secure boot be disabled by default then we could assume that
> arbitrary hardware would work out of the box. It's unclear to me which
> laws you think the vendors
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 14:42 -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> In this connection, the claim is that if we actually purchase
> something (and do not contract the transaction otherwise), then as our
> property we can do with it as we see fit. The notion that there's
> another kind of transaction where n
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
> but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an incorrect
> premise. That premise is to assum
On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> I will say: A political campaign
> that rebukes Microsoft.
For what? Come up with three example picket sign messages for your campaign,
and *briefly* elaborate on each one using less than 60 words each.
> A stand that does not accommodate Micr
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:18:35 -0700, you wrote:
>On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Much good stuff deleted.
>Fedora can deplore the situation; Fedora can state its support for
>computing devices which allow the user the freedom to install
>alternative operating system soft
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:23:16 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> I have a doubt regarding the '.so's' in devel packages... From my
> understanding they go in devel packages to allow the installation of
> several packages with different versioning
> Who defined this? Is this part of
On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Grubby does not work fine with GRUB 2, it creates sloppy menu lists that
>> eventually break the advanced menu entries, as well as totally departing
>> from any user customization of /etc/default/grub.
>
> … vs. grub2-mkco
On 06/18/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sorry for the self-reply, but just in case it's not brutally clear yet,
I wanted to explicitly state this:
[snip]
Bravo!
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorap
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:23:53 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>
>> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >
>> >> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>> >
Audacious 3.3-alpha1 will be landing in Rawhide.
Compared with previous releases in F-17 (and older) it is
API/ABI-incompatible once again. I've had a look at what will be necessary
to patch dependencies and will take care of patching and rebuilding in the
Fedora package collection as necessary.
Hi all,
I have a doubt regarding the '.so's' in devel packages... From my
understanding they go in devel packages to allow the installation of
several packages with different versioning
Who defined this? Is this part of some standards (ex: LSB, etc) ?
Is there some written documentation abou
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:54:20 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>>
>> > This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
>> > incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Mic
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> A couple of concerned Red Hat / Fedora developers - Peter and Matthew -
> have stated that they are unhappy that the certification requirements
> for Windows ARM client devices don't state that the user should be able
> to disable Secure
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:14:11 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:56:54AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>> >
>> > We just need hardware we can install Fedora on, as once we did,
>> > without asking Microsoft for permission.
>>
On Wed, 13.06.12 15:00, Petr Pisar (ppi...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 2012-06-13, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> >
> >== https://bugzilla.redhat.com/815790 ==
> > clear_console: New helper program to clear the *console*,
> > including the _scrollback buffer_.
> >
> > DESCRIPTION
> >
> > clear_console
On 18 June 2012 17:36, Reindl Harald wrote:
> and now you come the road and thell us firefox can not be
> updated while it is running? strange that i apply FF updates
> since years in my daily workload and after all are finished the
> browser get's restarted or even at the next day if the update
>
Am 18.06.2012 18:09, schrieb Lennart Poettering:
> I mean, have you ever tried to upgrade firefox while running firefox? If
> you did, you know how awfully wrong that goes... [1]
>
> So, you have three problems: a) you cannot safely determine what to
> restart. b) you cannot restart many compone
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 11:54 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> Just one word before I break off, if I can ;), engagement for today:
>
> If I understand correctly, Fedora has now formally allowed
> Microsoft to lock Fedora out of many coming ARM devices.
The use of the term 'allowed' implies that we
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 11:14 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:56:54AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> > >
> > > We just need hardware we can install Fedora on, as once we did,
> > > without asking Microsoft for permiss
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> I mean, have you ever tried to upgrade firefox while running firefox? If
> you did, you know how awfully wrong that goes... [1]
I run Mozilla's nightly builds and receive updates every day. They
disrupt nothing because Mozilla has buil
On 18/06/12 15:56, Ben Rosser wrote:
ould seem like a better idea to me.
Hmm, okay.
In that case, would it be possible (or at least, a better idea) to
modify *grubby* to call grub2-mkconfig when the bootloader is grub2?
Then we'd still have all the other abstractions for other bootloaders
but ne
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Andre Robatino
wrote:
> Ben Rosser gmail.com> writes:
>
>> It seems to me that we should make the boot menu more consistent somehow. I
> feel like the simplest solution is just to run grub2-mkconfig at every kernel
> update, and stop using grubby for this. Then ev
On Sun, 17.06.12 10:53, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 03:06:10PM +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:57:30 +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote
> >
> > > One of the most inportant advance of Linux over Windows is the
> > > fact, th
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> But here are two headers of my argument: If we do not defend the
> ground on which free software lives and grows, we will shortly
> have no free software. Part of the ground is that we need ask no
> permission of Microsoft, nor any
On 06/18/2012 11:54 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
If I understand correctly, Fedora has now formally allowed
Microsoft to lock Fedora out of many coming ARM devices.
Well, no. At this point it's still just a proposal.
--
Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://a
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
> incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
> policy is to keep Fedora, and any other OSes, except for
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 11:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
>>> Microsoft has not refused to grant Fedora a key for ARM.
>>
>> This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
>> incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
>> policy is
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
>
> I want Red Hat, Fedora, and the free software community to come to
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>>
>> > I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
On 06/18/2012 11:14 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
System76 have committed to providing hardware without pre-enabled secure boot.
Matthew, I am delighted to hear this.
Note that this contradicts the claim, made more than once in
this thread, that such an arrangement is, in practice, impossible.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:56:54AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
> We just need hardware we can install Fedora on, as once we did,
> without asking Microsoft for permission.
System76 have committed to providing hardware without pre-enabled sec
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
> incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
> policy is to keep Fedora, and any other OSes, except for
> Microsoft OSes, off all Microsoft Certified ARM de
On 06/18/2012 11:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Microsoft has not refused to grant Fedora a key for ARM.
This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
policy is to keep Fedora, and any other OSes, except for
Microsoft OSes,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:35:40 +0200
>
> We really can't know whats going to happen down the road, we can only
> act on it as we know it.
LOL -- by all the signs we have available to know it.
Seth
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapro
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
The game is now just about over. What if one day, Microsoft
makes it even harder to install Fedora without a Microsoft
controlled key? What if, as has already happened with ARM,
Micro
Am 18.06.2012 16:27, schrieb Jared K. Smith:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> if this is what you call "development" then YES we should
>> stop development now until we have ideas for real
>> improvements instead wasting time by making steps backward
>
> Language like
Am 18.06.2012 16:20, schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 18 June 2012 00:38, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
>> dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
>> fully up and running until saturday sometimes at evening where
>
On 18 June 2012 15:32, Seth Vidal wrote:
> As dbus is required for various things like networkmanager - does this mean
> that if a server happens to be using nm for network setup that in order to
> apply a security patch to dbus, for example, that the server will require a
> reboot?
Well, if we t
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I'm not willing to change the kernel spec file for this.
>
> The kernel calls 'new-kernel-pkg', which today is provided by grubby.
> Despite the similar name, grubby actually works with more than just
> grub and grub2. It also supports bootlo
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:35:40 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 18.06.2012 15:30, schrieb Seth Johnson:
> >
> > I stand corrected. Jay's point is that Microsoft will be in a
> > position to change policy, on either platform. That could happen
> > once it is in a position to do so.
>
> EXACTLY thi
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 00:38, Reindl Harald wrote:
the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
fully up and running until saturday sometimes at evening where
you reboo
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett
>> wrote:
>> > So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
>>
>> I want Red Hat, Fedora, and the free software commun
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> if this is what you call "development" then YES we should
> stop development now until we have ideas for real
> improvements instead wasting time by making steps backward
Language like this isn't helpful. Might I suggest that if you're
goin
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
>
> I want Red Hat, Fedora, and the free software community to come to
> terms with what they must do in the context create
On 18 June 2012 00:38, Reindl Harald wrote:
> the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
> dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
> fully up and running until saturday sometimes at evening where
> you rebootet the machine and now EIGHT years later
On 06/18/2012 05:08 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> that is not the point because every admin is dong this all the time
>
> the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
> dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
> fully up and running until saturday someti
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:04:38AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > Ok so what you mean is "I want a UEFI implementation that doesn't
>> > require a Microsoft signature to boot"? T
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:04:38AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Ok so what you mean is "I want a UEFI implementation that doesn't
> > require a Microsoft signature to boot"? The options there are currently
> > (1) have a Fedora specific k
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:27AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > Like I said before, the existing UEFI implementations on the existing
>> > hardware will support "Disable Secure
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:27AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Like I said before, the existing UEFI implementations on the existing
> > hardware will support "Disable Secure Boot or use your own chain of
> > trust". If you're asking for
Am 18.06.2012 15:30, schrieb Seth Johnson:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:>
>>> It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
>>> above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an AR
Am 18.06.2012 09:30, schrieb drago01:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
>> On 17/06/12 20:15, drago01 wrote:
>>>
>>> By that logic we could just stop development today.
>>
>>
>> Yes, and there are places where we should.
>
> No.
yes
>> That is to stop reinventing the whee
Am 18.06.2012 01:09, schrieb drago01:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Benny Amorsen
> wrote:
>> Richard Hughes writes:
>>
>>> It takes me 4 seconds to POST, boot the kernel, get into
>>> system-update.service, and then reboot. Using a new rpm version,
>>> applying several dozen test update
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:26:23AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > You're still not making it clear what you want. Hardware without secure
>> > boot? Hardware with secure boot but
On 06/18/2012 01:22 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already.
Try booting a few VMs and then doing "systemctl restart
libvirtd.daemon" -- libvirtd resta
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:26:23AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > You're still not making it clear what you want. Hardware without secure
> > boot? Hardware with secure boot but a different default policy? Hardware
> > with free firmware th
On 06/18/2012 09:26 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
UE
On 06/18/2012 01:09 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Richard Hughes writes:
It takes me 4 seconds to POST, boot the kernel, get into
system-update.service, and then reboot. Using a new rpm version,
applying several dozen test updates takes another 20
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:>
>> It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
>> above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an ARM key. I did
>> not present an argument in my com
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
>> > UEFI implementations, so I'm not sur
commit 89807bf61ec98140f9060862e4ab074923c5e6fa
Author: Jitka Plesnikova
Date: Mon Jun 18 14:28:46 2012 +0200
Specify all dependencies
perl-HTML-Template.spec | 16 +++-
1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-HTML-Template.spec b/perl-HTML-Te
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:>
> It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
> above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an ARM key. I did
> not present an argument in my comment.
"What if, as has already happened with ARM, Microsoft
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 01:17 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Bob Young, a master of propaganda^Hsales, had a wond
commit 244467456f18d644024095d19ffe03dc82aede1e
Author: Jitka Plesnikova
Date: Mon Jun 18 13:58:26 2012 +0200
Specify all dependencies
perl-Data-Structure-Util.spec | 17 ++---
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Data-Structure-Util.spec b
On 06/17/2012 06:06 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 17 June 2012 10:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
So this is a problem that needs to be solved, but does it require a
reboot? Not really ... it's possible to list all processes using
zlib, convert that back into a list of packages, then instruct tho
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:54:08AM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> There's every indication that were we to so choose, Microsoft would happily
> sign our binaries and allow us to boot on Secure Boot constrained ARM
> machines at no additional cost. We believe that without the guarantee that
> you can
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
> > UEFI implementations, so I'm not sure what you're asking for.
>
> No need for a shim. Not having
On 06/18/2012 01:17 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
The game is now just about over. What if one day, Microsoft
makes it even harder to install Fedora without a Microsoft
controlled
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:47:34AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> >On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson
>> >wrote:
>> > I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're suggesting here. It's
>> > not possible to simply replace a s
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:57:12PM +0300, Alek Paunov wrote:
> However, I never tried to update qemu-system with live VMs.
The update will work, but the VMs will still be running the old code.
You can actually solve that problem using VM migration: live migrate
the VM from the old qemu to the new
On 06/18/2012 12:53 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:52:48PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
So why does the "SecureBoot" private key require a so much higher
cost of administration?
Fedora's keys are currently only relevant on hardware where users have
voluntarialy installe
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
