Subject changed ;-)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 05/09/2010 01:45 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> lets go over a couple of things to help lower the grumpiness of others.
A good summary which shows care and thoughtfulness - please add also
the question:
4) For servers (distinct from the desktop use case) - which would be
the better c
On 05/09/2010 06:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm tempted to agree in practice with Matej that it is. I don't think we
> can kid ourselves that we're doing a particularly good job of making a
> desktop for end users; if we were, we wouldn't be being trashed by
> Ubuntu in this area (let alone O
On 05/05/2010 09:35 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> With the latest improvements in the chrony package related to
> NetworkManager and name resolving I think it is now good enough to
> replace ntpd in the default configuration and the configurations
> supported by system-config-date.
>
Strong NO v
On 04/27/2010 05:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The OP had an issue w. thunderbird - which many find to be a pretty
decent mail client.
This thread has morphed ...
As for Firefox, I'd actually prefer to put fedora effort behind
chromium - google-chrome is an order of magnitude better than fir
On 04/25/2010 07:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> The upstream version has that bug too, they just don't care about it enough
> to release a fixed version in a timely manner.
OH - FYI, I am running upstream and I don't have that problem ... can
disconnect the network all i want .. no crash.
--
On 04/25/2010 06:21 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Can someone explain why the fedora version has a bug which upstream
version does not ? Or am I missing something ?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 04/25/2010 01:37 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
> I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visibility and
> importance of the Firefox and Fedora brands... nobody knows what Fedora
> is, while most computer users will have at least heard about Firefox.
>
>
Agreed a fortiori - in fact
On 04/22/2010 08:30 PM, John Poelstra wrote:
> An unofficial patched version would be better than the current situation.
>
> John
FWIW - I use the nightly builds from mozilla.org .. no crashes at all
with 3.1 nightly - be aware if you use enigmail, that versions after the
4/05 build do not wor
On 04/09/2010 09:42 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
ignored from then on?
>
> Depends on your laptop. There seem to be two major varieties.
>
> One is where there's a BIOS option and you can pick. Your options will
> typically be "integrated" (where we'll pick intel), "discrete" (where
> we'll pick no
On 04/08/2010 08:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 08:27:12PM -0400, Mail Lists wrote:
>> On 04/07/2010 08:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> Well, I would think that if you boot with the Intel adapter active, it
>>> wouldn't power up the N
On 04/07/2010 08:21 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 20:10 -0400, Mail Lists wrote:
>> On 04/07/2010 01:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 13:12 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Ah, wasn't aware of that. Tha
On 04/07/2010 01:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-04-07 at 13:12 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> Ah, wasn't aware of that. Thanks.
Also I think without the switcheroo the power consumption may be a lot
higher (rumor- is that true ?) - lowering power consumption on the
unused card may
I just got an Asus UL30vt which has dual graphics (onbaord intel and
nvidia) - I am aware of some work by Dave Airlie in this area -
Anyone share the status of whether this might be usable (via cli or
other) in f13 (or f12 for that matter!)
Thanks!
gene
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fed
I like fedora beacause it is both up to date and stable.
I also am admin for a several non tech users - and frankly if there is
an Aunt Tilly out there using fedora she never installed it - one of us
did - and we maintain it - and we speak for Aunt Tilly.
And if you ask Aunt Tilly - certai
. I am, in my view, a competent administrator as well.
I believe, as a competent admin, I am capable of choosing how to
manage my computers and which ones I need to be more cautious with etc.
That said, I believe I these 'fedora' tinkerers - thos who read the
mail lists etc are not
On 03/07/2010 04:41 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> This is my last email on this topic. Please hold me to that.
>
> -Mike
Sorry - missed that - what did you say ? :-)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 03/07/2010 03:39 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Very well, I retract badly worded and insert "not useful". But hey, it's
> generated more email right?
>
> -Mike
"Newer and less stable" - using your words - is way more leading (and
totally false) than what Adam did ...
polls can certai
On 03/07/2010 12:43 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> No but I have been on that list for five years and follow a lot more
I've been with it since early redhat days ...
First, may I suggest we not confuse version N-1 and assumtion of
stability. That is way too simplistic. Sometimes the best path t
On 02/28/2010 06:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>> There has been a draft a while ago which did not result into much
>> discussion ..
>>
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Desktop/Whiteboards/UpdateExperience
>>
>> Which looks pretty sane to me.
>
> It looks very insane to me:
> * only
On 02/27/2010 01:23 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Why wouldn't you want try the koji version if you were willing to try an
> updates-testing version? If it doesn't work for you, you boot the previous
> kernel, pretty much the same as when there is a bad test version.
Me ? I am running koji vers
On 02/27/2010 12:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:30:52 -0500,
> Mail Lists wrote:
>>
>> [speaking of which where on earth is 2.6.32.9 ]
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=158902
Thank you .. but I really meant whe
On 02/27/2010 12:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:30:52 -0500,
> Mail Lists wrote:
>>
>> [speaking of which where on earth is 2.6.32.9 ]
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=158902
>
> And if you want t
On 02/27/2010 10:38 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> in today. Next time a user tells you "I want a newer X" tell them
> "Upgrade to rawhide".
>
> -Mike
In my opinion rawhide is NOT a rolling release at all. Please stop
telling people to use rawhide as a rolling release. it isnt.
--
devel m
On 02/27/2010 11:27 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 10:57 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> Yeah, it's not perfect: there are cases where we have, say, a complex
> kernel update which works fine for most people but causes a significant
> regression for some particular bit of hardw
On 02/27/2010 03:13 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:52 AM, James Antill wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 01:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> My point is that there are plenty of users who want the current updates or
>>> even more updates.
>>
>> "Citation needed"
>>
>
> Just
On 02/15/2010 09:12 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 11:25:03 +0100,
> Roberto Ragusa wrote:
>>
>> The obvious way to call something which is not 13, but is something
>> a little less than 13 is 12.9, but I agree with you that it would be better
>> to have 13 in the name inst
On 02/14/2010 10:52 AM, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Rawhide - Rawhide dir as we know it
> Tanning - Devel branch for next release, in this case 13
> Leather - Official release path, in this case, 12.
>
> That's the basic process of creating leather, so why not go with it
> (minus leather if want to)?
On 02/14/2010 11:24 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> How do you easily answer the question "What state is Fedora 13 in right
> now?"
>
> We can say "It's in rawhide still", we can say "It's released", what we
> don't have is what it is between those two. We could potentially use
> "It's in Alpha, it's
On 02/13/2010 01:34 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 11:07 -0500, Mail Lists wrote:
> "Pre" or "Prerelease" was the name we used to use for Beta, so that's
> not saving any confusion there :/
>
Ok - how about 13-dev ... or 13-frontier .. o
On 02/13/2010 10:48 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 21:18 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Why not just call it 13 now, and 14 next time, and so on? It doesn't
>> really need to have its own name that's always the same...
>
How about call it 13pre ... keep it simple and what it
On 02/10/2010 08:00 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
>
> Meh.
>
> If you insist on putting out major updates for released Fedoras it
> will never a good time to do a re-spin. Oh well.
>
I find it simpler to build my own spin anyway using mock/pungi - its
very simple - simpler in my view than dealing wi
On 02/06/2010 03:50 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
rt. ;(
>
> So, I think we need a fixed kernel in updates-testing and wait a bit
> before pushing this to stable, IMHO.
>
> kevin
>
Surely you're not suggesting holding up a decent kernel from going to
stable while waiting for Abrt ?
--
devel maili
On 01/30/2010 05:37 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
> Maybe but I agree with Braden: I don't think it's worth it. Seems like
> a lot of extra work for not a lot of gain.
>
I much prefer chrome and use it preferentially now anyway ... I'd
prefer we put any broswer related energy into chromium - it is alre
On 01/30/2010 02:54 PM, Mat Booth wrote:
> Well there's the Java and Totem plugins at least, but there's a whole
> slew of apps in Fedora that build against xulrunner:
I think we need to use sun java as green tea is not yet on new api
anyway is it?
>
> repoquery --whatrequires --alldeps xulru
On 01/30/2010 01:53 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 11:36 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Braden McDaniel wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 2010-01-30 at 14:48 +0800, Liu Yu Fei Eric wrote:
Hi,
I noticed firefox was stuck on 3.5.6 for a rather long time.
What about 3.5.7 and
On 01/17/2010 01:20 PM, Tony Nelson wrote:
> Apparently Linux has no mini-dump facility, so the upload of the whole
> core dump file would be onerous as well.
>
I'd still bet a core file is smaller than the 60 - 100 debug packages
(per crashing app) I need before I can send a trace back.
--
On 01/17/2010 11:57 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 17.01.2010, 15:53 +0100 schrieb Jiri Moskovcak:
>> On 01/16/2010 04:01 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>>
>> I'm open to any ideas how to improve this.
Someone else asked this earlier - but why do users need the debug-info
packages
38 matches
Mail list logo
