On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:38:38 +
wrote:
> Quoting Rahul Sundaram (2013-11-05 17:46:55)
> > Hi
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Manuel Faux wrote:
> >
> > > Is it correct that the NetBeans IDE is currently not packed for
> > > Fedora? I checked the "netbeans" package, which was
On Nov 6, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I don't believe in that at all. I think that the Free Software community is
> happy with the system as it stands now;
In my estimation, there's a better statistical chance you know what makes a
frog happy, than what the free software community
On Nov 6, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 08:00 -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
>>> We have a slight issue with the 3.12 kernel timing in that it is too
>>> late to push it into Fedora 20, but too far away from
Hi
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> I don't believe in that at all. I think that the Free Software community is
> happy with the system as it stands now
>
Well you should speak for yourself instead of assuming that a large
community has only one view.. I think there is r
Adam Williamson wrote:
> It's not a clear calculation _at all_, and it's a pure counterfactual,
> so more or less impossible to determine with any certainty. An equally
> possible result is that fewer parties _relatively speaking_ have a
> strong interest in aiding distro packaging but more parties
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> I'm no longer using it so I'm going to retire it. Feel free to take it
> over.
If you want other people to take your package over, you need to orphan it,
NOT retire it! Retiring is for when you think a package needs to go away for
good.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel ma
Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:00:16AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> > Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on
>> > the various bundling techniques that were explored and the API/ABI
>> > guarantees we want to offer? I'll stop
Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 01:13 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Simo Sorce wrote:
>> > * and *ideally* I mean SELinux sanbdboxed with specific APIs that must
>> > be used to interact with the rest of the system, so that the
>> > application doesn't have free reign over users files.
>
Michael scherer wrote:
> PPA are populars, so does OBS. They are not perfect, but they work good
> enough for people ( and it seems good enough for us to replicate, despites
> PPAs being a time bomb, breaking Ubuntu upgrade in various way ).
Well, these ARE the way if you really need to ship somet
Josh Boyer wrote:
> What you say makes some sense. It also makes me very tired thinking
> about the threads coming when the details start getting presented by
> the WGs :). I guess that's what we've signed up for though.
Well yes, each time you try to force a change through which actually makes
Josh Boyer wrote:
> Isn't that very "let's try it and see what happens!" approach exactly
> what we're doing with Fedora.next?
I also have strong doubts that what you call "Fedora.next" is going to be of
any benefit to us. The existing system with the Spins and SIGs just worked,
what's the point
Olav Vitters wrote:
> AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
> is based upon systemd.
That means it will exclude the most popular distribution out there.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/ma
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Can we go one level up - should even Fedora be a name of a product? With
> Server/Workstation/Cloud and other as variants? Or can we treat Fedora as
> a project covering all different products using different names?
Please no…
> KDE guys tried this rebranding a long time
Olav Vitters wrote:
> The definition given by Frank Murphy is totally different and doesn't
> align with above. Above also doesn't relate to developers.
These align a lot with what I wrote though. :-)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/power_user
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_user
Kevin K
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> Application sandboxing/bundling is not mutually exclusive with a
> coherent system and with keeping control, it's just not an RPM as we
> know it. What we need to acknowledge is that delivering integral parts
> of the operating system and delivering third party apps are
> fund
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hi all,
Beta RC5 images have been uploaded to EC2 and are available at
ami-8b4219e2 : us-east-1 image for i386
ami-2f421946 : us-east-1 image for x86_64
additionally if your looking to the AMI's they have been added to files
in the release tree
htt
Josh Boyer wrote:
> I don't think we need to force the same policy across all 3 products.
> I DO think we need to discuss adjusting the policy with the people
> that set the current policy though. That would be FESCo and the
> Board. I'm going to guess they have reasons for not allowing third
> p
Christian Schaller wrote:
> So it is item 3 that the PRD is addressing. An example here would be
> Google Chrome. Google provides a yum repo for Google Chrome for Fedora and
> Google stands behind Chrome legally, so if they also do the work of
> putting in an appdata file there we should figure out
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit Security Spins are over their respective size
targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Release Candidate 5
(RC5) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5787#comment:29
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 19:43:25 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > What is the recommended procedure to test new .appdata.xml files?
>
> Install them to /usr/share/appdata/ -- i've not tested this with
> Fedora 20, but I know it works if you're using the rawhide package.
Yes, with Rawhide it works and
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:55:30PM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
> Has this "sanboxed-bundled-from-upstream" proposal been discussed with
> other distributions? If the final result is that the "Universal Linux
> Package" only works in Fedora we are not gaining anything.
A lot of this is being base
On 11/06/2013 05:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.11.2013 23:03, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
We don't have a way of telling which updates REQUIRE reboot(*)--but solving
this problem by rebooting always is not right, in my opinion.
This in
Am 06.11.2013 23:03, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Przemek Klosowski
> wrote:
>> We don't have a way of telling which updates REQUIRE reboot(*)--but solving
>> this problem by rebooting always is not right, in my opinion.
>
> This information is already available in
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
> We don't have a way of telling which updates REQUIRE reboot(*)--but solving
> this problem by rebooting always is not right, in my opinion.
This information is already available in bodhi. It's probably not
very accurate, but it is there
On 11/03/2013 08:23 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Michael Scherer wrote:
However, since you didn't explained at all what are the issues you are
facing with the new approach, and since you have only explained how you
are doing on your 20 servers ( which is totally unrelated to the
question of desktops,
2013/11/6 Olav Vitters
> If one will immediately solve it for multiple distributions, then the
> gain is immensely higher. An IMO, it is not about RPM vs another
> packaging format. To get into Fedora, you need an account, reviews, etc.
> It is a pretty long process.
>
Has this "sanboxed-bundled
Thanks to those that were able to join us for the status meeting today, for
those unable the minutes are posted below:
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-06/fedora-meeting-1.2013-11-06-21.01.html
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 15:37 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 08:00 -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
>> >> We have a slight issue with the 3.12 kernel timing in that
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 15:42 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:30:37 -0800,
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> FWIW the ship has probably sailed now, but I really don't think it'd be
> >> much of a problem to h
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 15:37 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 08:00 -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> >> We have a slight issue with the 3.12 kernel timing in that it is too
> >> late to push it into Fedora 20, but too far aw
>>> Are you running any ARM machines? My understanding is that our F20
>>> kernel has patches that enable important ARM stuff that isn't in
>>> rawhide (3.12) because it was conflicting with the churn. So that
>>> would need to be added and tested, given ARM is primary on F20.
>>
>> The main issu
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:30:37 -0800,
>>> Adam Williamson wrote:
FWIW the ship has probably sailed now, but
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:26:48PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> places - _the_ distribution, _the_ app store, _the_ amazon.com. And
> the difficulty of getting a set of bits to amazon.com / an app store /
> a RPM is very similar.
If one will immediately solve it for multiple distributions, then
>> Are you running any ARM machines? My understanding is that our F20
>> kernel has patches that enable important ARM stuff that isn't in
>> rawhide (3.12) because it was conflicting with the churn. So that
>> would need to be added and tested, given ARM is primary on F20.
>
>
> Not with 3.12. Th
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:30:37 -0800,
>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW the ship has probably sailed now, but I really don't think it'd be
>>> much of a problem to have 3.12
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 15:42:56 -0500,
Josh Boyer wrote:
Are you running any ARM machines? My understanding is that our F20
kernel has patches that enable important ARM stuff that isn't in
rawhide (3.12) because it was conflicting with the churn. So that
would need to be added and tested,
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:30:37 -0800,
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>>
>> FWIW the ship has probably sailed now, but I really don't think it'd be
>> much of a problem to have 3.12 in F20 at release time. It's what I've
>> been running on
Am 06.11.2013 21:37, schrieb Josh Boyer:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> FWIW the ship has probably sailed now, but I really don't think it'd be
>> much of a problem to have 3.12 in F20 at release time. It's what I've
>> been running on my F20 box here for the last se
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:30:37 -0800,
Adam Williamson wrote:
FWIW the ship has probably sailed now, but I really don't think it'd be
much of a problem to have 3.12 in F20 at release time. It's what I've
been running on my F20 box here for the last several weeks anyway, and
based on my testi
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 08:00 -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
>> We have a slight issue with the 3.12 kernel timing in that it is too
>> late to push it into Fedora 20, but too far away from the Fedora 20
>> release to just ignore the 3.13 deve
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 9:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 08:31 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
>> > And
>> > the KDE one
>> > didn't really worked in the end everyone just calls it (the desktop) "KDE".
>>
>> I'm aware of that but as I said - it was due to communication/market
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 08:00 -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> We have a slight issue with the 3.12 kernel timing in that it is too
> late to push it into Fedora 20, but too far away from the Fedora 20
> release to just ignore the 3.13 development cycle until we can push
> 3.12. As a result, we will
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 08:31 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > And
> > the KDE one
> > didn't really worked in the end everyone just calls it (the desktop) "KDE".
>
> I'm aware of that but as I said - it was due to communication/marketing
> mistakes.
Eh, I wouldn't agree with that. I got the re-n
Hey, folks. So here's a Beta status update: Beta RC4 was *almost* a go,
but we have one blocker in it. I have just filed the request for Beta
RC5, which should resolve that single blocker
( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026466 ).
Please, when RC5 lands, help out with testing if you
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2013-11-07 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. rktime):
2013-11-07 08:00 Thu US/Pacific PST
2013-11-07 11:00 Thu US/Eastern EST
2013-11-07 1
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 16:33 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 12:44 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Haven't read the whole thread yet, but in case it hasn't been said:
> >
> > "Build a way" would be great. I've said a few times that it'd be nice
> > for there to be a cross-distr
On 6 November 2013 15:14, Christian Schaller wrote:
> so if they also do the work of putting in an appdata file there...
Note, we can easily ship a google-chrome.appdata.xml file in the
fedora-appstream project. This has a quite a few appdata files for
important applications that are awaiting ups
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 17:08 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 16:05, Adam Jackson a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 09:36 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> >> On 11/04/2013 07:30 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> >>
> >> > A media codec should not be a system wide component (I'd go as f
On 5 November 2013 21:25, Jerry James wrote:
> But those screenshots are not the right aspect ratio. What is the
> right thing to do here? Just use this anyway and let the GUIs decide
> how to resize the screenshots?
drago01 already pointed you to the correct link, but a more general
point is t
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 13:24 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > In this situation what we should do is carefully consider the relative
>> > possibilities of the good, bad and mixed outcome
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 19:10 +0100, Michael scherer wrote:
> > > So if that's the problem, then the solution is to demonstrate the value
> > > of packaging and rpm rather than restricting all others alternatives.
> >
> > So to me this is the nub of the debate, and it's both fantastically
> > inte
Hi
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> I'm still slightly out of sync with the fedora.next stuff (REALLY picked
> a bad time to go on vacation), but it does seem to me that a decent
> amount of 'mature reflection' was done on it before it was approved, at
> least.
>
I don
On 6 November 2013 03:20, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>> Well, the example on http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/appdata/
>> has the .desktop extension, as did the gimp appdata file that I looked
>> at while doing this.
> Indeed, you are right.
> Sorry about that.
It's got a .desktop extension as
On 6 November 2013 10:41, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> # rpm -qf /usr/share/app-info/xmls/fedora-20.xml.gz
> gnome-software-3.10.3-1.fc20.x86_64
> does.
It's AppStream metadata.
> For "Audacious" it specifies several details, such as an icon included
> in the gnome-software package and MIME typ
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 13:24 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > In this situation what we should do is carefully consider the relative
> > possibilities of the good, bad and mixed outcomes with as much precision
> > as we can, and try to come up wi
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the intense focus on a
>> new app packaging technology when the entire distro is making massive
>> changes to how it's produced.
>
> I think
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 10:24:20AM -0400, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Attached is the draft PRD for the Workstation working group. The
> proposal tries to be relatively high level and focus on goals and
> principles, but I have included some concrete examples at time
Good day all,
Please join us today (Wednesday, November 6th) at 4PM EST (9PM UTC)
for the Fedora ARM status meeting in #fedora-meeting-1 on Freenode.
On the agenda so far..
1) Kernel Status Update
2) Aarch64 - Status Update
- Koji Shadow
- fixing build failures
3) Fedora
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the intense focus on a
> new app packaging technology when the entire distro is making massive
> changes to how it's produced.
I think the trouble here is that the Linux Apps proposal (which is
bei
The following Fedora EPEL 5 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
563
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5630/bugzilla-3.2.10-5.el5
78
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11276/ssmtp-2.61-21.el5
54
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDO
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
563
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5620/bugzilla-3.4.14-2.el6
78
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11274/ssmtp-2.61-21.el6
38
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDO
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> This highlights a concern, not a "fatal flaw". The flaw IMO is within
> the distribution method.
No, the fatal flaw is that we don't really have an OS one can build
applications on: the ABI is unstable and insufficient. So the choices
are eit
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> In this situation what we should do is carefully consider the relative
> possibilities of the good, bad and mixed outcomes with as much precision
> as we can, and try to come up with a path forward which makes the
> likelihood of a good outc
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 23:50 +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
> > Le lundi 04 novembre 2013 à 21:02 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit :
> > >
> > > Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/2013 12:31 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 11/06/2013 11:09 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
>>> On 11/06/2013 04:46 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP S
Hi Roberto,
Yes absolutely this is a better choice !! thanks for the tips, I
will change the fix
regards
thierry
On 11/06/2013 06:35 PM, Roberto Polli wrote:
You may consider replacing the whole function checkInstanceBackupFS
with the simpler:
backup_pattern = os.path.join(backupDir, "
On 11/06/2013 04:05 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 09:36 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
On 11/04/2013 07:30 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
A media codec should not be a system wide component (I'd go as far as
saying it should not be user-session wide, but application bundled).
???
Woul
You may consider replacing the whole function checkInstanceBackupFS
with the simpler:
backup_pattern = os.path.join(backupDir, "backup*.tar.gz")
return glob.glob(backup_pattern)
It should return an empty list in case of unexistent path
On Wednesday 06 November 2013 18:31:40 thierry bordaz wro
Thanks Roberto and Rich for reviewing this.
This second patch takes into account your recommendation to let the
logging mechanism to choose rather that to use 'verbose' flag.
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/47584/0002-Ticket-47584-CI-tests-add-backup-restore-of-an-insta.patch
--
- Original Message -
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/06/2013 11:09 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> > On 11/06/2013 04:46 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
> >>
> >> On 11/06/2013 09:57 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >>> On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/2013 11:09 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> On 11/06/2013 04:46 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 11/06/2013 09:57 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 15:38:10 +0100, Phil Knirs
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Christian Schaller
> wrote:
>>
>>> > I would actually like to go a little further, and make it easy to enable
>>> > 'clean' third-party repositories. If we imagine a future where e.g.
>>> > valve is hosting a
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 03:52:11PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:16:23AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:05:22PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > > #topic #1193
On 11/06/2013 04:46 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/2013 09:57 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 15:38:10 +0100, Phil Knirsch
wrote:
But i do like the idea of well "Overlap" releases? Where most of
the release would stay st
Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 16:05, Adam Jackson a écrit :
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 09:36 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
>> On 11/04/2013 07:30 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>>
>> > A media codec should not be a system wide component (I'd go as far as
>> > saying it should not be user-session wide, but applicati
Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 16:40, Alberto Ruiz a écrit :
> Think about it for a moment, we are encouraging third party apps to mess
> with our entire system just because we don't have any other channel to
> deliver end user applications or third party extensions (codecs,
> fonts, ...) than the system
This review enhances the previous fix with the handling of non SELinux
platforms.
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/47578/0002-Ticket-47578-CI-tests-removal-of-sudo-and-absolute-p.patch
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mai
Am 06.11.2013 16:50, schrieb drago01:
> On Wednesday, November 6, 2013, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 06.11.2013 16:43, schrieb drago01:
> > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Richard W.M. Jones > wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >>> #topic
Hello All!
I'm going to stop further maintaining all EL branches of the following packages:
* https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/peter?acls=owner
(sorry, but I don't know how to pick up only those who have EL5 and
EL6 branches so here is a full list).
Most notable packages are
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 04:43:18PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> #topic #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this?
> >> .fesco 1193
> >> https://fedorahosted.o
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:16:23AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:05:22PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > #topic #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this?
> > > .fesco 1193
> > > ht
On Wednesday, November 6, 2013, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 06.11.2013 16:43, schrieb drago01:
> > On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Richard W.M. Jones
> > >
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >>> #topic #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready f
Am 06.11.2013 16:43, schrieb drago01:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>> #topic #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this?
>>> .fesco 1193
>>> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1193
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 16:15 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > It's only a nightmare because we've steadfastly refused to build the
> > tools to a) track library bundling inside app-bundles b) automate bundle
> > rebuilds c) force replacement of bundle contents either by sysadmin
> > action or by poli
Am 06.11.2013 16:40, schrieb Alberto Ruiz:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 16:15 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> It's only a nightmare because we've steadfastly refused to build the
>>> tools to a) track library bundling inside app-bundles b) automate bundle
>>> rebuilds c) force replacement of bundle co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/2013 09:57 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 15:38:10 +0100, Phil Knirsch
> wrote:
>>
>> But i do like the idea of well "Overlap" releases? Where most of
>> the release would stay stable in a sense of API/ABI and we could
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> #topic #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this?
>> .fesco 1193
>> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1193
>
> Didn't this terrible idea die already? Pl
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 12:44 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Haven't read the whole thread yet, but in case it hasn't been said:
>
> "Build a way" would be great. I've said a few times that it'd be nice
> for there to be a cross-distro framework for third-party app
> distribution.
>
> "Promote as
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Christian Schaller wrote:
>
>> > I would actually like to go a little further, and make it easy to enable
>> > 'clean' third-party repositories. If we imagine a future where e.g.
>> > valve is hosting a repository with their steam client, or say, the
>> > chromium
> > I would actually like to go a little further, and make it easy to enable
> > 'clean' third-party repositories. If we imagine a future where e.g.
> > valve is hosting a repository with their steam client, or say, the
> > chromium web browser is available from the a fedora people page, I would
>
Hi all,
Being as the comaintainer of mldonkey, I'm willing to take it as the
lastest version update is pushed by myself.
However this is an ocaml package and I'm not familiar with ocaml, the
bug 640399 about bundling codes is not easy for me to fix.
If anyone is also interested in this famous so
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:05:22PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 10:19:12PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > #topic #1193 reboots for all updates -- are we ready for this?
> > .fesco 1193
> > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1193
>
> Didn't this terrible idea die
Am 06.11.2013 16:05, schrieb Adam Jackson:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 09:36 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
>> On 11/04/2013 07:30 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>>
>>> A media codec should not be a system wide component (I'd go as far as
>>> saying it should not be user-session wide, but application bundled).
> >> So sure, we can have software that will pull things in if the user has
> >> done some manual intervention. We just cant, currently, do that thing
> >> for them.
> >
> > Right, that's exactly what I was saying. I just think this is all the
> > _original poster_ was talking about, not any kind
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:54 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Hmmm... http://stratagus.com/ lists version 2.2.7 from 2012-08-20,
> but Fedora only ships 2.2.4 from 2007-04-08.
Of course it needs an update. Many other packages are in the same situation.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproj
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 09:36 +0100, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> On 11/04/2013 07:30 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>
> > A media codec should not be a system wide component (I'd go as far as
> > saying it should not be user-session wide, but application bundled).
>
> ???
> Would you so apply the same reasoni
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:38:18AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
> Please, add also
>
> #topic #1191 Fedora 20 schedule adjustment
> .fesco 1191
> https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1191
>
Added.
I scheduled this in right after the OpenH264 ticket because it also needs to
be decided on in
# F20 Beta Blocker Review meeting #6
# Date: 2013-11-06
# Time: 17:00 UTC (12:00 EST, 09:00 PST)
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
It's time for another round of F20 beta blocker bug review! Please note
the time change to 17:00 UTC due to the recent change in standard time
for
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 15:38:10 +0100,
Phil Knirsch wrote:
But i do like the idea of well "Overlap" releases? Where most of the
release would stay stable in a sense of API/ABI and we could still
bring out a newer release.
Since we have a system where multiple kernel types can be installe
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 08:41:12 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 17:30:48 +0400,
>Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> >Hello All!
> >I'm removing myself from the stratagus maintainers. It has two
> >co-maintainers but afaik automatic package re-assignment to a new
> >maintainer never wo
1 - 100 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
