On 2/5/2014 12:52 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 21:47 -0500, David wrote:
>> On 2/4/2014 5:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:29 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
and my suggestion is now to just create both partitions when
installing to GPT.
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 21:47 -0500, David wrote:
> On 2/4/2014 5:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:29 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >> and my suggestion is now to just create both partitions when
> >> installing to GPT. Presumably if firmware can handle a GPT disk
I'm going to update libevdev in rawhide to the 1.0RC1 on Monday 10 Feb. This
includes a soname bump. Packages affected are below, let me know if you
_don't_ want me to rebuild them for you.
If your package disallows provenpackgers to rebuild, then you'll have to do
it anyway :)
Cheers,
Peter
On 2/4/2014 5:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:29 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> and my suggestion is now to just create both partitions when
>> installing to GPT. Presumably if firmware can handle a GPT disk at
>> all, it won't care whether it happens to contain an
Hi all,
I'm planning on updating the Bullet library to version 2.82 in rawhide
this weekend. It involves a bump to the soname, and according to
repoquery the following packages are affected:
$ repoquery --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rawhide --source -q
--whatrequires bullet |sort -u
bullet-
On Feb 4, 2014, at 2:45 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>> If the layout you created filled the
>> whole disk, what do we shrink to fit the ESP in?
>
> It's easier if the ESP size is withheld from Available Space for every
> selected disk, and every selected disk gets an ESP.
And put the ESP at the
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:29 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> and my suggestion is now to just create both partitions when
>> installing to GPT. Presumably if firmware can handle a GPT disk at
>> all, it won't care whether it happens to
Thank you for pointing me the bug report
2014-02-04 Panu Matilainen :
> On 02/04/2014 02:44 PM, Sergio Pascual wrote:
>
>> Hi, I'm having problems running mock with a rawhide buildroot.
>>
>> I get the following error
>>
>> ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
>> # /usr/bin/repoquery -c
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:29 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> and my suggestion is now to just create both partitions when
> installing to GPT. Presumably if firmware can handle a GPT disk at
> all, it won't care whether it happens to contain an ESP unless it's
> actually trying to boot it using
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:27 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 06:15 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> > honestly going back to only a install DVD with a sane user-UI and
> > dedicate all the time wasted for the spin/products/discrimination
> > discussions for documentations, screenshots a
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:03 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT parti
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:45 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > You of all people know the consequences of adding more complexity to the
> > installer's partitioning codepaths. ;)
>
> Yeah what's complex is error checking whether an ESP is needed, and
> whether it's present, and the "not present" grip
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 11:49:06AM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> What failed? I'm guessing that userspace improvements since then have
> mostly fixed this. I've never seen any problem on F18 (IIRC) and up
> with GPT partition tables being BIOS-booted. It seems to Just Work
> (tm).
Some fir
On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:03 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>> This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
>>> partition, a BIOS Boot partition, and
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:30:58AM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >
> > On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >> I think that half the difficulty here is that UEFI is annoying and the
> >> other half is that both GRUB
On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:49 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>>
>>> This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
>>> partition, a BIOS Boot partition, and a small
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:11 +0100, H. Guémar wrote:
> I'm not fond of keeping spins around when we're focusing on products.
>
> That gives the message that they are second-class citizens in Fedora.
We already have about sixteen 'citizen classes' within the spin system,
as I pointed out in another
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:21 +0100, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 02/01/2014 11:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
> >>
> >> Fedora Products: This *is* Fedora. It comes in three flavors.
> >
> > I don't like the hardcoded "thr
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 12:26 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Your proposal like cmurf's involves us auto-creating the BIOS boot
> partition, so it doesn't have *that* problem, but it has another
> problem, the one I pointed out to cmurf - it's not actually all that
> easy to have custom part just m
On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:49 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>> And in fact it's worse in that presently I can't create an ESP per
>> disk because the installer is mountpoint centric not partition
>> centric. So I can only create one ESP on one
On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>> IMO in an ideal world, there would be one (or zero!) copy of the
>>> bootloader config, and the default configuration of the bootloader
>>> would populate the ESP (with the signed shim!), the BIOS Boot
>>> partition, and the (fake) MBR in
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:49 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:03 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >> This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
> >> partition, a BIOS Boot partitio
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:03 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
>> partition, a BIOS Boot partition, and a smallish (1 or 2 GB) ext4
>> /boot near the beginning of the
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:49 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> > This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
> > partition, a BIOS Boot partition, and a smallish (1 or 2 GB) ext4
> > /boot near the beginning of the d
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:49 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> And in fact it's worse in that presently I can't create an ESP per
> disk because the installer is mountpoint centric not partition
> centric. So I can only create one ESP on one disk because I can have
> only one /boot/efi.
>
> https://bug
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:03 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
> partition, a BIOS Boot partition, and a smallish (1 or 2 GB) ext4
> /boot near the beginning of the disk. All Linuxes seem perfectly
> happy to install this way (
On 02/04/2014 02:44 PM, Sergio Pascual wrote:
Hi, I'm having problems running mock with a rawhide buildroot.
I get the following error
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
# /usr/bin/repoquery -c /tmp/tmpQ6Wu7m --installed -a --qf '%{nevra}
%{buildtime} %{size} %{pkgid} %{yumdb_info.fr
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:15 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> > …and configure the UEFI boot options, which you can't do because you're
> > not running under UEFI and so have no access to UEFI runtime services.
>
> That's probably the biggest flaw in the whol
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
653
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5620/bugzilla-3.4.14-2.el6
83
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12079/bip-0.8.9-1.el6
47
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA
The following Fedora EPEL 5 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
653
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5630/bugzilla-3.2.10-5.el5
144
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11560/fail2ban-0.8.10-4.el5
108
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>
>> /boot is useful regardless of how you boot. The ESP doesn't need to
>> be very large and doesn't cause any harm if booted via BIOS. The BIOS
>> Boot partition only needs to be ~
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:21 +0100, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 02/01/2014 11:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> >> Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
> >>
> >> Fedora Products: This *is* Fedora. It comes in three flavors.
> >
> > I don't like the hardcoded "thr
On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>>
>>> I think that half the difficulty here is that UEFI is annoying and the
>>> other half is that both GRUB2 and efiboot
Summary of changes:
f640e95... Perl 5.18 rebuild (*)
2b3f8d5... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass (*)
d09375f... Upstream update. (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wik
Summary of changes:
d09375f... Upstream update. (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
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/ma
On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
> This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
> partition, a BIOS Boot partition, and a smallish (1 or 2 GB) ext4
> /boot near the beginning of the disk. All Linuxes seem perfectly
> happy to install this way (as
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> I think that half the difficulty here is that UEFI is annoying and the
>> other half is that both GRUB2 and efibootmgr are miserable.
>
> For single OS installs, you shouldn't have
On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> I think that half the difficulty here is that UEFI is annoying and the
> other half is that both GRUB2 and efibootmgr are miserable.
For single OS installs, you shouldn't have to interact with any of those
things. shim.efi, or shim via fa
Le Tuesday 04 February 2014 19:30:16 Kevin Wilson a écrit :
> Hi,
> What is the usage of an empty RPM ? What it is for ?
> For example, on Fedora 20:
>
> rpm -qpl libvirt-1.1.3.3-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
> shows:
> (contains no files)
That package does not contain files, but it does contain other thin
On 02/04/2014 05:31 AM, Dan Mashal wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 19:42 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I'm not sure why the default -Wall is being
dropped from that line (it is on other tests).
It's explicitly dropped on configure.ac:1265
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> I've done conversions in both directions a few times although not very
> recently. But having done it, I'd say "f it, just reinstall". Or "f it, get
> drunk and sent to the hospital" is even a better experience than converting.
>
> BIOS->UEFI
example of how to build meta packages
some obsoletes/provides are hacks to get rid of useless
dependencies or workarounds for UsrMove-bugs
the really relevant is "Requires:"
they do not need to privide files
they only ned to provide dependencies
[builduser@buildserver:~]$ cat /rpmbuild/SPECS/lou
I've done conversions in both directions a few times although not very
recently. But having done it, I'd say "f it, just reinstall". Or "f it, get
drunk and sent to the hospital" is even a better experience than converting.
BIOS->UEFI
- BIOS install won't have an EFI System partition, so you hav
On 02/04/2014 06:46 PM, Kevin Wilson wrote:
Hi,
Thanks to Adam and Daniel for the quick answer.
I am not an expert about RPMs. I just wonder where are these
dependencies defined for libvirt (and in general for other RPMs),
since the libvirt RPM file itself is an empty file ?
You need to have a
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Kevin Wilson wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks to Adam and Daniel for the quick answer.
>
> I am not an expert about RPMs. I just wonder where are these
> dependencies defined for libvirt (and in general for other RPMs),
> since the libvirt RPM file itself is an empty file ?
Hi,
Thanks to Adam and Daniel for the quick answer.
I am not an expert about RPMs. I just wonder where are these
dependencies defined for libvirt (and in general for other RPMs),
since the libvirt RPM file itself is an empty file ?
Regards,
Kevin
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Adam Miller
wro
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Kevin Wilson wrote:
> Hi,
> What is the usage of an empty RPM ? What it is for ?
> For example, on Fedora 20:
>
> rpm -qpl libvirt-1.1.3.3-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
> shows:
> (contains no files)
>
It's effectively a meta-package that pulls in dependencies.
# yum depl
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
>> …and configure the UEFI boot options, which you can't do because you're
>> not running under UEFI and so have no access to UEFI runtime services.
>
> That's probably the biggest flaw in the whole UEFI
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 07:30:16PM +0200, Kevin Wilson wrote:
> Hi,
> What is the usage of an empty RPM ? What it is for ?
> For example, on Fedora 20:
>
> rpm -qpl libvirt-1.1.3.3-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
> shows:
> (contains no files)
It pulls in the various dependant packages that are required for
Hi,
What is the usage of an empty RPM ? What it is for ?
For example, on Fedora 20:
rpm -qpl libvirt-1.1.3.3-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
shows:
(contains no files)
Regards,
Kevin Wilson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett said:
> …and configure the UEFI boot options, which you can't do because you're
> not running under UEFI and so have no access to UEFI runtime services.
That's probably the biggest flaw in the whole UEFI setup - you can't
access it unless you boot using it, and
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 04:42:23PM +0100, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:14:06PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>
> > (This is a particular pain point for me -- my main development box was
> > originally installed as BIOS, and I switched it to UEFI, and I'm sure
> > I did it w
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 12:34 +0100, Simone Caronni wrote:
> Well, the "tools" are totally opensource and can be built standalone,
> libXNVCtrl will interface with the Nvidia X.org driver; but what is
> the benefit of having them in Fedora if they can't be used without the
> proprietary blobs?
Well
On 02/04/2014 06:15 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
honestly going back to only a install DVD with a sane user-UI and
dedicate all the time wasted for the spin/products/discrimination
discussions for documentations, screenshots and howtos would have more
benefit for Fedora there is nothing you can't s
Recently, as part of the Fedora.next effort, FESCo has accepted the PRDs from
the following Working Groups:
- Workstation
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Workstation_PRD
- Server
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document
- Cloud
https://fedoraproject.org/
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:09:15 -0500
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
> > - Original Message -
> >
> > It needs updates :). Any volunteer?
> >
>
> I have updated it just to remove the obsolete content for now.
> Ideally, it needs a
I intend to orphan conglomerate (http://www.conglomerate.org/).
The source code has not been updated for a long time and my interest in the
package is gone.
If no one is interested in maintaining it I will retire it from the
distribuition in the next weeks.
Regards,
--
José Abílio Matos
--
Hi
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> It needs updates :). Any volunteer?
>
I have updated it just to remove the obsolete content for now. Ideally,
it needs a good rewrite
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https:/
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 20:14:06 -0800
Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
that in the wiki.
>
> (This is a particular pain point for me -- my main development box was
> originally installed as BIOS, and I switched it to UEFI, and I'm sure
> I did it wrong because the boot process is impressively finicky.)
>
H
Summary of changes:
fc93f40... Build for epel7 bootstrap done (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedora
Robert Mayr wrote:
> Why do you think only about KDE?
The other desktops should be considered separate Products, too. It's time to
stop treating them as second-class citizens that we won't even wait a few
days for with our releases.
> This topic shouldn't turn into a DE war IMHO. The product fo
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:14:06PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> (This is a particular pain point for me -- my main development box was
> originally installed as BIOS, and I switched it to UEFI, and I'm sure
> I did it wrong because the boot process is impressively finicky.)
If your hard disc
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 09:25:17AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I've yet to see an announcement email for this, but the polls for the
> FESCo and FAMSCo votes are open. Please go vote here:
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/
Also: more details on Fedora's voting process at
http://docs.fedora
Hi All,
I've yet to see an announcement email for this, but the polls for the
FESCo and FAMSCo votes are open. Please go vote here:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/
josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Cod
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:48:12AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
> > bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
> > with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it *would* be
>
#fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2014-02-04)
Meeting started by bkabrda at 13:03:24 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2014-02-04/env_and_stacks.2014-02-04-13
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
> > > bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs.
> > > combined with other things) is good, but, for e
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
> > bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs.
> > combined with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it
> > *would* b
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Matthew Miller < mat...@fedoraproject.org >
> wrote:
>
>
> I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
> bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
> with other things) is g
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
> bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
> with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it *would* be
> okay to change
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:56:04PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Yes but community products wont be considered "primary" products
No. The initial plan calls for three primary *community* products. And we'll
see where it goes from there.
> which means if things continues in the same mann
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 20:56:15 -0700
> Dave Johansen wrote:
>
> > I'm trying to do a build on koji and ran into an error during the mock
> > buildroot setup (
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6488038). Is this
> > something
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 01:34:09AM -0800, Dan Mashal wrote:
> So where do we currently stand with this?
So, here's what *I'm* thinking.
Spins clearly have enough popularity and importance that we either need to
keep them or have some alternative that fills the same space and makes
people at l
On 02/04/2014 12:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:57:51AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
For that matter, there could be a "Fedora GNOME" spin distinct from the
Fedora Workstation product, if there were people really keen to work on it,
perhap as a showcase of upst
- Original Message -
> Apologies for the late notice everyone, but as i've been head of heels
> in tons of other work the past week and quite a few folks are either
> traveling or attending FOSDEM this weekend we're canceling the meeting
> today.
>
> Next week we'll have to see with a lot o
Hi,
On 02/04/2014 12:56 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 4 February 2014 11:34, Simone Caronni wrote:
>> but what is the benefit of having them in Fedora if they can't be used
>> without the
>> proprietary blobs?
>
> I've always wondered the same thing.
IIRC libXNVCtrl was introduced because som
It would seem that splitting the products could loose some community
support as one product has more support than the other, either way
the Fedora 20 product is definately at the cutting edge but after
installing it on several machines, it seems IMHO that cracks are
starting to appear now that I ha
Hi, I'm having problems running mock with a rawhide buildroot.
I get the following error
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
# /usr/bin/repoquery -c /tmp/tmpQ6Wu7m --installed -a --qf '%{nevra}
%{buildtime} %{size} %{pkgid} %{yumdb_info.from_repo}' >
/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/r
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:57:51AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >For that matter, there could be a "Fedora GNOME" spin distinct from the
> >Fedora Workstation product, if there were people really keen to work on it,
> >perhap as a showcase of upstream technology without worrying about th
Il 03/02/2014 14:09, Christopher Meng ha scritto:
Please use your real name for the email address/Bugzilla account.
I've just edited the name on bugzilla adding my last name.
Thank you for the tip.
Hope to find someone interested to my packages.
Greetings,
Alberto
--
devel mailing list
dev
- Original Message -
> On 4 February 2014 12:02, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> > I tried to rewrite the DevAssistant part to be more high-level and to also
> > include information on what we should do with DevAssistant. Hope it's
> > enough.
>
> Should DevAssistant and gnome software work toge
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061103
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In Version|
On 4 February 2014 12:02, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote:
> I tried to rewrite the DevAssistant part to be more high-level and to also
> include information on what we should do with DevAssistant. Hope it's enough.
Should DevAssistant and gnome software work together? I think there
are a lot of overlappi
> ACTION: bkabrda will write more about devassistant (mmaslano,
> 16:44:20)
I tried to rewrite the DevAssistant part to be more high-level and to also
include information on what we should do with DevAssistant. Hope it's enough.
Slavek.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061115
Bug ID: 1061115
Summary: perl-URI-Title-1.87 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-URI-Title
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: psab...@redh
commit fadcaded4d1160b825aade2e7d55677fd2c5185e
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Tue Feb 4 12:59:09 2014 +0100
0.9148 bump
.gitignore |1 +
perl-CPANPLUS.spec |5 -
sources|2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061114
Bug ID: 1061114
Summary: perl-URI-Find-Simple-1.04 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-URI-Find-Simple
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-CPANPLUS:
e135aab8af0f16e07ddf1fe096680a00 CPANPLUS-0.9148.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/l
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061113
Bug ID: 1061113
Summary: perl-Text-Aligner-0.10 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Text-Aligner
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: jples.
On 4 February 2014 11:34, Simone Caronni wrote:
> but what is the benefit of having them in Fedora if they can't be used
> without the
> proprietary blobs?
I've always wondered the same thing.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/
On 4 February 2014 11:03, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Correct, we could - Similar things are being done at several places in
> Fedora.
>
> Somewhat oversimplified, the basic requirement is all shipped binaries
> must be built from OSI-compiliant sources-code and no closed-sources be
> used.
Well, t
2014-02-04 Matthew Miller :
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:51:31AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
>> What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the
>> Fedora community, if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I
>> think organizations like the Red Cross or Unicef
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I won't speak for all of FESCo, but I'm leaning towards: "Spins can
> continue just as they are, while being aware that they continue to be
> secondary to our primary deliverables". (Yes, I'm aware of the
> KDE-as-release-blocker rule and
It's also a negative message to the 1.4 k active contributors in fedora.
Or do you assume that most of them are paid by RH which is unlikely.
Don't forget that fp.o has been founded with two stakeholders: RH and the
community
H.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
Am 04.02.2014 11:57, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
> On 02/04/2014 10:39 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:16:16PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> If we decide the alternative desktops are a valuable part of Fedora -
>>> which seems to be a popular opinion - how do we fit t
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:51:31AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
> What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the
> Fedora community, if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I
> think organizations like the Red Cross or Unicef would have a much better
> chanc
On 02/04/2014 10:39 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:16:16PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
If we decide the alternative desktops are a valuable part of Fedora -
which seems to be a popular opinion - how do we fit them into a
Product-based conception of Fedora?
We can have a
2014-02-04 Stephen Gallagher :
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> I won't speak for all of FESCo, but I'm leaning towards: "Spins can
> continue just as they are, while being aware that they continue to be
> secondary to our primary deliverables".
[snip]
Yes, in my eyes that's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/04/2014 10:34 AM, Dan Mashal wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
>> This is the domain of Fedora Remixes, not Fedora Spins.
>> Downstreams are permitted (naturally) to use Fedora packages for
>> whatever distribut
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:16:16PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> If we decide the alternative desktops are a valuable part of Fedora -
> which seems to be a popular opinion - how do we fit them into a
> Product-based conception of Fedora?
>
> We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and a
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
