Greetings, Fedora developers,
I'm coming to you with one small request:
I'm asking you for a sponsorship for this review request:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172525
I understand that I'm somewhat obsessive but counting on your patience :)
Thanks!
--
King regards,
Vladimir.
--
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 08:47:00PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 18 December 2014 at 20:25, Peter Oliver
> wrote:
> > Actually, I think it's emacs that shouldn't have a .desktop file of
> > its own.
>
> I don't mind *which* gets to stay, but I do think we need to nuke one
> of them. :)
Filed
On 18 December 2014 at 20:25, Peter Oliver
wrote:
> Actually, I think it's emacs that shouldn't have a .desktop file of
> its own.
I don't mind *which* gets to stay, but I do think we need to nuke one
of them. :)
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorap
Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 18 December 2014 at 17:57, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>> 2014-12-18 20:20 GMT+03:00 Tim Waugh :
>>
>>> I could package it in its own sub-package, ghostscript-x11, but that
>>> might be a bit surprising to people who expect 'ghostscript' to have an
>>> x11alpha driver.
On 18 December 2014 at 15:50, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 18/12/14 15:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
>> I'm a bit confused by this. For emacs the output is:
>>
>> emacs emacsOK OKOKOK Warning
>> OK
>> emacsclientemacsOK Warning Warning
On 18 December 2014 at 17:57, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> 2014-12-18 20:20 GMT+03:00 Tim Waugh :
>
>> I could package it in its own sub-package, ghostscript-x11, but that
>> might be a bit surprising to people who expect 'ghostscript' to have an
>> x11alpha driver.
>>
>> Alternatively I could move eve
2014-12-18 20:20 GMT+03:00 Tim Waugh :
> I could package it in its own sub-package, ghostscript-x11, but that
> might be a bit surprising to people who expect 'ghostscript' to have an
> x11alpha driver.
>
> Alternatively I could move everything else from ghostscript to a new
> sub-package ghostscr
Hi,
I'd like to move %{_libdir}/ghostscript/9.15/X11.so into its own package
so that ghostscript can be used without pulling in libX11 etc.
All that needs to be done is to package X11.so separately, and if gs can
load it at runtime it can provide x11* drivers. If not, it won't.
I could package i
On 18 December 2014 at 15:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> I'm a bit confused by this. For emacs the output is:
>
> emacs emacsOK OKOKOK Warning
> OK
> emacsclientemacsOK Warning Warning OK Warning
> Fai
On 18/12/14 15:44, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
I'm a bit confused by this. For emacs the output is:
emacs emacsOK OKOKOK Warning
OK
emacsclientemacsOK Warning Warning OK Warning
Failed
But emacsclient
Am 18.12.2014 um 16:43 schrieb Bastien Nocera:
On the other hand, if you install something and it starts listening and
you didn’t know that,
If you install something from Fedora and it does that, then it's a bug in
the
application.
No. It's you solving your problem with gnome-user-share and
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 01:22:04PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 18 December 2014 at 10:18, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >> > I get confused by the upstream vs. Fedora requirements,
> >> They are the same thing, no?
> > You tell me ;)
>
> Yes, they are :)
>
> >> Would a generated HTML page ... be
- Original Message -
> Hi,
>
> > > On the other hand, if you install something and it starts listening and
> > > you didn’t know that,
> >
> > If you install something from Fedora and it does that, then it's a bug in
> > the
> > application.
>
> No. It's you solving your problem with
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 04:34:46 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Richard Hughes wrote:
> > I'm erring on the network panel in gnome-control-center; but I agree
> > there's no really good place for this kind of thing.
>
> KDE has the setting in Apper under [Tools icon⌄] "Preferences" in the
> first (sele
On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Dave Johansen
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
>>
>> Dave Johansen wrote:
>>
>> > I would like to create Qwt and QwtPolar packages for Qt5 and before
>> > opening the Bugzilla I wanted to check if there was any feedback on
>> here.
>>
On 18 December 2014 at 12:36, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> As for my opinion, what I consider the real problem is the fact that the
> requirements are growing at all, or even that there ARE such requirements to
> begin with.
Right, I'm about done with this discussion. You've made your opinion
very clear
On 18 December 2014 at 10:18, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> > I get confused by the upstream vs. Fedora requirements,
>> They are the same thing, no?
> You tell me ;)
Yes, they are :)
>> Would a generated HTML page ... be a useful thing to do?
> That would be useful indeed, as long as it doesn't requ
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> It's not the blogging. Blogging more often that the standards were upped
> and that next month's Fedora release won't accept your old AppData is
> fine. Blogging every month saying "we changed this little thing" is more
> the problem.
Other maintainers might appreciate the
Hi,
> > On the other hand, if you install something and it starts listening and
> > you didn’t know that,
>
> If you install something from Fedora and it does that, then it's a bug in the
> application.
No. It's you solving your problem with gnome-user-share and declaring
the fallout somebody
Compose started at Thu Dec 18 05:15:03 UTC 2014
Broken deps for i386
--
[3Depict]
3Depict-0.0.16-3.fc22.i686 requires libmgl.so.7.2.0
[Sprog]
Sprog-0.14-27.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.0)
[aeskulap]
aes
- Original Message -
> On 18 December 2014 at 09:46, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > To be honest, the "slowly evolving" AppData requirements/changes have
> > also grated me the wrong way.
>
> Okay, so that's probably something we need to do something about.
> Would more frequent blogging hel
Hey Matt,
A few corrections for the portion about the workstation firewall.
- Original Message -
> Fedora Workstation firewall discussion
> --
>
> This week’s big devel-list thread concerned the default firewall
> settings in Fedora Workstation. The F
On 18 December 2014 at 09:46, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> To be honest, the "slowly evolving" AppData requirements/changes have
> also grated me the wrong way.
Okay, so that's probably something we need to do something about.
Would more frequent blogging help or hinder this?
> I get confused by the
- Original Message -
> On 13 December 2014 at 01:05, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> wrote:
> > I think you should step back and consider this in context.
> > *Everything* we do in Fedora, and more generally speaking in open
> > source, is a work in progress.
>
> 100% agree, I couldn't ha
>Upon doing a yum
>upgrade, but rejecting the actual upgrade:
>
>[root@localhost cache]# du -sh *
>94M dnf
>446M PackageKit
>137M yum
Is it considered safe to uninstall yum on F21 and keep only dnf for cli package
management?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.f
25 matches
Mail list logo
