Re: Mesa needs an update?

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Morgan Howe wrote: > That may have been a mistake on my part due to lack of knowledge on your > bugzilla workflow, apologies for that. I haven't filed a bug report before > and wasn't sure how that should be handled. I've reassigned the bug from > xorg-x11-drv-ati t

Re: Mesa needs an update?

On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:50 PM, Morgan Howe wrote: > I didn't say you need to bump it to bleeding edge git. I'm just letting you > know that there's a pretty serious bug in the current version of mesa that > is affecting at least a few people - probably even more who just rolled back > to F18 and

Re: Fedora as an crowd founded project an additional funding source to our sponsor

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:08 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 07/24/2013 05:02 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote: >> >> So all you can do is gather the core metrics for utility use... >> cpu/band/storage... and with those metrics in hand price what it would >> ta

Re: Fedora as an crowd founded project an additional funding source to our sponsor

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:50 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > The infrastructure cost ( with the exception of any paid manpower ) is what > sets the baseline for host/run and that cost is what would determine the > infra/hosting tax % or at least gives a number for a minimum we would need > to

Re: Getting rid of systemd-sysv-convert?

On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Eric Smith wrote: > That's one development model. Another is to do a more gradual > transition, instead of a sharp cliff. We could debate the relative > merits of the two models until the cows come home, but it's a moot > point as the gradual transition is what w

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:37 PM, drago01 wrote: > Being different does not imply different target audience ... same > thing and discussion happened when GNOME 2.0 got released. > Now the haters from back then want GNOME 2.0 back ;) Can we start a new thread about bringing sawfish back as the defau

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote: > For starters: > https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/669 Uhm that ticket is specifically about a feature proposal to include something as a default installed tech. We are not talking about AOO as a default installed package. You are confla

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote: > > So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose > a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple > different depsolvers has already been frowned upon. On an F18 system yum info smart yu

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop

I'm not sure there's any place in our community where it is acceptable for people "to go to fight." Nor do I think that would be healthy. I would prefer to think that noone in our community really wants to hurt anyone else. I think if anyone showed up at any face-to-face meeting specifically with

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Absolutely no. > > My points are: > > * The Gnome3-suite will never fit everybody, i.e. trying to push/force it > onto all users will never work and is not helpful to the Fedora community. > > * Gnome3 is (ab-) using Fedora as Gnome3 test-be

Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Cinnamon as Default Desktop

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > I disagree. Fedora's lack of popularity is largely thanks to these issues. > > In this context, I feel the Cinnamon request rsp. the "give users a choice > on DEs" attempts are part of an attempt to escape the at least one of the > dead-end r

Re: Unresponsive maintainer Jef Spaleta - Unpushed security update for 91 days

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Ugh. Shall I unpush those from going stable then until this is figured? > > Sorry about that... I am a firm believer in the Pottery Barn rule. You break it you buy it. If you feel this is important enough of a security fix to break ui then pus

Notice: Fedora package maintainer unavailable until end of Sept. 2012

Good afternoon everyone, I'm going to be embarking on a month-ish long all expenses paid trip to a luxurious pacific island and will be out of contact for the duration of the trip. I'm writing to let the full pool of fedora package maintainers know. I've already updated the vacation page on the wi

Re: OBS Fedora

On Sat, Jul 28, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > He seems to be talking about a web interface that lets you edit specs > and submit builds - some kind of basic text editor webapp hooked up to > the spec repository, I guess. I don't know if we need a webapp. But some prespun up virtual i

Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 7:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Note for the record - I'm perfectly willing to give up my maintainership > of the few packages I own from my old abortive effort to package Unity. > I have bamf, libindicator and probably one or two others I forgot about. > If anyone wants

Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Nelson Marques wrote: > I'm not involved in this project anyway; If you can put me into direct contact with someone who is actively involved I'd be more than happy to discuss a potential roadmap towards a submittable set of packages, either in public or in priva

Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Nelson Marques wrote: > I've asked Ken to provide me some additional info on this; I will mail > tomorrow or during the weekend the links to this list. Let's get an accurate picture of what is actually left for vendor patches before we decide the current situatio

Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Nelson Marques wrote: > Are you ready to accept patches on GTK+ and potentially on Xorg that > were declined from upstream? This should be your initial thoughts! Can you point me to the relevant discussion for any critical functionality patches which were actuall

Re: Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 13:49:15 +0200 > Antonio Trande wrote: >> 2012/7/19 Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) >> > This morning, I woke up to the news that a group of developers have >> > managed to successfully make Ubuntu's Unity Desktop work on Fedora >>

Re: prelink should not mess with running executables

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Scott Schmit wrote: > And what's the pathname of a deleted file? Like it or not, that's a real > possibility ("normal" as opposed to the result of an error condition or > a bug), even if it's possibly not typical. [details snipped] > It gives you your current path

Re: prelink should not mess with running executables

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 2:00 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > A means for authenticating a filesystem domain socket's peer. Receive the > peer's credentials, then check /proc/pid/exe and /proc/self/exe. If they're > same, the daemon is talking to another instance of itself. The "same" in what sense?

Re: prelink should not mess with running executables

On Sun, Jul 15, 2012 at 9:58 AM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > That prelink is being run on battery I repeat is a bug of cron. > > I had a script to disable such jobs automatically, I do it by hand nowadays. Generally speaking do we have a cron-like service that knows how to taste for onbattery in a hi

Re: Revelation password manager issue

On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Tom London wrote: > Hmm... Still seeing spew: > Here is what I did: > > 1. I 'rpm -Uvh --force' the new package. > 2. I 'recovered' my old ~/.gconf/apps/revelation/ settings (I had > saved them by moving them to revelation.old before updating/testing > with the pre

Re: Revelation password manager issue

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 9:50 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > I had a number of problem with guake and its gconf schema, so after > discussion here I added this to the spec file: > > %posttrans > killall -HUP gconfd-2 > /dev/null || : > > That pretty much forces gconf to reload. Uhm has this been

Re: Revelation password manager issue

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Tom London wrote: > Haven't checked the crypto changes, but I do notice this spew when I > try 'Edit->Preferences': Okay I think I have the GConf scriptlets fixed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4191873 On local testing. Install the new sc

Re: Revelation password manager issue

On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote: > Users with existing revelation configurations can blow away > .gconf/apps/revelation and relogin to avoid the errors and reconfig > revelation in the process. But clearly that is not optimal.  If there > is a packaging mechanis

Re: Revelation password manager issue

2012 at 12:17 PM, Tom London wrote: > On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote: >> Rawhide target scratch build of the upstream tree with the fix. >> >> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4191839 >> >> I have done a local build

Re: Revelation password manager issue

Rawhide target scratch build of the upstream tree with the fix. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4191839 I have done a local build and test on an F16 system. Revelation informs me that the key file is an old encryption format and requests me to resave to update the encryption.

Re: [HEADS-UP] Rawhide: /tmp is now on tmpfs

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > Tmpfs volumes have a size set as a mount option. The default is half > the physical ram (not physical ram plus swap). You can change the size > with a remount. When its full, its full, like any other filesystem Okay that was what I was mis

Re: [HEADS-UP] Rawhide: /tmp is now on tmpfs

On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:05 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > Thats not true (and I've used tmpfs for tmp for years, so I'm speaking > from experience)— tmpfs is backed by swap on demand. Just add the > space that you would have used for /tmp to your swap. I am _very_ concerned about large files in c

Re: Default image target size [Was:Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-06-18)]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:47 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > Again anything that gets handed out at various events should be considered > release blockers since the quality of that product reflects back at us as a > community thus if an relevant SIG cannot cover it's own release testing > apa

Thoughts on Canonical's Quickly

I poked a little bit and I got quickly up and running partially on an F16 system. I say partially because I can't use all the exposed commands in the ubuntu application template because some of the commands aimed at publication require a coherent debian system configuration to make a local .deb fi

Re: Revelation password manager issue

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Well, not so much exit as shutdown. It seems to frequently throw an > exception of some kind on shutdown, which seems to block up the shutdown > process until you dismiss the error dialog. Maybe it's Just Me (TM) Successful rawhide sc

Re: Revelation password manager issue

So yeah... revelation is back to being entirely noarch python again. Is bouncing a package from arch to noarch as an update going to cause problems? -jef On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 11:14 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 15

Re: Revelation password manager issue

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Jef Spaleta wrote: > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 10:56 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote: >>> It seems there is a new upstream for revelation as of March this year. >>>  I'll poke at

Re: Revelation password manager issue

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2012-06-15 at 10:56 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote: >> It seems there is a new upstream for revelation as of March this year. >>  I'll poke at them a little bit to see what's going on.  It's been a &g

Re: Revelation password manager issue

It seems there is a new upstream for revelation as of March this year. I'll poke at them a little bit to see what's going on. It's been a while since there has been an active upstream for this codebase. Here's a thought... what's Debian's policy concerning security issues is packages with a dead

Re: Install Fedora Button for LiveCD

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: > That is a good idea that can be probably implemented very easily. > > However, what is the benefit over a persistent button in the top panel? I believe its adequately provides a solution to meet all constraints so far expressed in this discuss

Re: Install Fedora Button for LiveCD

On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote: > How bout adding/changing the icon for installing? Can we not include some > text in the icon? "Install Fedora" somehow?? Actually... would it make sense to force a notification event about the install option on live CD login? It pops up

Re: F16: "last superblock write time in future"

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > the document above is hughe outdated Oh well. Nevermind then. Good luck correcting your configs -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: F16: "last superblock write time in future"

> hmmm - which HWCLOCK clock? > we are speaking about VMware Machines on ESXi/vSphere My best suggestion for you is to read the following document. www.vmware.com/files/pdf/Timekeeping-In-VirtualMachines.pdf and follow the best practises outlined there. You should have your linux guests setting

Re: F16: "last superblock write time in future"

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Jef Spaleta wrote: > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> i notice this since upgraded to Fedora 16 on mostly all >> virtual machines while i have never seeen this with F15 >> >> how to track down and for which

Re: F16: "last superblock write time in future"

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 8:16 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > i notice this since upgraded to Fedora 16 on mostly all > virtual machines while i have never seeen this with F15 > > how to track down and for which component file a bugreport? http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=273727 -jef -

Re: User session printing

On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 12:46 AM, Tim Waugh wrote: > Yes, exactly, and that is what I'm suggesting.  For printing entirely in > the user session it is a case of using an alternative to using CUPS > running on the local machine, so that means: > > a) no filters or drivers; the job document is the PD

Re: User session printing

2012/3/8 Miloslav Trmač : > Right... I just wanted to make sure that any potential work on user > session printing is not discouraged by adding requirements that are > not currently satisfied with the system daemon. Of course. That wasn't meant as stop energy. If those situations have a _least sur

Re: User session printing

2012/3/8 Miloslav Trmač : > The lazy answer to both is "fail, or not, the same way as cups > currently fails, or not" (in fact, could the session printing service > simply be cups that treats the system instance as another remote > server?). If we were looking for the lazy answer, we'd just not bo

Re: User session printing

On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 8:02 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Tim Waugh (twa...@redhat.com) said: >> For a plain network printer, where the printer might not be able to >> accept the job while it's busy processing others, you might have to >> queue the job and retry it later.  So if you are doing that

Re: /usrmove? -> about the future

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:17 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: >> What is the exact symptoms encapsulated in "not shutdown cleanly?" > > "can not connect to systembus" or some "connection refused" > somewhat in this direction apologizes to the list. I meant to ask Adam that in private email, so I could h

Re: /usrmove? -> about the future

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Scott Doty wrote: > Sez who? > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Server I don't see the word "production" on that page. I can imagine the existence of "non-production" servers which would not invalidate anything said on that page. -jef"I'm not even sure Fedor

Re: /usrmove? -> about the future

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 19:02 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote: >> On 02/10/2012 07:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > The one-time case - 'the first time you go from systemd X to systemd Y, >> > the system won't shut down cleanly' - does seem to

Re: /usrmove? -> about the future

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: > Dammit.  I knew I was doing something wrong.  I'd better set those > machines on fire. youtube video or it didnt happen. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: /usrmove? -> about the future

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Jon Ciesla wrote: > I've been yum upgrading since FC1.  I didn't see that.  I was also > running a mysql server. Maybe you should file a bug report noting that yum upgrade worked for you. I personally think that is a bug. unsupported workflows should be broken fo

Re: /usrmove? -> about the future

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > no i can not because it is a one-shot thing to do "yum distro-sync" and so i > had no time for a bugrport while other more important things like mysqld were > horrible broken Let me strongly suggest, that unfiled problems will never get fixe

Re: /usrmove? -> about the future

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Dan Williams wrote: > In any case, badmouthing systemd for an upgrade bug where it actually > works fine *when you're really running F15* doesn't seem right.  I > wouldn't have had this problem if it'd installed off the Live CD or done > a fresh install. Shrug, I

Re: /usrmove? -> about the future

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > F15 was the first Linux i saw where "reboot" did not > work until you typed "kill 1" while praying! Can you point me to a bug report from you or anyone else that has been confirmed by at least one other person? I personally didn't experienc

Re: /usrmove?

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 4:01 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Personally, I think f16 was a very stable boring release. > There were rough spots, but there always are. I'm still pretty sure we are doing better introducing subsystem transitions now than the pain of the initial udev transition way back in t

Re: /usrmove?

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 12:49 -0900, Jef Spaleta wrote: >> And in this scope. Inability to upgrade would be such a Beta blocker, >> methinks. > > Sure. But the above doesn't mean that beta and final blockers sh

Re: /usrmove?

On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 at 12:46 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > "The objectives of the Alpha release are to: > >    Publicly release installable media versions of a feature complete > test release >    Test accepted features of Fedora 17 >    Identify as many F17Beta blocker bugs as possible >    Identi

Re: filesystem

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 5:10 PM, darrell pfeifer wrote: > If you continue to repeat the "eating babies" myth then it will become > self-fulfilling. I would humbly suggest that use of future tense is that sentence is overly optimistic and is misleading. I think that sentence above reads more accura

Re: Rolling release Fedora - fantastic idea

On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Noah Hall wrote: > Fuduntu Dev here. One question for you with your Fuduntu Dev hat on. Is Fuduntu is still using a Gnome 2 derived desktop experience? Assuming that is true. And please correct me if it is not. Can you point me to any documentation or any arch

Re: UsrMove feature breaking "yum upgrade" upgrades from older releases to F17?

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > if you finally want have /bin as symlink forever this whole > change is only wasted time and makes no sense at all If you haven't read the new summary write-up on the benefits of the /user feature that I think you would benefit from reading

Re: Unity For Fedora (As in OpenSUSE or Arch)

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:59 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jef Spaleta wrote: >> required patches to gtk and core gnome components that are not >> acceptable to upstream are basically a non-starter. > > Well, we could do what openSUSE did and just ship this in an unofficial re

Re: Unity For Fedora (As in OpenSUSE or Arch)

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Lars Seipel wrote: > The last I heard from the Arch packaging efforts was that Unity won't be an > officially supported package until it no longer depends on non-upstream > patches > to GTK+ and friends. > > The same seems to be true for OpenSuse: >> Since we're r

Re: The question of rolling release?

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > Hardware specific regressions aren't that rare. I have run into them > several times. I have had problems with disk controllers, USB flash > drives and video cards. Sometimes there are work arounds (e.g. using > nomodeset or disabling AGP),

Re: The question of rolling release?

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Nathanael Noblet wrote: > So far I've seen lots of discussion about can we do it, but no proposal nor > any real set of why it would be better. Does it reduce packaging work? Does > it do X Y Z? Why would I *want* a rolling release? So far I'm not thrilled with w

Re: The question of rolling release?

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:13 AM, mike cloaked wrote: > So how did Arch Linux cope with that particular set of changes?  I > suppose Arch Linux collapsed never to recover?  I think not! It would behoove the argument you are making if you could write up the summary of how Arch handles technology s

Re: Changing kernel API / Breaking VirtualBox - update criteria violation?

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > nonsense > > they HAD the manpower to do this rebuilds for so.114 to so.115 > so WTF why they jumping to a outdated version instead so.119? > > doing such nonsense and after that whine about to few manpower > is a little bit strange - the reb

Re: P2P Packaging/Koji Cloud

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:12 AM, seth vidal wrote: > Bandwidth is the big concern for the end user here and then the other > issue is  - is all of this worth it for building pkgs? I don't think it > is, personally, pkg building is not that huge of a hit, afaict to > getting things done. +1 as a c

Re: mock deletes logs on successful package build?

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > Hi, > > Weirdly I am seeing that mock (1.1.18 on a rhel 6 machine) is now > deleting the logs if a package rebuilds successfully. The logs are not > deleted if the package fails to complete building. I've looked at the > man page and can'

Re: Changing kernel API / Breaking VirtualBox - update criteria violation?

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:07 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > that is not the point You are missing the point as well. Regardless of whether or not you have a valid gripe about rpmfusion's volunteer effort... this is absolutely not the place to voice your concerns. It is very much off topic here on th

Re: Dropping the ownership model

2011/11/22 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" : > What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current > package ownership model? I can't speak for anyone else. But for me I'm more than willing to see other contributors work with me to fix things in packages that I "own." I'll even take the hea

Re: Review beg (netcdf libs)

Yikes. I'll try real real hard to do this tonight after I get home if noone beats me to it. -jef On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Not sure I have time to do a swap, but I need the following reviews done: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=742605 - netcdf-cxx

Re: Heads Up: FESCo is considering to block packages providing sysvinit services without systemd unit

On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote: > Eventual blocking of the packages that violate this Fedora packaging > rule was not yet definitively decided upon, but we agreed that the > Fedora package maintainers should be warned that such blocking might > happen before the Fedora 17 Alpha

Re: F17 heads up: gnome-shell for everyone!

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Shipping bug-free software is the job of maintainers. It's reasonable to > ask a reporter to take an issue upstream if you feel that that'll result > in the bug being fixed faster, but there's no reason to mandate that and > it certainly doe

Re: systemd - standard place to run stuff after the network is up?

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > The problem is mostly integration with networked apps, which are either > of the 'network can be up or not, if it's up always do foo' kind, or the > 'can manage multiple networks, but expects all of them to exist at > startup'. There is a d

Re: systemd - standard place to run stuff after the network is up?

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > On anything more complex a new connexion will usually be established in > addition to the existing ones, and will have a specific pre-set > configuration. For example, a port can be dedicated to guest systems, or > communication with speci

Re: systemd - standard place to run stuff after the network is up?

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > No, it's an attempt to explain a general concept and not to point the > finger at anyone. Because as soon as you provide specifics, someone will > feel offended, get defensive, and refuse to listen to the general > message. I'd honestly l

Re: openSUSE announces release of openqa

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 8:12 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > (If someone suggests putting an OCR in the loop I'm going to get my > gun. :>) And I'll make sure that I grab my pumped up kicks so I have a marginally better chance to run faster than your bullets. -jef"why is _that_ song stuck in my hea

Re: Taking a two-week holiday

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 3:56 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 09:19:19PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > Thanks Jussi.  For your and other contributors' reference, we have a > [[Vacation]] wiki page where this information can be added as well.  I > took the liberty of inserting J

Re: Subject: IMPORTANT: Mandatory password and ssh key change by 2011-11-30

On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: > I've looked a little at monkeysphere this morning and it looks > interesting.  It'd be nice if at least the FI folks could publish the > host keys for the Fedora systems using monkeysphere.  I plan on giving > monkeysphere a good trial here.

Re: Subject: IMPORTANT: Mandatory password and ssh key change by 2011-11-30

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:43 PM, drago01 wrote: > There are people that use their keys for more than one machine. You > people make it sound like it is so easy to change keys. > It is *NOT* PERIOD. Well if fedora infrastructure asked us to use gpg keys for ssh auth, and we all used gpg subkey cr

Re: Why EDID is not trustworthy for DPI

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Obviously you embed radar in every projector. Quite possible to do with existing off the shelf ultrasonic or diode laser telemetry being used for DYI robotic range finding. In fact you can get ones that use i2c for data acquisition.I could

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:56 AM, Kay Sievers wrote: > There is no general rule, but anything that calls 'udevadm settle' is > suspicious and should be carefully checked if it does not rely on > assumptions which just bet on luck and can't reliably work in hotplug > setups. Kay, Is there a general

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:22 AM, JB wrote: > Here it is. No..that's not it.. that is the starting point necessary to understand the udev differences between the two systems. It is not a dissection. To understand what is happening with udev across those systems you have to look really close at the

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > So essentially all that's going on here is 'wait for udev to be done', > which is a fairly sensible prerequisite for all manner of other bits of > boot. > > The reasons why udev takes a while to be 'done' are more interesting and > Lennart w

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM, JB wrote: >  13837ms udev-settle.service >  11392ms plymouth-start.service if you use the plot option instead of blame option and produce the svg of the service timing you get a better feel for what Lennart was talking about with regard to the udev settle being pr

Re: Fedora 16 beta vice Knoppix

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:32 PM, JB wrote: > Let me append "The Blame Game". > # systemd-analyze blame >  32983ms livesys.service >  22828ms NetworkManager.service That timing for NM is so vastly different than what I'm seeing on my installed F15 system. I am intrigued. -jef -- devel mailing lis

Re: GNOME 3 - font point sizes now scaled?

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > Or > http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/gnome-settings-daemon/branches/gnome-2-24/plugins/xsettings/gsd-xsettings-manager.c?view=markup#249 > (line 249)? I'm not sure that's relevant for the current codebase. But even so if you look at 73-75 the h

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: > - Original Message - >> I'm >> just trying to test how well zif handles the multple provider case >> and understand how it makes the judgment on what is installed. > > There's probably a pretty strong argument to be made that if packa

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 7:10 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > (And besides, your example is about the worst you could pick, since if > somebody is skilled enough with package management to remove the PackageKit > frontend, surely he or she knows what to do if zif wants to pick the wrong > one. ;-) Real

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I hope the above helps answer your question. I can install the RC2 > with a minimal install if that would help any. > > Almost what I wanted :-> But appreciated. What you have asked Is a related question. What do you get if you have

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:25 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > What do you want me to do to try and test it more? Install some KDE items? > > Remove the gnome DE stack entirely install the KDE stack, make sure kpackagekit is not installed and run it again. kpackagekit is probably going to be inst

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 1:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Jef Spaleta wrote: > > Kevin, were you able to reproduce my problem with the official adobe > > repository? > > To be honest, I haven't tried it, I've been busy enough filing the bugs for > the issues I fo

Re: Zif backport repository for F15 available for testing

On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:48 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > I hope we can get all the annoyances in zif sorted out soon. > > Kevin, were you able to reproduce my problem with the official adobe repository? I'm still not sure if my multiple issues with zif depsolving are a problem with my system specif

Re: how to have yum prefer one dependency over others

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: > Can you open a ticket on Red Hat bugzilla please, component "zif" and > attach the output of "zif install paprefs -v" > I've not tested zif on F15 in a lng time and it's probably just a > trivial bug. Thanks. > > Filed : Bug 739701

Re: grub / grub2 conflicts

On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Doug Ledford wrote: > Like I said, not true. The grub package is designed to be updateable > without requiring an mbr reinstall. What's more is I had a look at the > stage1.[hS] files in the grub shipped in FC-1 and RHEL-5, and just like I > said, they are inde

Re: how to have yum prefer one dependency over others

On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Richard Hughes wrote: > > Naa, try the version of zif in F16, or grab the latest upstream SRPM > > and rebuild it for f15 from here: > > http://people.freedesktop.org/~hughsient/fedora/15/SRPMS/ > > I submitted a Koji scratch build of zif-0.2.

Re: how to have yum prefer one dependency over others

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote: > But putting that aside for a minute. I'm interested in asking zif a series > of more complicated real world Fedora repository questions to get a better > understanding how your chosen scoring rules currently work in practi

Re: how to have yum prefer one dependency over others

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 16 September 2011 20:46, Jef Spaleta wrote: > >> Are you sure you didn't cut it down so much that you are hiding problems > >> that your depsolving rules don't solve well? Did you throw out >

Re: how to have yum prefer one dependency over others

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: > > > I'm assuming you've done this already. are there particular test > > transactions where yum comes up with a different solution than zif using > > your cutdown repodata that you would like to draw my attention to? > > No, I've not, but I

  1   2   >