Hi
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> I did discuss the idea with my manager (Denise Dumas, Director of Platform
> Engineering) to make sure she would support me in spending time developing
> it. She has promised (including to everyone at Flock) to provide resources
> wher
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:45:46PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I don't really have a problem in believing that but it would be useful to
> know in more detail how the initial proposals came to be (who were
> involved? what problems are we trying to solve? what are failures of the
> current mod
Le vendredi 08 novembre 2013 à 21:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :
> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Michael scherer wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:55:12PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Lennart Poettering
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, 07.11.13 20:09, Mil
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Michael scherer wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:55:12PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 07.11.13 20:09, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
>> >> Is there a technical reason why we can
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 08:37 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Michael scherer wrote:
> > SELinux is still pretty RH/Fedora specific,
> > even if Debian and gentoo support it in theory ( in practice, Debian didn't
> > seems to
> > support it that well ).
>
> Millions of Android devices now have
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:45:46PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> >
> > I'm still slightly out of sync with the fedora.next stuff (REALLY picked
> > a bad time to go on vacation), but it does seem to me that a decent
> > amount
Michael scherer wrote:
SELinux is still pretty RH/Fedora specific,
even if Debian and gentoo support it in theory ( in practice, Debian didn't
seems to
support it that well ).
Millions of Android devices now have SELinux. Android 4.3 enabled SELinux and
defaults to Permissive. Android 4.4 def
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:55:12PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 07.11.13 20:09, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
> >> Is there a technical reason why we can't use their packaging format,
> >> interpreting it with our t
tor 2013-11-07 klockan 09:14 + skrev Peter Robinson:
> I don't see many people forcing things through, I believe that the
> vast majority of contributors either like the change or aren't
> bothered by it.
Just so that my silence is not counted as approval. I disapprove.
Mattias
sm
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 16:58 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> > - [Florian Weimer wrote:] -
> >> "Wayland" and "systemd" strongly suggest no Ubuntu interoperability
> >> whatsoever. Shouldn't this be a top priority for bundled applications?
> >
> > If we get any trac
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 16:15 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 07.11.13 03:53, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote:
>
> > Olav Vitters wrote:
> > > AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
> > > is based upon systemd.
> >
> > That means it will excl
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:47:34 -0600
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Like repos.fedorapeople.org ?
>
> I don't have a beef with r.f.o. They're no different from hosting a
> repo on a personal server. The top of the root page even contains a
> disclaimer.
>
> > How on earth do
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 07.11.13 20:09, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
>> Is there a technical reason why we can't use their packaging format,
>> interpreting it with our technologies but staying compatible?
>
> Well, the most relevant bit is that
On Thu, 07.11.13 20:09, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 07.11.13 03:53, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote:
> >
> >> Olav Vitters wrote:
> >> > AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the dis
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 20:50:28 +0100
Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 08:57:06AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Which basically says that the working group is going to work on
> > that. There's actually 0 technical details on how the implemetation
> > will work out, or even if it will.
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:45:13PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Maybe that's because Coprs were never announced with huge rants about
> market-share and how Fedora packaging sucked and was irrelevant?
I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding what people are saying if you
think above. What I wrot
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 04:06:04PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Robinson wrote:
> > I don't see many people forcing things through, I believe that the vast
> > majority of contributors either like the change or aren't bothered by it.
>
> Ah, the "silent majority" hypothesis, always a fun arg
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 08:57:06AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Which basically says that the working group is going to work on that.
> There's actually 0 technical details on how the implemetation will work
> out, or even if it will.
http://www.superlectures.com/guadec2013/sandboxed-applications-
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Like repos.fedorapeople.org ?
I don't have a beef with r.f.o. They're no different from hosting a repo on a
personal server. The top of the root page even contains a disclaimer.
How on earth do you get to 'does away with them' ?
It's a Fedora infrastructure server build
On 11/05/2013 10:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 16:32 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 15:23 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-11-01 at 14:22
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 07.11.13 03:53, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote:
>
>> Olav Vitters wrote:
>> > AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
>> > is based upon systemd.
>>
>> That means it will exclude the m
Josh Boyer wrote:
> So if we call containerized apps "Appers"
The name "Apper" is already taken!
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> (My guess: Canonical will come up with their own Ubuntu App model requiring
> Ubuntu technologies
If you had read Lennart's previous reply to this thread, you'd be
aware that they already did.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> - [Florian Weimer wrote:] -
>> "Wayland" and "systemd" strongly suggest no Ubuntu interoperability
>> whatsoever. Shouldn't this be a top priority for bundled applications?
>
> If we get any traction on this, their customers/users will ask them for it
> themselves
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 09:06:43 -0600
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Everyone seems to think Coprs are
> > awesome, but they can be used for the same things you deride
> > containerized apps for.
>
> Please don't count me as "everyone."
>
> How is Coprs a benefit?
> -Allows eas
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:45:13 +0100
"Nicolas Mailhot" wrote:
...snip...
>
> It's not blinders it's the natural reaction of people to tactless
> pronouncements and dismissals. I do wish the people complaining about
> this list focused more on technical aspects and less on hype or
> we-ll-decide-som
Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:33:57AM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
>> 2013/11/7 Olav Vitters
>>
>> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> > > Olav Vitters wrote:
>> > > > AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the
>> > distribution
On Thu, 07.11.13 03:53, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote:
> Olav Vitters wrote:
> > AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
> > is based upon systemd.
>
> That means it will exclude the most popular distribution out there.
If you are referring to Ubunt
Hi
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Robinson wrote:
> > I don't see many people forcing things through, I believe that the vast
> > majority of contributors either like the change or aren't bothered by it.
>
> Ah, the "silent majority" hypothesis, always a fun argume
Josh Boyer wrote:
Everyone seems to think Coprs are
awesome, but they can be used for the same things you deride
containerized apps for.
Please don't count me as "everyone."
How is Coprs a benefit?
-Allows easy Fedora fragmentation. Why bother with package reviews ever again?
Were Ubuntu's PP
Peter Robinson wrote:
> I don't see many people forcing things through, I believe that the vast
> majority of contributors either like the change or aren't bothered by it.
Ah, the "silent majority" hypothesis, always a fun argument to bring (with
no evidence whatsoever) when one is clearly losing
nk Murphy"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2013 4:16:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation
>
> On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:24:20 -0400
> Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
>
> Will the other DE's still exist afte
Peter Robinson wrote:
> Just because you can't see a way to fix it doesn't mean its either
> unfixable or that there aren't people willing to step up to do so.
It's not that I can't see a way to fix it, it's that I can see that there is
no way! The whole system relies on bundling, so it is provab
Peter Robinson wrote:
I don't see many people forcing things through, I believe that the vast majority
of contributors either like the change or aren't bothered by it. There's
certainly no proof that it'll make anything worse. That doesn't mean its going
to be perfect or without teething problems
Le Jeu 7 novembre 2013 15:19, Josh Boyer a écrit :
> So if we call containerized apps "Appers" and host it somewhere on
> Fedora infrastructure and tell people about it, you'd be totally OK
> with that?
I think that would remove a lot of the emotion in this thread.
> People seem to already be
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
>
> Le Jeu 7 novembre 2013 14:57, Josh Boyer a écrit :
>
>> And yet, now we have Coprs. Which lets people easily upload
>> unreviewed, possibly bundled application SRPMs for easy distribution
>> outside of the main Fedora repos. Everyone see
Le Jeu 7 novembre 2013 14:57, Josh Boyer a écrit :
> And yet, now we have Coprs. Which lets people easily upload
> unreviewed, possibly bundled application SRPMs for easy distribution
> outside of the main Fedora repos. Everyone seems to think Coprs are
> awesome, but they can be used for the s
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
>
> Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 19:24, Josh Boyer a écrit :
>
>> I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the intense focus on a
>> new app packaging technology when the entire distro is making massive
>> changes to how it's produced.
>
> Be
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 12:58:37PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 11/06/2013 11:30 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> >On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:55:30PM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
> >>Has this "sanboxed-bundled-from-upstream" proposal been discussed with
> >>other distributions? If the final result i
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:45:29AM +, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:17:28 +0100
> Olav Vitters wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Olav Vitters wrote:
> > > > AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the
> > > > distrib
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 02:28:09PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> I fail to see the point of discussing non-GNOME-specific problems on a
> GNOME development list. A bit more logical to include people who actually
> work on non-GNOME software and don't want to discuss non-GNOME app
> distribution o
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:33:57AM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
> 2013/11/7 Olav Vitters
>
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Olav Vitters wrote:
> > > > AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the
> > distribution
> > > > is based upon systemd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/06/2013 10:12 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 01:13 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Simo Sorce wrote:
* and *ideally* I mean SELinux sanbdboxed with specific APIs that
must be used to interact with
Le Jeu 7 novembre 2013 11:17, Olav Vitters a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Olav Vitters wrote:
>> > AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the
>> distribution
>> > is based upon systemd.
>>
>> That means it will exclude the most popular
Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 19:24, Josh Boyer a écrit :
> I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the intense focus on a
> new app packaging technology when the entire distro is making massive
> changes to how it's produced.
Because all distributions can and do ship the same software and the
- Original Message -
> On 11/06/2013 11:30 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:55:30PM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
> >> Has this "sanboxed-bundled-from-upstream" proposal been discussed with
> >> other distributions? If the final result is that the "Universal Linux
> >>
On 11/06/2013 11:30 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:55:30PM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
Has this "sanboxed-bundled-from-upstream" proposal been discussed with
other distributions? If the final result is that the "Universal Linux
Package" only works in Fedora we are not gaini
Kevin,
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 04:12 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> So where's the strawman?
please stop with this.
Simo wrote a rather long email post and argued he's view on users'
freedom and all you did in reply was to nitpick on a footnote.
Or in Simo's words again:
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 23:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:17:28 +0100
Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Olav Vitters wrote:
> > > AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the
> > > distribution is based upon systemd.
> >
> > That means it will exclude the most po
2013/11/7 Olav Vitters
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Olav Vitters wrote:
> > > AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the
> distribution
> > > is based upon systemd.
> >
> > That means it will exclude the most popular distribution out there.
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:50:59AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Olav Vitters wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:00:16AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >> > Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on
> >> > the various bundling techniques that
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 04:01:09AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Well yes, each time you try to force a change through which actually makes
> things worse, there WILL be resistance. In fact, this is already what is
> happening in this thread, the "app" proposal coming from (parts of) the
> Workst
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Olav Vitters wrote:
> > AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
> > is based upon systemd.
>
> That means it will exclude the most popular distribution out there.
I fail to see the point of discussing
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:24:20 -0400
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
Will the other DE's still exist after "workstation"
Will a dev be able to use Xfce, Lxde as graphical choice.
What would encourage say an xubuntu dev //* devs are still users */
working on foo, to switch to "Fedora Wor
On 7 Nov 2013 03:20, "Kevin Kofler" wrote:
>
> Olav Vitters wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:00:16AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >> > Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on
> >> > the various bundling techniques that were explored an
On 7 Nov 2013 03:05, "Kevin Kofler" wrote:
>
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > What you say makes some sense. It also makes me very tired thinking
> > about the threads coming when the details start getting presented by
> > the WGs :). I guess that's what we've signed up for though.
>
> Well yes, each tim
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Olav Vitters wrote:
>> The definition given by Frank Murphy is totally different and doesn't
>> align with above. Above also doesn't relate to developers.
>
> These align a lot with what I wrote though. :-)
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/power
On Nov 6, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I don't believe in that at all. I think that the Free Software community is
> happy with the system as it stands now;
In my estimation, there's a better statistical chance you know what makes a
frog happy, than what the free software community
Hi
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> I don't believe in that at all. I think that the Free Software community is
> happy with the system as it stands now
>
Well you should speak for yourself instead of assuming that a large
community has only one view.. I think there is r
Adam Williamson wrote:
> It's not a clear calculation _at all_, and it's a pure counterfactual,
> so more or less impossible to determine with any certainty. An equally
> possible result is that fewer parties _relatively speaking_ have a
> strong interest in aiding distro packaging but more parties
Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:00:16AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> > Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on
>> > the various bundling techniques that were explored and the API/ABI
>> > guarantees we want to offer? I'll stop
Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 01:13 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Simo Sorce wrote:
>> > * and *ideally* I mean SELinux sanbdboxed with specific APIs that must
>> > be used to interact with the rest of the system, so that the
>> > application doesn't have free reign over users files.
>
Michael scherer wrote:
> PPA are populars, so does OBS. They are not perfect, but they work good
> enough for people ( and it seems good enough for us to replicate, despites
> PPAs being a time bomb, breaking Ubuntu upgrade in various way ).
Well, these ARE the way if you really need to ship somet
Josh Boyer wrote:
> What you say makes some sense. It also makes me very tired thinking
> about the threads coming when the details start getting presented by
> the WGs :). I guess that's what we've signed up for though.
Well yes, each time you try to force a change through which actually makes
Josh Boyer wrote:
> Isn't that very "let's try it and see what happens!" approach exactly
> what we're doing with Fedora.next?
I also have strong doubts that what you call "Fedora.next" is going to be of
any benefit to us. The existing system with the Spins and SIGs just worked,
what's the point
Olav Vitters wrote:
> AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
> is based upon systemd.
That means it will exclude the most popular distribution out there.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/ma
Olav Vitters wrote:
> The definition given by Frank Murphy is totally different and doesn't
> align with above. Above also doesn't relate to developers.
These align a lot with what I wrote though. :-)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/power_user
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_user
Kevin K
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> Application sandboxing/bundling is not mutually exclusive with a
> coherent system and with keeping control, it's just not an RPM as we
> know it. What we need to acknowledge is that delivering integral parts
> of the operating system and delivering third party apps are
> fund
Josh Boyer wrote:
> I don't think we need to force the same policy across all 3 products.
> I DO think we need to discuss adjusting the policy with the people
> that set the current policy though. That would be FESCo and the
> Board. I'm going to guess they have reasons for not allowing third
> p
Christian Schaller wrote:
> So it is item 3 that the PRD is addressing. An example here would be
> Google Chrome. Google provides a yum repo for Google Chrome for Fedora and
> Google stands behind Chrome legally, so if they also do the work of
> putting in an appdata file there we should figure out
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:55:30PM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
> Has this "sanboxed-bundled-from-upstream" proposal been discussed with
> other distributions? If the final result is that the "Universal Linux
> Package" only works in Fedora we are not gaining anything.
A lot of this is being base
2013/11/6 Olav Vitters
> If one will immediately solve it for multiple distributions, then the
> gain is immensely higher. An IMO, it is not about RPM vs another
> packaging format. To get into Fedora, you need an account, reviews, etc.
> It is a pretty long process.
>
Has this "sanboxed-bundled
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:26:48PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> places - _the_ distribution, _the_ app store, _the_ amazon.com. And
> the difficulty of getting a set of bits to amazon.com / an app store /
> a RPM is very similar.
If one will immediately solve it for multiple distributions, then
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 16:33 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 12:44 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Haven't read the whole thread yet, but in case it hasn't been said:
> >
> > "Build a way" would be great. I've said a few times that it'd be nice
> > for there to be a cross-distr
On 6 November 2013 15:14, Christian Schaller wrote:
> so if they also do the work of putting in an appdata file there...
Note, we can easily ship a google-chrome.appdata.xml file in the
fedora-appstream project. This has a quite a few appdata files for
important applications that are awaiting ups
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 13:24 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > In this situation what we should do is carefully consider the relative
>> > possibilities of the good, bad and mixed outcome
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 19:10 +0100, Michael scherer wrote:
> > > So if that's the problem, then the solution is to demonstrate the value
> > > of packaging and rpm rather than restricting all others alternatives.
> >
> > So to me this is the nub of the debate, and it's both fantastically
> > inte
Hi
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> I'm still slightly out of sync with the fedora.next stuff (REALLY picked
> a bad time to go on vacation), but it does seem to me that a decent
> amount of 'mature reflection' was done on it before it was approved, at
> least.
>
I don
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 13:24 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > In this situation what we should do is carefully consider the relative
> > possibilities of the good, bad and mixed outcomes with as much precision
> > as we can, and try to come up wi
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the intense focus on a
>> new app packaging technology when the entire distro is making massive
>> changes to how it's produced.
>
> I think
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 10:24:20AM -0400, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller
wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> Attached is the draft PRD for the Workstation working group. The
> proposal tries to be relatively high level and focus on goals and
> principles, but I have included some concrete examples at time
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the intense focus on a
> new app packaging technology when the entire distro is making massive
> changes to how it's produced.
I think the trouble here is that the Linux Apps proposal (which is
bei
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> This highlights a concern, not a "fatal flaw". The flaw IMO is within
> the distribution method.
No, the fatal flaw is that we don't really have an OS one can build
applications on: the ABI is unstable and insufficient. So the choices
are eit
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> In this situation what we should do is carefully consider the relative
> possibilities of the good, bad and mixed outcomes with as much precision
> as we can, and try to come up with a path forward which makes the
> likelihood of a good outc
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 23:50 +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
> > Le lundi 04 novembre 2013 à 21:02 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit :
> > >
> > > Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
> > > > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Christian Schaller
> wrote:
>>
>>> > I would actually like to go a little further, and make it easy to enable
>>> > 'clean' third-party repositories. If we imagine a future where e.g.
>>> > valve is hosting a
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 12:44 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Haven't read the whole thread yet, but in case it hasn't been said:
>
> "Build a way" would be great. I've said a few times that it'd be nice
> for there to be a cross-distro framework for third-party app
> distribution.
>
> "Promote as
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Christian Schaller wrote:
>
>> > I would actually like to go a little further, and make it easy to enable
>> > 'clean' third-party repositories. If we imagine a future where e.g.
>> > valve is hosting a repository with their steam client, or say, the
>> > chromium
> > I would actually like to go a little further, and make it easy to enable
> > 'clean' third-party repositories. If we imagine a future where e.g.
> > valve is hosting a repository with their steam client, or say, the
> > chromium web browser is available from the a fedora people page, I would
>
> >> So sure, we can have software that will pull things in if the user has
> >> done some manual intervention. We just cant, currently, do that thing
> >> for them.
> >
> > Right, that's exactly what I was saying. I just think this is all the
> > _original poster_ was talking about, not any kind
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:35:59AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I think users will not understand why all the vendor repositories with non-
> free crap are there and the stuff they are actually looking for is not.
Whether or not proprietary is crap or not is offtopic.
--
Regards,
Olav
--
devel
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:25:29AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> But many of those concerns are inherent to the concept of "sandboxed
> applications" or the methods of delivery they'd enable and cannot possibly
> be addressed, ever. The whole concept is fatally flawed.
I'd suggest trying a differ
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> So let me step into my handy Tardis and bring back a vignette from the
> Real World after Fedora and other distributions bless upstream app
> distribution as a preferred channel:
Could you give some practical programs which are imp
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:00:16AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on the
> > various bundling techniques that were explored and the API/ABI guarantees
> > we want to offer? I'll stop short of paraphrasing you.
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:59:00AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> In short: Make the defaults as sane as possible, but still allow the user to
> change them if they disagree with you on what is "sane". The more options,
> the better.
The definition given by Frank Murphy is totally different and do
- Original Message -
> Am 06.11.2013 10:56, schrieb Bastien Nocera:
> > - Original Message -
> >> Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >>> Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on the
> >>> various bundling techniques that were explored and the API/ABI guarantees
>
Am 06.11.2013 10:56, schrieb Bastien Nocera:
> - Original Message -
>> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>> Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on the
>>> various bundling techniques that were explored and the API/ABI guarantees
>>> we want to offer? I'll stop short of
- Original Message -
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on the
> > various bundling techniques that were explored and the API/ABI guarantees
> > we want to offer? I'll stop short of paraphrasing you.
>
> The fact that bundling is
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 01:13 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
> > * and *ideally* I mean SELinux sanbdboxed with specific APIs that must
> > be used to interact with the rest of the system, so that the application
> > doesn't have free reign over users files.
>
> So you want to remove
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 16:52 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > So let me step into my handy Tardis and bring back a vignette from the
> > Real World after Fedora and other distributions bless upstream app
> > distribution as a preferr
1 - 100 of 298 matches
Mail list logo
