Re: F35 Change: Drop the the "Allow SSH root login with password" option from the installer GUI (Self-Contained Change proposal)

2021-05-15 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Friday, 14 May 2021 14:25:26 EEST PGNet Dev wrote: > On 5/14/21 2:05 AM, Juha Tuomala wrote: > > Sure. But this is devel list. Are developers themselves the target > > audience? > > > :) Hopefully not. Is it defined somewhere? > and, yes, 'developers themsel

Re: F35 Change: Drop the the "Allow SSH root login with password" option from the installer GUI (Self-Contained Change proposal)

2021-05-13 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Thursday, 13 May 2021 18:50:33 EEST PGNet Dev wrote: > On 5/13/21 10:48 AM, Juha Tuomala wrote: > > Virtual machine installation is hopefully a special use case and majority > > of installations are bare metal end users. > > hardly. > > here, Sure. But this is

Re: F35 Change: Drop the the "Allow SSH root login with password" option from the installer GUI (Self-Contained Change proposal)

2021-05-13 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Thursday, 13 May 2021 15:11:19 EEST Roberto Ragusa wrote: > > Make a plugin interface for adding additional methods to obtain public > > keys as there are a lot different sources for those. Fedora itself has > > tools for PKI and public key based security and it would be quite low > > hanging f

Re: F35 Change: Drop the the "Allow SSH root login with password" option from the installer GUI (Self-Contained Change proposal)

2021-05-13 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Wednesday, 12 May 2021 23:35:44 EEST Ben Cotton wrote: > * it has been suggested that making it easier to import SSH keys from > popular code hosting platforms (Pagure, GitHub, GitLab, etc.) could > provide a nice alternative to the dropped option - Make a plugin interface for adding additiona

Re: Starting Java SIG

2010-09-02 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Alexander Kurtakov wrote: > * AutoQA - QA guys are struggling with their effort to get their stuff running > from Fedora packages (shame on us if we can't make our own stuff run from our > packages) > * Name it :) At my work, first thing that happens with Java is that Openj

Voting in bugzilla

2010-09-02 Thread Juha Tuomala
Has it been disabled recently? Tuju -- I couldn't repair your brakes, so I made your horn louder. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

2010-04-15 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Rex Dieter wrote: > are a lot of other packages and issues and bugs involved here. Reverting > even part or all as you suggest would have far bigger bad consequences than > helping That's what I thought, it's not just a matter of yumming older stuff back. Secondly, major

Re: Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

2010-04-13 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Ryan Rix wrote: > On Mon 12 April 2010 6:40:59 am Juha Tuomala wrote: >> I recall, that the earlier version had some level of Akonadi support >> as well, so in theory, would it be possible to revert the codebase >> back to the one that can actually b

Reverting kaddressbook back to previous version?

2010-04-12 Thread Juha Tuomala
I feel that the current re-written version of kaddressbook is completely useless for daily work and it was a serious mistake to push it into stable release. I recall, that the earlier version had some level of Akonadi support as well, so in theory, would it be possible to revert the codebase ba

Re: Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

2010-03-31 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Why would I want to clone a bz ticket if I did not want to fix the > bug in anything other than Rawhide? Because it's a database of release's bugs, not a todo list? I could be wrong of course, please correct me if I am. Considering that existing

Re: Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

2010-03-31 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > No. I'm asking for you to clarify that you feel clone is appropriate > for wide spread use for the specific situation I'm commenting on. We > are very much stuck in a trap of designing our workflow to fit the > tools we have, instead of designing our t

Re: Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

2010-03-31 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > Are you saying that we should all clone every report that we all would > normally close as fixed rawhide? Are you saying, that everyone facing that bug, should search from every release if that has been handled somewhere else other than the product i

Re: Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

2010-03-31 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > Unfortunately our ticketing tool doesn't do a great job at this, as we > can't take one ticket and mark multiple release branches it affects > and which of those release branches the fix is provided. that's why there is 'clone' functionality. Use it.

Re: Upstream bugs vs. Fedora bugs: KDE people do it wrong

2010-03-31 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Tue, 30 Mar 2010, Linuxguy123 wrote: > On Mon, 2010-03-29 at 13:09 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: >> I am irritated by the way the KDE SIG and the KDE bugzappers handle >> bugs. For most bugs that are reported they demand the reporter to file >> an upstream bug report at bugs.kde.org and set

Re: Akonadi's unix sockets location

2010-03-16 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Rex Dieter wrote: >> Symlinks are duct-tape, why not just set it to /tmp with >> global rc file? > > Sure, but still need to encode username into the filename (or randomize/uniq > it) somehow. Could that be it: http://techbase.kde.org/KDE_System_Administration/Configu

Re: Akonadi's unix sockets location

2010-03-16 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Tue, 16 Mar 2010, Rex Dieter wrote: >> How about setting that as default, away from $HOME that can be a NFS >> filesystem? > > Indeed, a solution similar to kde's > ~/.kde/socket- => /tmp/ksocket- > symlink is likely needed here too. Symlinks are duct-tape, why not just set it to /tmp with g

Akonadi's unix sockets location

2010-03-16 Thread Juha Tuomala
https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=179006#c5 > in the current version of Akonadi server you can specify a custom > socket path by entering > > [Connection] > SocketDirectory=/tmp/akonadi-myuser/ > > into $HOME/.config/akonadi/akonadiserverrc How about setting that as default, away from $HOM

Re: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

2010-03-12 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> RHEL has the resources to backport. Centos uses those backpotrs for >> free, but does not generate them (unless again the party supporting a >> component for Centos happens to be upstream in RHEL). > > Debian has historically managed this. I real

Re: Another great update

2010-03-08 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: >> Yes, it can get confusing. I think it was Kevin Kofler who suggested to >> talk about "feature releases" vs. "bugfix releases" instead >> to avoid confusion. > > Again you can't cut bugfixes from features :( Again, you can't cut regressions from fea

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

2010-03-04 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > Could you try to run it manually and paste log/output somewhere? > > akonadictl start Was it so that mysqld wants to communicate through fs sockets which does not work on NFS $HOME? [akonadiserver] Failed to use database "akonadi" [akonadiserver] D

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

2010-03-04 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: > What bugfix releases would we be supposed to push? There are no further > 4.3.x releases. Nothing, if that's the case. In case there is a major security hole and they only fix it in SCM and notify about it without making a release - I expect you to add

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

2010-03-04 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> That's why nobody can't enjoy the upstream's intended stability in bugfix >> releases and plan major upgrades. > > You keep saying that, yet you have provided no evidence of such a stance > from upstream. KDE upstream actually has no policy on what ver

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

2010-03-04 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Upstream has no policy about what kind of releases are to be provided as > updates, this is a distribution decision. They add features to own releases just for that reason, so downstreams and users could avoid such mess that has just happened. If you d

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

2010-03-04 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > will pick up that role (for KDE, kde-redhat stable would probably be > revived, currently it's mostly empty for Fedora as the kind of stuff > which would be in there is usually just pushed as official Fedora > updates). Go ah

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

2010-03-04 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: >> Go ahead, make that to your kde-hardcore-followers-repo. In my >> understanding, that's what it has been for past years already >> anyway. > > Third party repos are highway to hell unfortunately. Quite interesting statement from the KDE SIG who runs

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

2010-03-04 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: > current stable release nor support an official backports repo, an unofficial > one will no doubt spring up, or an existing unofficial repo will pick up > that role (for KDE, kde-redhat stable would probably be revived, currently > it's mostly empty for F

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

2010-03-04 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: > You mean the KDE stability proposal? As this is F11, i.e. "previous stable", > KDE 4.4 would actually not have been pushed to F11 under that proposal. How i read it, you would still push *one* feature release in the middle of stable release lifespan, r

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

2010-03-04 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: >>http://tuju.fi/fedora/11/kab-20100304.png >> >> looks like that some icons are also missing, but hard to judge >> as it wont start properly to interact with user. > > That's the problem of not running Akonadi - it's central PIM part of KDE. The f

Re: Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

2010-03-04 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Juha Tuomala wrote: > Then I tried to start kmail to start working. It starts, asks > passwords, whines something about Akonadi which i don't use and > then crashes/exists. Not to mention that kaddressbook which contains all my business contacts, is broken

Harmless KDE feature upgrades - yeah right

2010-03-04 Thread Juha Tuomala
Ironically it happened again, just now when these FESCO threads are still warm. My desktop gui processes leak enough mem that I need to restart couple times a week or system will run out of memory. Today I started with updating the F11 with yum. During the update, I noticed that it's pulling in

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

2010-03-03 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: > The strong argument is that KDE and Fedora release cycles are not in sync > and our users would thus have to wait months for the new KDE. As many have stated, not all people *want* those feature updates to stable release. By pushing them by force, you r

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

2010-03-03 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Chris Adams wrote: > By the same token, if you want rolling update releases, feel free to do > it in your own private repo. See how well that argument works? No i don't. I'm using a mainstream distribution and thus I expect to get them. Just like the upstream has intended t

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

2010-03-03 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> You're distorting the Fedora model to accommodate KDE roadmaps. > > No, this goes far beyond KDE. KDE roadmaps are just one strong argument for > doing things this way. Many more packages benefit or would benefit from > version upgrades during a releas

Re: Two FAS accounts for the same person - permitted?

2010-02-02 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Seth Vidal wrote: > You don't appear to be doing that. You seem to just be attempting the > 'gadfly' method of helping matters. I'd like you to remember what > result that achieved for Socrates. Whatever. I'm not interested in talking *about us* or getting personal, so let'

Re: Two FAS accounts for the same person - permitted?

2010-02-02 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Seth Vidal wrote: > Out of curiosity is your point to be antagonistic or are you actually trying > to improve things? If cleaning false assumptions and admitting that some areas are real problems - is improving, that's what I'm doing. > If it is just the former then you a

Re: Two FAS accounts for the same person - permitted?

2010-02-02 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Seth Vidal wrote: > And I'd suspect that intentionally entering into an agreement with knowingly > false information is a kind of Fraud in just about every country. Feel free to sue that 0 euros email-address, which provider doesn't know who uses it. Tuju -- Ajatteleva i

Re: Two FAS accounts for the same person - permitted?

2010-02-02 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote: > that but we're not going to make it easy for people to route round our > systems and procedures. I assure you, it's not a joke just because it's > not automatically detectable. And how does that happen? You don't know even *now* a) who am i b) am i wh

Re: Two FAS accounts for the same person - permitted?

2010-02-02 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote: > but we catch you doing it (and we have) and we'll do something about it. Just for curiosity, what? Prevent doing it again? How? Like said, it's a joke. Tuju -- Ajatteleva ihminen tarvitsee unta. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Two FAS accounts for the same person - permitted?

2010-02-02 Thread Juha Tuomala
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote: > Specifically: "Individuals using multiple accounts without prior written > approval will have all but one account terminated. " And what does that matter when everyone can create enough nick names and free email addresses to join Fedora? :) In security