Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 13:45 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>>> current karma next to each push request? Or maybe Bodhi could be
>>> configured to automatically cancel stable requests when the karma drops
>>> below 0?
>>
>> I can look at doing this on the client side for pushes.
Chen Lei wrote:
> Andrea Musuruane wrote:
>
>> On F-12/x86_64:
>> [snip]
>> swami-0:0.9.4-6.fc12.x86_64
>>
>> It seems to me that removing gtk+ won't be an easy task :(
>
> Most of those applications are replaced, e.g. xmms2 for xmms, putty(svn)
> for putty 0.60, since it's already done by some ot
Juha Tuomala wrote:
> They've modified the bugzilla way too much and thus logged in users
> cannot for example change version or component which causes that
> there is way too much of entries that would need some kind of manual
> work and they lack the manpower to do that.
>[...]
> They do give the
Till Maas wrote:
> Also it would be nice to provide hardware testing feedback, e.g. for Xorg
> updates to say "Works with nouveau, Geforce XY, using VGA out and XV",
> which then shows that e.g. 3D support, DVI out or multi screen support
> was not tested.
That sounds like a social problem, or at
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> Here is where we have a definition problem. To me, unbaked stuff is
>> things that haven't had a good month of testing if its a large change
>> (a couple of days if its a small one).
>
> If you count all the testing done on prereleases, KDE 4.4.0
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> But that high-impact bugs in some Fedora Updates have slipped
> through, because their package maintainers had been willing to take
> the risk, and that has prompted some people to try to change that
> part of Fedora.
That's *exactly* what I am afraid of... that Fedora is
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
> what we want to encourage?
I'm going to hazard a guess and say "all of them". It's basic
psychology; people don't do things that have no (perceived) benefit to
them. At most ephemeral, that benefit
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:14 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> [...]
>
> There is clearly no reason to continue this conversation with you Kevin.
> We are just going to disagree.
That's what's really sad to me. Despite that the only "hard" evidence we
have seems to agree with wh
Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
>>> to those users, can go start their own project.
>>
>> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users?
>
> Pro
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 15:31:26 -0600,
>Matthew Woehlke<> wrote:
I'd ask you not to do that, but you've been quite clear you've no
intention of listening.
>> Ubuntu's method satisfies more users, that is why they use Ubunt
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/13/2010 03:01 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>
>> Maybe by chasing "stable" you will find more users, but I think you will
>> lose adventurous users in the doing. I also think that the sort of user
>> you are likely to pi^H^
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
>> similar distro isn't for them.
>
> I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
> working out a method that satisfies more users.
U
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/11/2010 11:00 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>
>> I tried to send you a reply, but it bounced; gmail says the address you
>> gave does not exist.
>>
>
> I got the mail. Thanks.
Yes, sorry. Must not have read the bounce close enough; I
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/11/2010 02:14 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>
>> Can you leave bodhi feedback with an FAS account if you haven't signed a
>> CLA? (The thing about FAS accounts I am not crazy about is the CLA. What
>> about using a bugzilla account inst
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> as long as you require only a few 32-bit packages, requesting them
> explicitly is not the end of the world. So if we were to drop support
> for that "always install all libs as multilibs" option
Eh? I didn't even know there was such an option. And I agree, /that/
should be
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
>>> Also thanks for packaging that immediately -- what about installing it
>>> by default? It's a tiny package and we really do want our users to
>>> provide feedback.
>>
>> I do not mind, if it is installed by default, but I am not su
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:30:05 -0600, Matthew wrote:
>> Probably because
>> I need multilib and have never experienced multilib-related problems (or
>> if I have, they were so trivial as to be thoroughly forgettable).
>
> Just out of interest, does enabling a separate 32-bit
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:29:42 -0600, Matthew wrote:
>
>>> There are just too many -devel packages and their dependencies to be ever
>>> relevant to someone for multi-arch installs. Far more users install i686 on
>>> 64-bit CPUs, and I have doubts that x86_64 installation us
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> You forget people developing proprietary software...
>>
>> Why would we want to encourage or even support that?
>
> I don't expect Fedora to encourage it (nor should we, IMO)...
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> You forget people developing proprietary software...
>
> Why would we want to encourage or even support that?
I don't expect Fedora to encourage it (nor should we, IMO)... but that
doesn't change the reality of $DAYJOB. If
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> There are just too many -devel packages and their dependencies to be ever
> relevant to someone for multi-arch installs. Far more users install i686 on
> 64-bit CPUs, and I have doubts that x86_64 installation users do much
> development with i686 packages. At most they in
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> As I had expected, breaking up the monolithic
> packages into individual packages is a whole lot
> of unnecessary work. Better to provide releases
> as they occur, than to waste time unnecessarily
> breaking down the monolithic packages. To what
> end and benefit? Who,
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
>> Such as? We're filling a niche, this is one of our unique selling points,
>> you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater!
>
> Who is this "we" you keep speaking of? When did huge dumps of updates
> in supposedly stable releases be
James Antill wrote:
> I think I'm starting to see a pattern here:
>
> . Kevin doesn't use DVD updates, so anything that needlessly breaks DVD
> updates is fine because DVD updates are worthless.
DVD updates are by definition broken, unless you have never run updates
on your previous system.
>
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 02:11 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> You and everyone else, please stop proposing Rawhide as the solution for me
>> and people who want the same "update everything that doesn't break things"
>> policy, it does NOT fit our usecase at all!
>
> If you don't
Doug Ledford wrote:
> One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
> simplistic for real use cases. Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there
> should be:
>
> Fixes my problem
> Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
> problem supposedly fixed by this u
Björn Persson wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> 1. upgrades which disrupt, regress or break things. Those can only be
>> pushed to Rawhide, if at all.
>
> Such as KDE 4.4, just to pick a recent example. I had to log out and log in
> again before I could start Kmail again. That can be quite disruptive
James Antill wrote:
> The current state of play is (taking a random kde example):
>
> kdeutils F11 GA 4.2.2-4.fc11
> kdeutils F11 Updates 4.4.0-1.fc11
> kdeutils F12 GA 4.3.2-1.fc12
> kdeutils F12 Updates 4.4.0-1.fc12
>
> ...so if someone tries to update from F11 (with updates) using an F
Tim Waugh wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-02-15 at 12:10 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> That's correct. This is frankly a 'realistic' decision, on the basis
>> that the PackageKit maintainer believes updating packages should be
>> allowed for a regular user by default and intends to implement this, and
>>
Charley Wang wrote:
> The details behind what this feature will do, along with how to
> get failing packages to build can be found here :
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UnderstandingDSOLinkChange
"a program that links with libxml2 and uses dlopen may not link with libdl"
Nothing forbids linking
30 matches
Mail list logo
