On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 01:39 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > Er, really? I don't see where I offered any insult or un-excellent-ness.
>> > I just meant it as a vaguely humorous way of wondering why Kevin was
>> > repl
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> There was also talk about whether or not it would be allowed for there
>> to be a separate Iceweasel package in Fedora. This might be done to
>> test the feasibility of maintaining it. There were mixed feelings about
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:21 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nonsense.
> * Whenever somebody complains about the Firefox maintainers rejecting non-
> upstream patches, they give the trademarks as the reason.
> * Whenever somebody complains about the branding, they claim it doesn't
> matter because we ar
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Brandon Lozza wrote:
>> I think an exception should be made for Chromium too.
>
> No. Just no.
>
> The exceptions for Firefox need to stop NOW, i.e. no new ones should be
> granted and the ones that have alrea
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:43:16 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> > - remove any features
Gnome is known for removing features, it was a joke.
>
> Pe
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> - remove any features
> Michal
How do you guys update Gnome then? ;)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I think an exception should be made for Chromium too. Having a more
secure browser would benefit the main repositories.
On 10/7/10, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>> However
On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at
>> "Freedom" - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply
>> do not fit into this philosophy.
>
> If we don't protect t
On 10/6/10, Matej Cepl wrote:
> I won't comment on the trademark issue (because that's just pure lunacy),
> but let me comment here "they don't accept my patches, so they are non-
> free". That's just nonsense ...
Yes it is, that's not the issue. They aren't letting us distribute it
ourselves, un
On 10/5/10, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> ===
> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-10-05)
> ===
>
> Meeting started by nirik at 19:30:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-10-05/fesco.2010-10-0
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 10/05/2010 06:26 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question
>> that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never
>> bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do n
cal (Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from )
id 1P34FB-0003dw-0z; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 05:55:33 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
From: Richard Stallman
To: Brandon Lozza
In-reply-to:
(message from Brandon Lozza on Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:26:34 -0400)
Subject: Re: Trademarks make
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question
> that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never
> bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do now:
>
> * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> We knew that this would happen. We would lose some people. When a
> project like us goes basically directionless for years it picks up
> people who have different ideas about what they want to create and where
> they want to go with it. Whe
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are
> obliged to allow you to access and modify their code. They are not
> obliged to allow you to benefit from their reputation. It doesn't make
> any sense to say 'I thin
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/05/2010 12:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:08 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>>
>>> That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you
>>> ch
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Brandon Lozza wrote:
>> Let's say I recompile Firefox and make a bunch of my own changes and
>> REFUSE to change the name. How long do you think it'll take for
>> Mozilla's lawyers to start th
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:24:30 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote:
>> Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual
>> property with specific restrictions on what you're allowed to do with
>&g
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you
>> change the name, in which case you may loose bran
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
wrote:
> On 10/04/2010 03:34 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sund
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Florent Le Coz wrote:
> On 04/10/10 15:23, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Ignoring upstream and patching without consent is only feasible if you
>> have the amount of resources to do a good job with that. Fedora doesn't
>> have that.
>>
>> Rahul
> I'm not talking about
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> No need to call it “political reasons” (on the side of MoFo) ... nowhere
> in the definition of free software is written, that upstream has to
> accept your patches. It may happen upstream (any upstream) disagrees with
> your patch, you may not a
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>>
>>
>> GNU Icecat doesn't tell you something?
>>
>
> You said you are going to ask FSF. How about you just ask them if the
> presenc
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free
>>> software? Good luck getting anyone
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free
>>> software? Good luck getting anyone
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> It would be really helpful if instead of calling programs
> "unmaintainable" and similar non-sense you would research a bit what
> really is the problem ... take a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
> buglist.cgi?cmdtype=dorem&remaction=run&nam
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
>> It would be really helpful if instead of calling programs
>> "unmaintainable" and similar non-sense you would research a bit what
>> really is the p
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 10/04/2010 06:50 PM, Florent Le Coz wrote:
>> On 04/10/10 14:52, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> Trademark cannot be ever free as in freedom.
>> That's why Fedora should not ship Firefox, but Iceweasel, or Icecat, or
>> Minefield, or anythin
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> We have been through this before. If you take Fedora and modify it, you are
> not allowed to use the Fedora name either. Trademark cannot be ever free as
> in freedom.
>
> Rahul
Exactly the point I brought up Rahul, thanks for your irrelev
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free
> software? Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that
> interpretation.
>
> Rahul
I'm sure they will. Trademark restrictions violate one of the four
freedoms
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>>
>> el
>> >
>>
>> Fedora shouldn't include software it doesn't have the resources to
>> maintain.
>
> Fedora doesn&#x
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 20:56:21 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>Fedora is just going to end up having a million repos for all the
>>software that will not be updated for six months. And that makes us
>>look silly. Windows doesn't have repositories for u
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> Look, I realise you are passionate about KDE, and want the best KDE
> experience in Fedora. But most people are not developers, they
> instead are using their desktop environment of choice to get regular,
> everyday things done with office
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:01 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>>
>> It shouldn't be. Never be afraid of learning, even in the tightest of
>> situations. It is good for your brain. It helps with analytical
>> thinking.
>>
>> Once constant learning
> What does matter to Fedora is having an updates policy that is
> designed to minimize disruption to users during a release is pointless
> if a significant part of Fedora - KDE - is going to be allowed to
> ignore the updates policy and deliberately introduce visible to the
> user changes in the m
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:41:38 +0200, you wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:53:49 -0400
>>> Brandon Lozza wrote:
>>>
>>>> It wou
elegate the latest KDE
to backports like everyone else, how does that make Fedora better? And
we do want to be better than everyone else if we want to compete with
Apple and Microsoft.
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> Wasn't this exception allowed for KDE at Fesco?
Wasn't this exception allowed for KDE at Fesco? Considering that a
typical KDE upgrade contains bug fixes, security fixes as well as new
features and UI changes.
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:53:49 -0400
> Brandon Lozza wrote:
>
>&
It would be nice to list it somewhere as an exception, to avoid panics :)
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Brandon Lozza wrote:
>
>> It seems like the policy would kill the use of an upgraded KDE (4.5 to
>> 4.6) because KDE almost always makes UI change
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:48:34AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
>
>> Say you ship with 50 bugs in a package. As you update it through the
>> lifetime of a release, that number should decrease more or less
>> monotonically. The bugs that take long
> Er, whut? I didn't post anything advocating people use Rawhide for
> day-to-day purposes. I wouldn't suggest such a thing. All I said was
> that I haven't noticed the speed difference between debug and non-debug
> kernels, because I haven't. I know it's measurably present, but it
> doesn't affect
something like sidux, but fedora based im thinking
stable f14 with the goodies stable vision blocks because people want
stale software, and i'd rather not use rawhide or opensuse
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jone
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I should add that whether this testing happens in Koji or in AutoQA
> isn't material. AutoQA is probably better. *Provided* that if the
> basic sanity tests fail they must prevent the packages from going into
> the Rawhide compose.
>
>
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:06 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Richard W.M. Jones
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 09:58:53PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>>> 2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski :
>>> > 2010/9/21 Toshio Kuratomi :
>>> >> As the concept of using third party repo
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 09/21/2010 07:20 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>> One thing I wanted to point out. Windows users get to install the
>> latest Firefox, KDE, and other apps without
Is GNU/Linux supposed to be a mirror into software's past?
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> One thing I wanted to point out. Windows users get to install the
> latest Firefox, KDE, and other apps without having to wait for a new
> Windows release. If users h
One thing I wanted to point out. Windows users get to install the
latest Firefox, KDE, and other apps without having to wait for a new
Windows release. If users had to wait for Windows 8 to get the latest
Firefox, things would be messy. I don't understand what the fear is of
doing this on GNU/Linux
If I have to wait for the next release of Fedora (14 for example) to
get KDE 4.5 then it's looking like the stable updates vision has made
Fedora incompatible with what I need. I will need to consider another
distribution (OpenSUSE most likely, their GCC 4.5 also doesn't suck;
LTO = enabled). After
>
>
>
> 1) I was the one who put a google wave link in the wiki, I tought it might
> be a good way of comunication because anyone with a Gmail account can acess
> to a wave and use it. If someone do not have a Gmail account he/she simply
> can use the IRC, can contact anyone that's helping via the
>
>
>
> You are requesting people participate in discussions via Google Wave. This
> is problematic for two reasons:
>
> a) Google Wave is dead
> b) Noone wants to use Google Wave. See a)
>
> Rahul
>
a) you're a troll
b) you're a troll
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproje
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Léon Keijser wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 03:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > The "lesser of 2 evils" is no solution. Only NO evil at all will keep the
> > user's freedom. Users should NEVER use proprietary software, be it as
> > JavaScript or using a proprieta
>
>
> Well, that's not what HTML, nor the underlying HTTP, was designed for. I
> don't see it as being an appropriate platform for software at all. (And I
> don't see plugins such as Flash as being the solution either. I believe
> this
> needs a completely different protocol, e.g. NX is something g
>
>
> By your logic we should ban gcc, java, mono, python, perl, bash ... as
> one can use them to create and/or run non free software.
>
> Also you may be aware that javascript has its uses *outside* of the
> web too (just like you can write apps in python you can do it in JS;
> and having a JIT t
I've already seen websites exploit firefox tabs and they made use of my
gmail account to send spam.
Why should we make firefox easier to exploit?
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:07 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
> > drago01 wrote:
> >> The times where jav
2010/8/11 Michał Piotrowski
> 2010/8/11 Brandon Lozza :
> > On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Cronenworth
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Michał Piotrowski on 08/11/2010 09:28 AM wrote:
> >> > I
> >> > downloadedhttp://
> alt.fedor
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Michał Piotrowski on 08/11/2010 09:28 AM wrote:
> > I downloadedhttp://
> alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/nightly-composes/desktop/desktop-x86_64-20100810.15.iso
> > - it is too large to fit on the CD.
>
> This is the "Green Age" what ar
> Which is great and I understand that but systemd will basically cover
> the release time frame for F-13 and F-14 and in that timeframe the
> support and issues for PA are going unfixed or even un triaged. Not
> great for a core sub system. So maybe it would be a good idea to train
> up a few peop
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Martin Sourada
wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 09:57 +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
>> On 07/28/2010 01:08 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> >> On 07/27/2010 10:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been released
>> >>
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 28/07/10 13:52, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> Maybe as firefox4 available in
>> updates-testing, but certainly not a core default package.
>
> +1
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Frank Murphy
> UTF_8 Encoded
> Friend of Fedora
> --
> devel mailing list
>
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 07/28/2010 05:47 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> On 07/28/2010 04:22 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote
>>>> The FSF drafted up the four freedoms and it's
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 07/28/2010 04:22 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote
>> The FSF drafted up the four freedoms and it's not offtopic, we're
>> discussing Firefox4 and the fact that we won't be able to make changes
>> to i
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 07/28/2010 04:15 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>>
>> We're NOT allowed to make changes (patches) without their permission.
>> This is defacto non-free. I understand we work with upstream but that
>> shouldn&
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
> On 07/28/2010 01:08 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>> On 07/27/2010 10:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been released
recently and I am wondering if we can go with it if it fits into th
On 7/27/10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 07/28/2010 04:06 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > According to this two year-old post, it's possible to build Firefox
> > with gstreamer support:
> >
> >
> http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/2008/04/firefox-html5-video-with-gstreamer.html
> >
> >
> > Dunno if
F11 or F12 had a beta version of firefox
spot's chromium builds do support webm, it works great :)
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
> On 07/27/2010 11:08 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
>>
>>> On 07/27/2010 10:53 PM, Rahul Sundara
Doesn't our version already support WebM?
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been released
> recently and I am wondering if we can go with it if it fits into the
> schedule. There are dozens of new features includ
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 15:31 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 09:10:24AM -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > > Hey all
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Horst H. von Brand
wrote:
> Jonathan MERCIER wrote:
>> LLVM itself could allow for much greater flexibility in programming
>> language choice. It can allow for anyone to take any language and output
>> it in bytecode, machine code, javavm code and so on.
Sounds l
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Hey all! It's that time again, we're gearing up to branch for Fedora 14
> this coming Tuesday! There is a major twist this time around, we're
> going to attempt a roll out of dist-git!
--snipped---
I'm just curious but would this allow som
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
> On 07/13/2010 11:55 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>
>> I'm going to keep a personal note of the apps which do perform faster
>> and grab the src rpm's so that I can compile them myself with LTO.
>
> Jakub J
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:15 AM, Pekka Pietikainen wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 11:31:09AM -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>> A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce faster
>> code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking in
On 7/8/10, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:31 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>
> > A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce
> > faster code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking
> > into. For ex
A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce faster
code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking into. For
example I noticed a significant difference on the OpenSUSE distro when GCC
was upgraded and they repackaged their software with it in their developmen
On 7/4/10, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-07-04 at 10:40 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> > you're in now Michel
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Brandon Lozza
> > wrote:
> > ok :)
> >
> >
> >
you're in now Michel
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> ok :)
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim <
> michael.silva...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>> >
ok :)
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim <
michael.silva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> > http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/SRPMS
> > http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/RPMS
> > Working F13 packages are available if
http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/SRPMS
http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/RPMS
Working F13 packages are available if anyone wants to try or make comments
on them. (Might not meet package guidelines yet)
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> I got it setup for the feature wrangler
I got it setup for the feature wrangler too
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_Programming
>
> <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_Programming>Here is the
> feature page
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_Programming
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_Programming>Here is the feature
page
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> 2010/6/27 Brandon Lozza :
> > No I have not actually, didn't know I had to. I sa
No I have not actually, didn't know I had to. I saw some other feature
requests here. Could you help me do this?
2010/6/27 Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) :
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'd like to recommend a Go compiler be
Hi,
I'd like to recommend a Go compiler be included with Fedora 14. We
would have two options:
1) GCC-GO (Included in GCC 4.5?)
2) Google's Go Compiler. (One is made by Conrad Meyer, he mentioned it
wouldn't be too easy to add because goinstall basically wants root
privileges).
Benefits to Fedo
I know this might be slightly off topic because of python but:
I would love to see a feature for GCC 4.5 if its not already assumed
to be in F14 (OpenSUSE will have GCC 4.5 in 11.3 out soon)
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 08:40 +0200, Thomas Spura
I think you guys are experiencing the infinite loop bug
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:07:16 +0200, Kevin wrote:
>
>> > It fails for a Yum install. I warn about such competing Obsoletes, because
>> > they strictly require the user to go the "
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Luke Macken wrote:
>> This report definitely conveys the shortcomings in our testing, however,
>> it does show us improving with each release. For Fedora 13, we implemented
>> the No Frozen Rawhide process with improved Critical Path policies,
84 matches
Mail list logo
