On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> You should ask upstream if this is a mistake or a misleading naming.
As per upstream note on 0.99 release - "No library changes from 1.0b3;
released as 0.99 as pip has changed behaviour from 1.4 to avoid
installing pre-release versions per
Am 02.03.2014 03:35, schrieb Christopher Meng:
> You should ask upstream if this is a mistake or a misleading naming.
> Remember try not to use epoch for packages, it's dirty hack
yes it is a hack but better than fake version numbers to
satisfy RPM and that is *the* reason epoch exists at all
You should ask upstream if this is a mistake or a misleading naming.
Remember try not to use epoch for packages, it's dirty hack.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-con
Am 02.03.2014 02:11, schrieb Chris Murphy:
> On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 02.03.2014 01:36, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>
> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murp
On Mar 1, 2014, at 5:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 02.03.2014 01:36, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>> Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Mar 1, 201
Am 02.03.2014 01:36, schrieb Chris Murphy:
> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>>
On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:51 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>>
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:40 PM, Nathanael Noblet wrote:
> On 03/01/2014 02:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon wrote:
>>
>>> The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've
>>> seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why
>>> woul
Am 02.03.2014 00:42, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>
> On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
- There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom parti
On Mar 1, 2014, at 4:26 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>> - There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom partitioning
>>> that quite frankly don't make sense like r
On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 01.03.2014 22:55, schrieb poma:
>> On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>
>>> Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora
>>> yet. Optional is fine but not default. Thanks,
>>>
>> This is actually
On Mar 1, 2014, at 2:16 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> - There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom partitioning
>> that quite frankly don't make sense like rootfs on raid4, raid5 or
>> raid6. OK maybe raid5. But not
Am 01.03.2014 22:55, schrieb poma:
> On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
>> Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora
>> yet. Optional is fine but not default. Thanks,
>>
> This is actually a good news.
> Thanks.
>
> Now all we need is fair support in t
On 27.02.2014 01:33, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Just popping in here to say that btrfs is not ready to be default in Fedora
> yet. Optional is fine but not default. Thanks,
>
> Josef
This is actually a good news.
Thanks.
Now all we need is fair support in the installer.
BTRFS as alternative scheme:
In a side note, there have been *some* attempts at adding shrink
compatability to xfs, but none of them seem to developed or even complete.
Shrinking in my experience is extremely important. Having unexpected growth
in the / partition with no ability to make room for it can be a major issue
as thi
Besides we need Hans to join the effort for the Audacious tutto completo.
poma
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On 27.02.2014 22:06, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 04:03:06PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> Or, as an alternative, XFS support could be added to u-boot and/or
>> syslinux. Never eliminate the possibility of actually writing code to
>> fix problems. All it takes is someone willing
>
>> People do shrink volumes, and this lack of flexibility is an important
>> consideration I feel was ignored in the Server WG decision.
>
> What is the use case for volume shrinking in a server context? Dual boot is a
> total edge case for servers.
I shrink ext4 filesystems on servers pretty f
On 03/01/2014 02:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon wrote:
The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've
seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why
would anyone ever want to shrink a volume?
In the context of server, and de
On 03/01/2014 02:30 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 1 March 2014 18:57, Simo Sorce wrote:
>> On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +, Ian Malone wrote:
>>> On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
>>> As you say they are 'plain' filesys
On 1 March 2014 18:57, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +, Ian Malone wrote:
>> On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> As you say they are 'plain' filesystems. Though I now regret not
>> sending my small
On Mar 1, 2014, at 1:19 PM, Jon wrote:
> The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've
> seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why
> would anyone ever want to shrink a volume?
In the context of server, and default installs, why is a valid question.
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 11:29:30PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> - There needs to be a mandate to remove features from custom partitioning
> that quite frankly don't make sense like rootfs on raid4, raid5 or
> raid6. OK maybe raid5. But not raid 4 or raid 6. There are other
Okay, I'll bite. Why
The inability to shrink or reduce XFS is rather disappointing. I've
seen a few sarcastic remarks along the lines of (paraphrased): why
would anyone ever want to shrink a volume?
People do shrink volumes, and this lack of flexibility is an important
consideration I feel was ignored in the Server WG
On Mar 1, 2014, at 11:57 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> As far as I know inode64 is not really a problem on NFS anymore, which
> is why I did not raise this as an issue at all (I use NFS and I have a
> 6TB XFS filesystem with inode64).
What I'm not certain of, is if the fix was entirely on the server
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 12:04 +, Ian Malone wrote:
> On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >> On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole back
On Sat, 2014-03-01 at 15:39 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 01.03.2014 15:36, schrieb Praveen Kumar:
> > Recently Dan filled bug[0] against html5lib[1] module about new
> > upstream release but upstream put major version 0.999 which is lower
> > that it's beta version 1.0b3.
> >
> > Now If I upda
On 01.03.2014 12:21, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> With the help of the Fedora Copr Project [1] I've made available
> builds of Audacious 3.5-alpha1 for Fedora 20 and Rawhide:
>
> https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mschwendt/audacious-next/
>
> On the way to Audacious 3.5 the Plugin API is inco
Am 01.03.2014 16:42, schrieb Orion Poplawski:
> On 03/01/2014 05:04 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
>>
>> As you say they are 'plain' filesystems. Though I now regret not
>> sending my small datapoint in before the Server WG decision. That's
>> that a while ago, after using XFS for a long time we started p
On 03/01/2014 05:04 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
>
> As you say they are 'plain' filesystems. Though I now regret not
> sending my small datapoint in before the Server WG decision. That's
> that a while ago, after using XFS for a long time we started putting
> new filesystems onto ext4 and in the past mo
Am 01.03.2014 15:36, schrieb Praveen Kumar:
> Recently Dan filled bug[0] against html5lib[1] module about new
> upstream release but upstream put major version 0.999 which is lower
> that it's beta version 1.0b3.
>
> Now If I update spec file according to upstream release version should
> yum ab
Hi,
Recently Dan filled bug[0] against html5lib[1] module about new
upstream release but upstream put major version 0.999 which is lower
that it's beta version 1.0b3.
Now If I update spec file according to upstream release version should
yum able to identify that 0.999 > 1.0b3? or should I go ahe
On 28 February 2014 20:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-02-27 at 23:16 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 11:07 PM, James Wilson Harshaw IV
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I apologize, I guess I did not get the whole background out of it.
>> >
>> > What filesystems are we considering?
With the help of the Fedora Copr Project [1] I've made available
builds of Audacious 3.5-alpha1 for Fedora 20 and Rawhide:
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/mschwendt/audacious-next/
On the way to Audacious 3.5 the Plugin API is incompatible with the older
Audacious in F20 already, so don'
On Sat, Mar 1, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 02:56:52PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher
>> wrote:
>
> [. . .]
>
>> SELinux working with it now.
>> dargo01: I think that statement may be evolving ?
>> And Docker
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 02:56:52PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
[. . .]
> SELinux working with it now.
> dargo01: I think that statement may be evolving ?
> And Docker is moving to systemd-nspawn and away from lxc
> but certainly valuabl
36 matches
Mail list logo
