On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 09:28:55PM -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> Bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618349
>>
>> The bug is blocking my ability, or at least my willingness to upgrade
>> to F
Bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618349
The bug is blocking my ability, or at least my willingness to upgrade
to F14. I would appreciate some assistance so that I can finally do
the upgrade.
--
Fedora 13
(www.pembo13.com)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https
I apologize for interrupting this tread. I shall take my leave.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:58:53 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>2010/9/20 Micha? Piotrowski :
>>> Ok, so maybe it's time to setup Fedora "backports" repo for these that
>>> wants new and shiny Firefox 4, PostgreSQL 9 or whatever with big
>>> number.
>
2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski :
> 2010/9/21 Toshio Kuratomi :
>> As the concept of using third party repositories (both as packagers and as
>> users) grows, this interdependence will grow.
>
> Ok, so maybe it's time to setup Fedora "backports" repo for these that
> wants new and shiny Firefox 4, Post
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:13:42 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>> No, I'm not advocating PgSQL 9 for F14, however, it shouldn't be so
>> far-fetched that Fedora could have any software at any time.
>
> A Fedora update policy is being
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michel Alexandre Salim writes:
>> Note: I don't think Mark was proposing to do the packaging work himself.
>> But it'd be great if whoever picks this up (Michał, are you a packager?)
>> could reply to this thread, thus avoiding duplication of wo
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:01 AM, FlorianFesti wrote:
> On 09/16/2010 09:05 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
>> (I don't have a strong opinion on whether the data format is RPM or
>> repodata myself; maybe just a slight preference for the latter; the
>> most important thing in my mind is to come to rough
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:28 PM, James Antill wrote:
> Ubuntu recently got high praise from LWN for "Software Center" in 10.10
> betas. It doesn't use PackageKit at all AFAICS (no PackageKit packages
> are installed in my VM). It integrates tightly with apt (you know, like
> showing package histo
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 14:17 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>
>> Sure, I understand where you're coming from. As you see from
>> app-install schema version 1 it really was least common denominator.
>> But version 2, which is in progress now, fe
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM, James Antill wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 15:42 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> On 7 September 2010 15:23, James Antill wrote:
>> > Are you having any discussions about applications like postfix, or is
>> > version 2 going to be just GUI stuff?
>>
>> Postfix is
On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 04:03:17PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> > Where, keep in mind, "slow" is defined as twice a year, right?
>> Yes.
>
> I think this is a remarkable definition of slow. Especial
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 15:56 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:26:27PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> > Maybe I was too long winded, or failed to communicate my point: a
>> > stable
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:26:27PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> Maybe I was too long winded, or failed to communicate my point: a
>> stable (bug fix only updates, slow feature release), strongly FOSS,
>> strongly
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 09:58 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> On 08/30/2010 10:50 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> > The attention to freedom is not unique. The attention to upstream is
>> > invisible to users.
&g
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/30/10 9:50 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Jesse Keating
>> wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Jesse Keating
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/30/10 1:33 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> Is this still unique?
>
> I believe it is, particularly with our attention to freedom and upstream
> relations
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Jesse Keating
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 8/30/10 8:56 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Gerald Henriksen
>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:11:06 +02
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 23:56 -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Gerald Henriksen
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:11:06 +0200, you wrote:
>> >
>> >>A ty
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:11:06 +0200, you wrote:
>
>>A typical developer wants the dependencies of the software they are
>>working on to be _very_ up to date - probably not the upstream
>>development version, but the upstream maintenance ve
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Sven Lankes said:
>> Also - and this is a question that I have asked myself and others a
>> couple of times - if you could implement Fedora the way you want: What
>> unique selling points are left for Fedora? "Fedora is Ubunt
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>
> "Thomas Janssen" wrote:
>
>>On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>
>>> On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> The cynic in me
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Thomas Janssen
wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Jesse Keating wrote:
The cynic in me would expect that the people who want
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> The cynic in me would expect that the people who want something different
>>> than the fire hose we have now are sile
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Manuel Escudero wrote:
> AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN... http://start.fedoraproject.org/ is using a
> Google Search Box... YOU DON'T HAVE THE CODE TO PLAY WITH IT OR ANYTHING...
> With "Fedora's engine" I'm giving you the chance of having something more
> "opensource
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
>> sendmail has always worked out of the box for some things, including
>> sending mail from local programs to remote email addresses
>
> I thought this was a speed trip to spamhaus' lists (the `localhost'
> part I've found)
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:04 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 18:09 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>> What more do you want an MTA to do at install? It was decided a long
>> time ago that the MTA shouldn't listen for remote SMTP connections by
>> default. Pretty much any other thing
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 05:31:58PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> > Useful information is being generated and then lost. That shouldn't happen.
>> This is not a sudden realization, there are bugs open about this f
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 05:25:18PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> > We're going in circles. I already said that I think the best fix for
>> > this is to replace sendmail with an MTA which works 'out of th
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 03:59:06PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 19:59 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> >> 1. Not everyone uses
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 16:00 -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>
>> > I think that makes sense if we're talking about adding a default, but
>> > taking one out - especially something that's been default in al
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 01:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 08/27/2010 12:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > That wasn't the question. The question was what is the benefit of not
>> > having one. Is it simply that it saves 1.6MB of disk
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 19:59 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Adam Jackson wrote:
>> > Static configuration should be something you can do from the dynamic
>> > configuration tool. gnome-display-properties should have a "set as
>> > default" butt
33 matches
Mail list logo
