Re: What is Fedora?

On Wed, 21 Jun 2023 21:06:40 +0100, you wrote: >Hi all, > >Obviously many will have seen: > >https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/furthering-evolution-centos-stream > >and see, where EL (contributors like you of fedora/EPEL) have been knocked >down: > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=221529

Re: F37 proposal: Build all JDKs in Fedora against in-tree libraries and with static stdc++lib (System-Wide Change proposal)

On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:52:51 +0200, you wrote: >On 28/05/2022 19:31, drago01 wrote: >> That's incorrect. They can be outdated, but there is no inherit reason >> why they have to be. > >Most upstreams don't care about bundled libraries. They bundle them once >and then forget. But most != all as

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Sat, 13 Mar 2021 11:00:12 -0500, you wrote: >On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 08:13:07PM -0500, Gerald Henriksen wrote: >> You aren't going to change not just the 15+ year habits of how people >> refer to Fedora, but the even longer habits of how people call Linux >> distri

Re: F35 Change: "Fedora Linux" in /etc/os-release

On Thu, 11 Mar 2021 11:21:18 -0500, you wrote: >I would put it this way: this change _helps recognize_ that Fedora is more >than its main product. This isn't new; EPEL has been part of Fedora since >the beginning, and CoreOS has been since it replaced Project Atomic. You want this change to do th

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Wed, 1 Jul 2020 14:24:37 -0400, you wrote: >On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:54:02AM +, Zbigniew J?drzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> Making btrfs opt-in for F33 and (assuming the result go well) opt-out for F34 >> could be good option. I know technically it is already opt-in, but it's not >> very visibl

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make nano the default editor

On Mon, 29 Jun 2020 10:47:58 +0200, you wrote: >since vim addresses this when opened without a file and it is open >source, it seems to me to be a good idea to propose to adjust vim >behaviour to show the help overview when opening a file as well. For >example if there is no ~/.vimrc or some other

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make btrfs the default file system for desktop variants

On Sun, 28 Jun 2020 09:59:52 -0700, you wrote: >Has that actually been explored? How does Canonical get around the legal >issues with OpenZFS' licensing? For a start they aren't a US company, and unlike Red Hat they aren't the same tempting target for a lawsuit. _

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Make nano the default editor

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 13:23:17 -0400, you wrote: >Heres a thought that I hadn't considered before though, and it might be useful. >Apple at one point (and still may), shiped iphones without the itunes (or some >common) app on it, >and they did so intentionally, because they knew it was an app that p

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Fedora-Retired-Packages

On Tue, 16 Jun 2020 15:05:41 -0400, you wrote: >User/Admin customizations are expected to be retained post-upgrade, and >software installed after the fact absolutely counts as a customization, >no matter where that software came from. But any software installed by the user that comes from an of

Re: unretiring llvm7.0

On Sat, 30 May 2020 18:43:03 +0200, you wrote: >If I understand correctly, the sudden disappearance of llvm7.0 means that >now ghc is in danger as a package, because it's missing the toolchain >needed to build & package it? Don't know anything about ghc to comment on the difficulties, but ghc 8.1

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

On Mon, 18 May 2020 18:03:16 -0500, you wrote: >X. Org as root is **STILL** the standard and Fedora broke it. This is >why no one wants to support Linux: you constantly break your own >platform and then cry wolf when people who don't care about your >ideological nonsense refuse to fix their sof

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

On Thu, 14 May 2020 06:33:47 -0500, you wrote: >* Game developers largely refuse to support Linux, and the some of the >few that have have or are currently pulling support citing >fragmentation(support) issues. Game developers refuse to support Linux because there is no userbase - even Steam, w

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

On Thu, 14 May 2020 06:59:47 -0500, you wrote: >What i'm saying is: Distros like Fedora actively hurt the very people >who are directly or indirectly helping them. There are single-person run >projects, like mine, out there that can't possibly do all the work >needed to have a dozen packages fo

Re: Re-Launching the Java SIG

On Tue, 12 May 2020 15:58:39 -0500, you wrote: >As someone who has been burned due to Fedora's goody little two shoes >policies, I'd kindly ask that Fedora take a hike and not package the >software at all. The only way to make sure that the stuff included with Fedora is open source is to build

Re: Getting security updates out to users sooner

On Thu, 16 Apr 2020 18:14:29 -0700, you wrote: >On Fri, 2020-04-17 at 01:01 +, Demi M. Obenour wrote: >> Currently, security updates can take days to get to users. In >> particular, Firefox and Thunderbird often take a day or more, even >> though virtually every single update contains securit

Re: Nvidia binary drivers fail to install on Fedora 32

On Sun, 29 Mar 2020 06:46:17 -, you wrote: >> Wait, nevermind. It’s kmod, got them confused: >> >> >> rpm-ostree install kmod-nvidia xorg-x11-drv-nvidia > >You need to use the nodebug kernel > >https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RawhideKernelNodebug > And just how wise is it putting Rawhide ker

Re: Package uses Gradle (retired) to build: what to do?

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 19:16:45 -0500, you wrote: >What does it tell? To me, it says that FOSS platforms don't care about >Java as much as they used to. We're clearly able to do stuff with Go >and Rust, which are just as "anti-distribution" as Java is (based on >what other people say). Go and Rust ha

Re: Package uses Gradle (retired) to build: what to do?

On Sat, 8 Feb 2020 18:50:25 +0100, you wrote: >> and why gradle was retired ? is easy unretire it ? > >I am running gradle command right now as a coincidence . > >The upstream project is active. >https://github.com/gradle/gradle > >We also might refer other distribution's spec files if we unretire

Re: Java Dev Group and Fedora Quality

On Sun, 26 Jan 2020 22:33:55 -, you wrote: >> That's not really fair. DNF is pretty much only the user interface, >> and everything it's built on top of (hawkey, librepo, libsolv) is >> implemented in C / C++. And when I think back to using yum, dnf is >> really fast :) >> I don't know which

Re: Announcing fmt library soversion bump

On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 15:30:57 +0100, you wrote: >On Wed, Dec 18, 2019, 14:44 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < >devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> Fmt 6.1.2 build completed for Rawhide. It include SOVERSION bump. All >> dependent packages need to be rebuilded. > > >It would be great to announce thi

Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 21:08:02 -0800, you wrote: >On 11/18/19 7:29 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >> I can't speak for everyone, but at least my experience was that it was >> functionally impossible to discover how to package Java stuff. In a >> lifetime (and a job) ago, I was much more engaged in the Java >

Re: [fedora-java] What's the State of the Java SIG?

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 13:37:39 +0100, you wrote: >Fabio Valentini wrote: >> Or is it time for a "tabula rasa" and restart the SIG? > >IMHO, yes. Kick out the 1 or 2 Modularity fundamentalists that form the >current remains of the Java SIG and create a new Java SIG from scratch that >actually cares

Re: Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 15:59:27 +0200, you wrote: >On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 03:53:28PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: >> any package can switch to jdk11, but sysem jdk should be jdk8, at least for >> some more time... > > Any reasons? Defaulting to ancient software conflicts with our “First” > foundatio

Re: [fedora-java] Re: Switching Maven and Ant to OpenJDK 11

On Sat, 26 Oct 2019 10:33:59 -0400, you wrote: >On Sat, Oct 26, 2019 at 9:53 AM Jiri Vanek wrote: >> >> any package can switch to jdk11, but sysem jdk should be jdk8, at least for >> some more time... >> > >If anything, we're late to the party of moving to JDK 11 by default. >Java 8 has been EOL

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:23:53 -0500, you wrote: >So in summary, I guess I mostly support allowing packages which can't be >rebuilt to stay in the distribution as long as they actually work and >aren't causing maintenance burden elsewhere On the other hand, unbuildable packages could be viewed as a

Re: Fedora 31 Self-Contained Change proposal: AArch64 Xfce Desktop image

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 09:28:12 +, you wrote: >On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 03:12:29PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: >> We currently offer Workstation, Minimal and Server images for use with >> AArch64 Single Board Computer's (SBC's). We would like to add a >> lighter weight desktop image for hardware that

Re: Fedora Data Engineering SIG: interested in a Fedora SIG to work on this?

On Fri, 5 Jul 2019 11:23:06 +0800, you wrote: >I think documentation alone is not enough to make things easy, as to make >the software better integrate with Fedora would require some more >additional work (eg: systemd integration, quick painless installation, >prebuilt binaries) .. > >What about d

Re: Fedora Data Engineering SIG: interested in a Fedora SIG to work on this?

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 21:47:44 +0800, you wrote: >yeah i agree .. my exp dealing with the tools highlights one tricky problem >we might face -> avoiding statically / bundled dependencies , while on the >same time getting all the tools to work .. most of them locks to specific >dependency version, and

Re: Fedora Data Engineering SIG: interested in a Fedora SIG to work on this?

On Thu, 4 Jul 2019 12:41:26 +0800, you wrote: >Currently my idea on this SIG would be: >1 - packaging data engineering related softwares into Fedora, and make them >easy to install, covering from workflow tools (eg: airflow, luigi), data >processing engines (eg: apache spark, flink), visualization

Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal: Python means Python3

On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 16:09:58 -0400, you wrote: >On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 2:52 PM Dan Book wrote: >> >> As an outsider to the Python community, not having any binary or package >> that responds to the expected name "python" would be a disaster. >> >Can you expand on that? As I understand it, most

Re: Fedora, Packaging, Java, and Shrooms

On Thu, 11 Apr 2019 08:08:21 -0500, you wrote: >>Secondly, isn't this what modules are meant for? I'm not sure if there is >one for JDK on Fedora. > >Java 9 modules you mean? No, Fedora Modules, an alternative to rpms I think. ___ devel mailing list --

Re: Fedora, Packaging, Java, and Shrooms

On Fri, 12 Apr 2019 17:24:46 -0500, you wrote: >According to pkgs.org Fedora Rawhide doesn't even have a 32-bit JRE/JDK >so i'm not sure why the designation is required. 32-bit has been on the >way out for awhile now. If someone wants to make a 32-bit version they >don't need to follow a distro

Re: [Fwd: Orphaned packages to be retired (Java packages in 2 weeks)]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2019 15:45:49 +, you wrote: > >After thinking , my suggestion is do not retire any java package. > >These package should be take by java sig . That's nice, who exactly is this Java sig you have kindly decided should take on this significant undertaking? My (limited) understan

Re: Orphaned packages to be retired (Java packages in 3 weeks)

On Fri, 15 Mar 2019 23:48:49 +0100, you wrote: >* Richard W.M. Jones [15/03/2019 20:23] : >> Is Java being dropped from the distro? > >Yes, that's what we were warned about months ago. Don't think so. Nothing has been said about dropping Java, and if anything the OpenJDK packagers have been mor

Re: responding to CVEs

On Mon, 14 Jan 2019 13:35:10 +, you wrote: >Is there any specific requirement to change packages in response to >CVEs, specifically if they appear to be bogus? I can't find anything >specifying that. > >I ask because three CVEs have triggered automated bug reports against >libxsmm

Re: What does delaying F31 mean for packagers/users?

On Thu, 29 Nov 2018 12:15:52 +, you wrote: >From an IoT perspective where we're looking at some features around >security that could be cross component dependent >(toolchain/kernel/userspace) to be unable to consume for possibly an >18 month window, yes we rebase kernels but we need to rebase

Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

On Sun, 18 Nov 2018 17:19:37 -0500, you wrote: >But I don't think we should extend the lifecycle on a general basis. >That's asking for trouble, since it cedes our leadership in the Linux >platform and destroys our ability to meet our own values. What leadership would Fedora be ceding by extendin

Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 18:36:38 -0500, you wrote: >But there are some good cases for a longer lifecycle. For one thing, >this has been a really big blocker for getting Fedora shipped on >hardware. In a later message you also bring up the reluctance of Universities to use Fedora - a bad sign given t

Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 17:58:36 +0100, you wrote: >Gerald Henriksen wrote: >> I think the problem is that for a consumer / desktop oriented product >> - which we seem to be talking about given that this appears to be >> driven in part by the desire of hardware vendors - the R

Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

On Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:18:35 +0100, you wrote: >Also, I don't really understand where this need for a "fedora LTS" >comes from. I've always thought of RHEL / CentOS as filling that role. >I agree that there could probably be more collaboration between these >three projects (especially CentOS and f

Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 14:38:12 +0100, you wrote: >I understand this argument, but I think more and more desktop users >are being trained that updates happen on a schedule they didn't choose >and are hard to avoid. This is how most mobile operating systems >function. iOS prompts you for the yearly

Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 14:04:23 -0500, you wrote: >From what I have talked with in the past.. 3 years is their bare >minimum and 7 is their what we really want. It usually takes the >vendor about 3-6 months of work to make sure the OS works on their >hardware without major problems and then they want

Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 01:33:36 +, you wrote: >The major OS competitor has moved to a 6 month release cadence, so that >needs to be taken into account. And Microsoft is experiencing troubles, and a lot of push back that they are so far ignoring. Not all of the troubles are necessarily from the

Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 06:12:11 +0100, you wrote: >We, as a distro, just take a different approach. >To be bleeding edge requires to have releases often. Such a bleeding edge distro that it took 4 years for Swift to arrive, or still trying to get rid of Python 2. Regardless of what we think Fedora

Re: IBM buying RedHat

On Sun, 28 Oct 2018 23:39:52 +0100, you wrote: >Le 28/10/2018 à 22:32, Neal Gompa a écrit : >> but the point is, IBM is not an open source company. > >Eclipse, Not exactly a ringing endorsement given Eclipse's poor reputation. >Linux (top 5 companies in term of kernel contributions), MQTT >(ne

Re: Orphaning some Java packages

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 10:15:46 +0200, you wrote: >Le jeudi 27 septembre 2018 à 19:14 -0400, Gerald Henriksen a écrit : >> >> Or, short version, the Java ecosystem is either indifferent or hostile >> to distribution packages. > >Any language ecosystem is initially hosti

Re: Orphaning some Java packages

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:34:33 -0400, you wrote: >On Mon, Sep 24, 2018 at 3:39 PM Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: >> >> Java SIG is dying slowly, this package set recently lost another >> co-maintainer and I don't have time to maintain all these packages by >> myself. Switching to module-only content is pr

Re: GNOME 3.30.0 megaupdate

On Thu, 06 Sep 2018 11:33:20 -0700, you wrote: >On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 10:41 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> Fedora folks have been testing 3.29 for weeks now. Fedora people >> haven't been testing 3.30 because it's not really available to test. >> So I think it's reasonable for a GNOME specific chan

Re: Mono - Do we have a maintainer?

On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 13:59:51 -0400, you wrote: >* Dan Horák [2018-08-22 03:55]: >> a nice thing on Mono is that it is fully multi-arch, supporting all >> Fedora arches. Won't be multi-arch problem for msbuild or .NET Core? > >Oh. Right, that would be a problem. .NET Core upstream essentially >sup

Re: Cfitsio soname bump

On Fri, 25 May 2018 08:55:01 -0700, you wrote: >On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 12:41 +0200, Sergio Pascual wrote: >> Hello, I'm going to build new cfitsio 3.450 in Rawhide. This involves a >> soname bump. Notice that I plan to do the same in F28 (with a buildroot >> override, etc) as cfitsio has security

Re: Unacceptable size increase to ALL live images in F28: Noto CJK Fonts

On Tue, 10 Apr 2018 13:36:33 +0200, you wrote: >Tomasz Torcz ?? wrote: >> While we at it, let's drop all latin fonts, too. Cyrillic should be >> enable to cover most of the world's usage and is quite similar to basic >> latin. > >???! ;-) > >But more seriously, this is not a fair comparison. W

Re: Unacceptable size increase to ALL live images in F28: Noto CJK Fonts

On Thu, 29 Mar 2018 22:37:12 +0200, you wrote: >The one thing that speaks for it is size: it is only ~4 MiB xz-compressed, >whereas a typical font for any single CJK language (which may or may not >have the same limited support as described above for the other 3 languages; >often, there are no

Re: Intent to orphan Python 2

On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 12:57:19 -0400, you wrote: >On 03/23/2018 07:23 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote: >> In case no one steps up, we'd like to start dropping Python 2 support >> from dependent packages *now*, starting with ported libraries on whose >> python2 version nothing in Fedora depends. (We keep a l

Re: Package naming question

On Mon, 04 Dec 2017 10:20:13 +0100, you wrote: >I would like to hear opinion of other packagers about naming. We have >`parallel` utility implemented in Rust which is drop-in replacement for GNU >parallel. I was thinking how to name package and how people would expect it to >be named. So far optio

Re: Fedora 27 is officially released!

On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 08:38:43 +0100, you wrote: >On Thu, 2017-11-16 at 15:15 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: >> On 11/16/17, cornel panceac wrote: >> > No Linux 4.14 ? >> >> Are you expecting 6 years support cycle? > >I think in a sense, many are...? >I know fedora is supposed to pretend rhel is "

Re: apple swift fedora support

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 12:50:01 +, you wrote: >Is there any initiative to package apple swift and other swift tools? > >https://github.com/apple/swift Attempt to package and get into Fedora can usually be found in Bugzilla, for Swift see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295115

Re: Why is Fx 57 in Updates Testing?

On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 15:35:56 +0200, you wrote: >IMHO, it would be reasonable and common sense to either postpone F27 >until FF57 has become stable or to revert the firefox change. Except FF57 is stable (at least no one so far is complaining about it being otherwise). For those who use its plugi

Re: A less "bloated" KDE spin

On Thu, 12 Oct 2017 05:27:39 +0200, you wrote: >family of tools. Every regular user will choose their own tools for >calendar, email, etc. Simple picture viewer/kpaint etc, should be included >because they are essential part of a desktop system, however, calendar, >address book, email client, are

Re: Is it possible to upload new sources of a package from a URL?

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017 07:50:11 + (UTC), you wrote: >On 2017-09-26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 07:18:12AM +, Petr Pisar wrote: >>> A packager is responsible for reviewing the code before uploading it to the >>> Fedora infrastructure. It does not mattter whether the

Re: A less "bloated" KDE spin

On Sun, 10 Sep 2017 23:34:10 +0200, you wrote: >+1 for making the KDE spin lighter. >I'm really surprised with all the advocates here. Isn't it the right way to >go, to always have as minimal install as possible, with just the basics for >the purpose? I truly believe that everyone grabs KDE spin f

Re: Finalizing Fedora's Switch to Python 3

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 14:11:56 -0400, you wrote: >> One of Fedora's stated goals is to remain close to the upstream. >> Upstream Python is going to change /usr/bin/python to mean Python 3. If >> AH keeps it on Python 2, it will be confusing for Python programmers >> using AH. It will be especially c

Re: Finalizing Fedora's Switch to Python 3

On Fri, 28 Jul 2017 21:06:45 +0200, you wrote: >On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 10:29:12PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote: > >> It's only /usr/bin/python itself that still presents an unsolved >> problem, since the status quo (not providing it at all) is even more >> user hostile than pointing it at a modern v

Re: Some preliminary Fedora 25 stats — and future release scheduling

On Tue, 6 Dec 2016 09:11:06 +, you wrote: >> I'd expect .1 or +1 would rebase on the most recent GNOME. > >I expect we'd also rebase the virtualization stack in any .1 release, >or even in the middle of a release if Fedora switched to a yearly >major release cycle. 6+ months is already a long

Re: multi-CPU optimization inside a distribution

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 22:07:24 +0200, you wrote: >On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:59:38 -0400 >Solomon Peachy wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 08:04:57PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> > I will just snipe here that the situation would be better if POWER >> > > 4 hardware was generally available to b

Re: multi-CPU optimization inside a distribution

On Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:01:38 +0200, you wrote: >> Realistically, it isn't about either specifically. Each iteration of >> POWER tends to require tuning specifically for that generation if you >> want to get the most performance out of your software. > >Latest CPU features get utilized mostly only

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:05:01 -0400, you wrote: >I still think we, as a distribution, should not be in the business of >discouraging downstream packaging in favor of *upstream* provided flatpaks, >though (which was my original objection to the idea). Which is better for the user: 1) upstream Flat

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, 16 Jun 2016 15:44:11 -0400, you wrote: >On 06/16/2016 03:09 PM, Alexander Larsson wrote: >> You seems to think about a different "security" than what flatpak >> provides. Say you run a game, packaged by fedora. Its nicely packaged >> and reviewed, so you're not running unreviewed, unsigned

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:18:00 -0400, you wrote: >Snaps function very much like how Apple's ecosystem does for software >delivery, and perhaps even Microsoft's UWP ecosystem too. It's very >clear that the purpose of Snaps are to provide avenues to "encourage" >people to lock into the Ubuntu platform

Re: Hadoop?

On Thu, 02 Jun 2016 21:03:14 +, you wrote: >So, it would seem at some point, without me noticing (certainly my fault, >for not paying attention enough), the Hadoop packages got orphaned and/or >retired? in Fedora. March 12 the packager of nc6 orphaned the packages they were responsible for:

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 20:38:58 +0200, you wrote: >> There is a reason that the Atomic / CoreOS idea combined with Docker >> is gaining traction, and it is because it deals with the reality of >> dealing with software whose dependencies don't work in the traditional >> distribution world > >so i don'

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Mon, 14 Sep 2015 12:45:13 +0200, you wrote: >if Fedora changes to more and more recommend "pip", "gem" and "cpan" >like installs instead RPM packages it is no longer a distribution over >the long because that would mean finally you have a core OS and handle >anything else like Microsoft or A

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On Sun, 13 Sep 2015 23:30:13 +0200, you wrote: >On 2015-09-13, 20:23 GMT, Haïkel wrote: >> The Java world is definitively not moving in the right direction. > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Module_System is IMHO The >Right Thing™ and it is still on the list of deliverables for >Java 9 (stil

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:48:50 -0500, you wrote: >On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:40:00PM -0800, Josh Stone wrote: >> >> If you want to install a c++ compiler you would have to know the exact >> >> package name of that compiler. There is no way to search for something >> >> like >> >> "compiler" with yu

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop

On Mon, 28 Jan 2013 12:26:14 -0500, you wrote: >On 01/28/2013 11:56 AM, inode0 wrote: >> What concerns me isn't that Linus and Alan don't like it. > >To be fair Linus (more quietly) went back to GNOME 3 after his initial >loud complaints. He is still using it since he just posted that he was >to G

Re: *countable infinities only

On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:40:14 +0900, you wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 14:56:20 +0100 >> Matthew Garrett wrote: >> >> System76 (and possibly others) will be supplying systems >> that provide (2), so that choice is available to you. > >Matthew, I often read you referring to System76, since the UEF

Re: *countable infinities only

On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 11:15:34 -0700, you wrote: >On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:03 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote: > >> Adam, just a short bald claim: >> >> In the United States and Europe there is a large body of statute >> law, regulatory rulings, and court decisions which say that yes, >> a large powerf

Re: *countable infinities only

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 19:21:40 +0200, you wrote: > > >Am 18.06.2012 19:18, schrieb Adam Williamson: > >> I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong, >> but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an incorrect >> That premise is to assume that there is a God-

Re: *countable infinities only

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:18:35 -0700, you wrote: >On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: Much good stuff deleted. >Fedora can deplore the situation; Fedora can state its support for >computing devices which allow the user the freedom to install >alternative operating system soft

Re: *countable infinities only

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:23:53 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: > > >On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > >> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: >> >> >On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> > >> >> > On

Re: *countable infinities only

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:54:20 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: > > >On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote: >> >> > This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly >> > incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Mic

Re: *countable infinities only

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:14:11 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: > > >On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:56:54AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote: >> > >> > We just need hardware we can install Fedora on, as once we did, >> > without asking Microsoft for permission. >>

Re: *countable infinities only

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: >On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote: >> >> > I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging >> > the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers would

Re: *countable infinities only

On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:09:37 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: > > >On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT) >> Jay Sulzberger wrote: >> >>> I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging >>> the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers would in

Re: *countable infinities only

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT), you wrote: > > >On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote: >> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murp

Re: *countable infinities only

On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:01:53 -0400, you wrote: >On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy: >>>

Re: gimp

On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:41:41 +0200, you wrote: >Nicu Buculei wrote: >> And we the people using it for real work still remember the times when >> Fedora used to be a bleeding edge distro and had such GIMP updated... > >+1 > >The new update strategy (because it IS new, contrary to what some lazy >m

Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft

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 users who want the >latest firefox, they just download it and ins

Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft

On Fri, 1 Oct 2010 08:35:45 -0400, you wrote: >The user has to tolerate some change. We can't cater to people who >never upgrade which seems to be what is taking place. Especially with >the fact that our end of life happens sooner, users must already >expect a constant stream of updates. Yes, ru

Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 15:33:25 +0200, you wrote: >On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 3:21 PM, 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 >

Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft

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 would be nice to list it somewhere as an exception, to avoid >>> panics :) >> >> Well, I personally do not want to say: >>

Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:26:46 -0400, you wrote: >I can't tell people Fedora is the best if it's not carrying the latest >upstream KDE, its just not possible. I'm constantly recruiting new >users. I'm in regular contact with the team of people who run >Techrights. > >If a new release of KDE comes ou

Re: Fedora "backports" repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 08:34:06 +0200, you wrote: >Le mercredi 22 septembre 2010 à 21:30 -0400, Gerald Henriksen a écrit : > >> After all Gnome 2.32 isn't released until later this month, and the >> beta releases have been included in Fedora 14 up to now. > >Is that a

Re: Fedora "backports" repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 19:33:22 + (UTC), you wrote: >On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:33:47 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> That is what branched releases have. Running one of these still gets you >> pretty up to date stuff, but a bit more protection from breakage. > >But branched releases stabilize somet

Re: Fedora "backports" repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:59:06 -0400, you wrote: >However, if for example Microsoft had a similar system and did package >software for it. Their users would be up in arms for the latest >firefox too and Microsoft wouldn't keep them on an old firefox >version. You are ignoring the troubles Microsoft

Re: Fedora "backports" repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 10:20:05 -0400, you 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 had to wait for Windows 8 to get the latest >Firefox, things would be messy. I don't un

Re: Fedora "backports" repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:36:46 -0400, you wrote: >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

Re: Fedora "backports" repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

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. > >What exactly is the fear here with these updates? Are there many

Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?

On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 19:26:53 -0400, you wrote: >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 soft

Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)

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 version with _all_ >current bug fixes. Waiting 6 months for a bug

Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 09:43:16 +0200, you wrote: >2010/8/29 Kevin Kofler : >> Jesse Keating wrote: >>> The cynic in me would expect that the people who want something different >>> than the fire hose we have now are silently leaving, and those that are >>> left are going to say they like the deluge

  1   2   >