Re: should we consider making CoDel the default to combat bufferbloat?

On 28.03.2015 04:42, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:34:35AM +, Pádraig Brady wrote: >> Following on from >> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.kernel/5549 >> Has there been any more consideration for enabling this by default? > It's the default i

Re: should we consider making CoDel the default to combat bufferbloat?

On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 12:34:35AM +, Pádraig Brady wrote: > Following on from > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.kernel/5549 > Has there been any more consideration for enabling this by default? It's the default in F22+: /usr/lib/sysctl.d/50-default.conf:net.core.default_qdi

Re: Texlive packaging

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 20:07 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > > > > "MM" == Matthew Miller writes: > > MM> Basically, this is an end-run around the requirement of doing > MM> individual package reviews for a zillion completely separate > MM> packages, right? > > That was my opinion, but y

Re: Texlive packaging

> "MM" == Matthew Miller writes: MM> Basically, this is an end-run around the requirement of doing MM> individual package reviews for a zillion completely separate MM> packages, right? That was my opinion, but you could argue the same for Perl, I suppose. We're essentially packaging a comple

should we consider making CoDel the default to combat bufferbloat?

Following on from http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.kernel/5549 Has there been any more consideration for enabling this by default? thanks, Pádraig. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: h

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

Kevin Fenzi scrye.com> writes: > So, IMHO, another repo wouldn't help us here. Perhaps it would save > time on the signing, but it wouldn't on the mashing step, and it would > add to confusion and things we need to make and care about. I'd much > rather try and land all the improvements above and

Re: Time sync

gnome-control-center just talks to timedated, it doesn't care about what's behind. - Original Message - > Hi, > > Since > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-March/029482.html > systemd-timesyncd can be enabled in more places. (That change isn't in F22 > now > but c

Re: What happened to xorg-x11-drv-amd?

On 27/03/15 03:02 PM, drago01 wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga > wrote: >> I recently bought an Asus X550Z which comes with a Quad-Core A10 and Dual >> graphic radeon. I am surprised to find out xorg-x11-drv-amd is missing in >> the repository. Can anyone explain what i

Re: What happened to xorg-x11-drv-amd?

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > I recently bought an Asus X550Z which comes with a Quad-Core A10 and Dual > graphic radeon. I am surprised to find out xorg-x11-drv-amd is missing in > the repository. Can anyone explain what is going on? That driver never existed. All

What happened to xorg-x11-drv-amd?

I recently bought an Asus X550Z which comes with a Quad-Core A10 and Dual graphic radeon. I am surprised to find out xorg-x11-drv-amd is missing in the repository. Can anyone explain what is going on? -- *Luya Tshimbalanga* Fedora Design Team Design Suite spin maintainer -- devel mailing list de

Re: python-yubico updates (testing wanted)

On Mon, 2015-03-23 at 13:08 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-yubico-1.2.3-1.fc20 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-yubico-1.2.3-1.fc21 > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-yubico-1.2.3-1.fc22 > > I have just created update

Time sync

Hi, Since http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2015-March/029482.html systemd-timesyncd can be enabled in more places. (That change isn't in F22 now but could be backported easily). Looking at the state of things here, there was a previous discussion on the desktop list: https://

Re: Texlive packaging

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 08:28:21PM +0100, drago01 wrote: > Actually "machine generated" isn't per se bad ... it saves a lot of > effort and should be done more (for other packages too where > possible). > Why waste man power for something that can be automated? > > As for tex ... we could have a

Re: Texlive packaging

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:46 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:34:58PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> Personally I preferred the "thousand package review" scenario, but that >> never happened. Having a small number of subpackages, however, was >> never really something

Re: Captive portal detection on wired connections - bug or feature?

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 20:30 +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: > On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > > There are still quite a few unknowns. > > To summarise, does this locally disable? > > > > crudini --set /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/21-connectivity-local.conf > > connectiv

spot pushed to perl-Text-Template (f22). "1.46"

>From 4a1b9aeb7a45d0382f4d78c449ec956227d83a8d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Tom Callaway Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:30:04 -0400 Subject: 1.46 diff --git a/perl-Text-Template.spec b/perl-Text-Template.spec index c3bf408..410c39c 100644 --- a/perl-Text-Template.spec +++ b/perl-Text-Template.spec

Re: Captive portal detection on wired connections - bug or feature?

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: > There are still quite a few unknowns. > To summarise, does this locally disable? > > crudini --set /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/21-connectivity-local.conf > connectivity interval 0 > systemctl reload NetworkManager Take a look at https://

Re: Captive portal detection on wired connections - bug or feature?

On 26/03/15 17:50, Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 18:29 +0200, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: >> >>> You can edit /etc/NetworkManager/conf.d/20-connectivity-fedora.conf to >>> disable it. >>> >> >> Is there a *proper* way to do th

Re: Texlive packaging

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 12:34:58PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Personally I preferred the "thousand package review" scenario, but that > never happened. Having a small number of subpackages, however, was > never really something we on the packaging committee, at least, would > have allowe

Re: Texlive packaging

> "KL" == Kalev Lember writes: KL> What do you mean with "were required to" ? There were many discussions during and after the big texlive license audit as to how to properly package the software. I can no longer remember exact dates because it's been a while; maybe someone else has a bette

Re: Texlive packaging (Was: A proposal for Fedora updates)

On 03/27/2015 05:49 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "KL" == Kalev Lember writes: > > KL> If texlive packaging is causing issues with update pushes, could > KL> maybe ask the texlive maintainers to rework the packaging? > > The texlive packaging is basically the way they were required to d

Texlive packaging (Was: A proposal for Fedora updates)

> "KL" == Kalev Lember writes: KL> If texlive packaging is causing issues with update pushes, could KL> maybe ask the texlive maintainers to rework the packaging? The texlive packaging is basically the way they were required to do it way back when. It used to be just a big ol' "texlive" pac

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On 03/27/2015 05:22 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > However, I'll note that the recent texlive updates were security as > well. ;) If texlive packaging is causing issues with update pushes, could maybe ask the texlive maintainers to rework the packaging? Right now texlive has a 16 MB (!) spec file, pro

Re: [GSoC'15] Btrfs content-based-storage mode

Hello, I applied on Melange yesterday, now I am waiting for mentors. Thanks, Harshad. On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Corey Sheldon wrote: > Deadline is 1900UTC today as Micheal mentioned at time of this email its > 1340UTC > > Corey W Sheldon > Freelance IT Consultant, Multi-Discipline Tutor

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:40:44 +0200 Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > Is there a way to see if there are going to be huge updates? Not that I know of. We have something like 1500 package maintainers and ~17,000 packages. Some of them are large, some of them update more often than others, etc. > Perhap

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:31:35 +0100 Kalev Lember wrote: > On 03/27/2015 01:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > We could drop drpms? > > Do they have to be generated at the same time as the normal push? > Could maybe do a push, sync it to mirrors, and then a separate > process runs and generates drpms a

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On Sex, 2015-03-27 at 09:06 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote: > Hi there, > > I've been a bit perplexed by the Fedora updates recently (talking about > F-21 specifically). Many of them appear to be obsolete the moment they > hit stable, sometimes even testing. > > Take the kernel, for instance. 3.19.2-

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:35:50 -0500 Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "KF" == Kevin Fenzi writes: > > KF> Right, as I noted at the end of that other long mail, there's > KF> discussion about a 'urgent updates' repo for security updates. > > Why not, when going to mash, mash only updates marke

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi writes: KF> Right, as I noted at the end of that other long mail, there's KF> discussion about a 'urgent updates' repo for security updates. Why not, when going to mash, mash only updates marked a security and get those out immediately, then mash everyhing else. Is the

Re: [GSoC'15] Btrfs content-based-storage mode

Deadline is 1900UTC today as Micheal mentioned at time of this email its 1340UTC Corey W Sheldon Freelance IT Consultant, Multi-Discipline Tutor (p) 310.909.7672 G+: LinkedIn: Github:

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:03:59 +0200 Alexander Bokovoy wrote: My primary worry is CVE handling. These delays are not helping in getting security fixes delivered. I'm not fighting for dropping certain type of content but rather for prioritization. Right,

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On 03/27/2015 01:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: We could drop drpms? Do they have to be generated at the same time as the normal push? Could maybe do a push, sync it to mirrors, and then a separate process runs and generates drpms and syncs them out to mirrors separately afterwards? This would allo

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 15:03:59 +0200 Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > My primary worry is CVE handling. These delays are not helping in > getting security fixes delivered. I'm not fighting for dropping > certain type of content but rather for prioritization. Right, as I noted at the end of that other lo

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:42:07 +0200 Alexander Bokovoy wrote: Any way to get the push actually working? I've submitted yesterday a security update mid day EST for F21 and F22 and it is not yet even considered for a push ~14-15 hours after. https://admin.f

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015 10:42:07 +0200 Alexander Bokovoy wrote: > Any way to get the push actually working? I've submitted yesterday a > security update mid day EST for F21 and F22 and it is not yet even > considered for a push ~14-15 hours after. > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/freeipa

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:55:31 + (UTC) Bojan Smojver wrote: > M. Edward (Ed) Borasky znmeb.net> writes: > > > As a bleeding-edge user I'd be in favor of this, although I thought > > that was what 'updates-testing' was. > > Maybe I'm misunderstanding how things work, but I think every package

Re: [GSoC'15] Btrfs content-based-storage mode

On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 22:30 -0400, harshad shirwadkar wrote: > Thanks, and I am on top of it. Will post here, once I upload it to > Google Melange. Hopefully you've done this already, but if not make sure you do so *today* as today is the deadline, and if your application isn't in Melange you have

F-22 Branched report: 20150327 changes

Compose started at Fri Mar 27 07:15:03 UTC 2015 Broken deps for armhfp -- [Sprog] Sprog-0.14-27.fc20.noarch requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.18.0) [aeskulap] aeskulap-0.2.2-0.19beta1.fc22.armv7hl requires libofstd.so.3.6

Re: A proposal for Fedora updates

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 23:15:16 + (UTC) Bojan Smojver wrote: Corey Sheldon gmail.com> writes: > those ARE mirror list links the master mirror servers to be exact. Really not a file distribution problem I'm trying to get at here. If you check out thes