Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 2015-03-20, 14:28 GMT, Richard Hughes wrote: > Now imagine you're trying to write a command-not-found implementation > that uses python to load yum. The Yum codebase is pretty huge, and by > the time the 50ms "user needs results now" timer expires we're not > even at "loading metadata" let alon

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 20 March 2015 at 08:59, Matěj Cepl wrote: > Sorry, I am just a stupid idiot writing in one of those hated > interpreted languages Nobody said anything of the sort. I write stuff in python all the time. > What’s the realtionship between the interpreted > languages and said duplication? Okay,

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

Hi On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > You'd be surprised. There is apparently work under way, in the larger > Fedora ecosystem, on scriptless booting, in the name of securinity > (eventually making Android-style locked bootloaders). > Eliminating scripting from boot do

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 03/19/2015 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote: > On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 00:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Richard Hughes wrote: >>> Perhaps, when we stop writing low level tools with specific >>> latency requirements in interpreted languages... >> >> +1 >> >> In fact, IMHO, we should stop writing ANY

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 2015-03-17, 15:51 GMT, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 17 March 2015 at 15:35, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >> Wait, the metadata download and search code is not shared? What would it >> take to make it so? > > No. The dnf code is in python and the libhif code is in C. Sorry, I am just a stupid idiot wr

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 00:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Richard Hughes wrote: > > Perhaps, when we stop writing low level tools with specific > > latency requirements in interpreted languages... > > +1 > > In fact, IMHO, we should stop writing ANYTHING in interpreted languages. I look forward t

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

2015-03-18 18:51 GMT+01:00 Ralf Corsepius : > On 03/18/2015 05:46 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Hi >> >> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote: >> >> >> What I don't understand is the wisdom of an official Fedora >> "product" endorsing a copr when either the software or

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

- Original Message - > On 03/18/2015 05:46 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Hi > > > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote: > > > > > > What I don't understand is the wisdom of an official Fedora > > "product" endorsing a copr when either the software or packaging (

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

- Original Message - > On 03/18/2015 12:55 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > > How are "disabled repositories" going to be approved for inclusion? > > While you likely meant political meaning of "how", I would like share how it > will be done technically. > > Approximately 6 months ago Env&Stac

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 03/18/2015 05:46 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote: What I don't understand is the wisdom of an official Fedora "product" endorsing a copr when either the software or packaging (or both) is not of sufficient quality to make it i

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

Hi On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote: > > What I don't understand is the wisdom of an official Fedora "product" > endorsing a copr when either the software or packaging (or both) is not of > sufficient quality to make it into the official Fedora repo. I don't think of it a

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 18 Mar 2015, at 08:40, Miroslav Suchý wrote: On 03/16/2015 06:48 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote: If the working group deems the software to be that useful, wouldn't it be better to bring its packaging up to the quality of the "official" Fedora repo, and make it more easily discoverable by all

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 03/18/2015 12:55 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: > How are "disabled repositories" going to be approved for inclusion? While you likely meant political meaning of "how", I would like share how it will be done technically. Approximately 6 months ago Env&Stack wanted to have "Playground repository",

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 03/16/2015 06:48 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote: > If the working group deems the software to be that useful, wouldn't it be > better to bring its packaging up to the > quality of the "official" Fedora repo, and make it more easily discoverable > by all Fedora users, regardless of whether > they cho

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

- Original Message - > On Mar 17, 2015 5:18 AM, "Jan Zelený" wrote: > > > > On 16. 3. 2015 at 15:52:10, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support = > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DisabledRepoSupport > > > > > > Change owner(s

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 11:55 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > > 2015-03-16 15:52 GMT+01:00 Jaroslav Reznik : > > > > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support = > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DisabledRepoSupport > > > > > > "Disabled Repositories Support" sounds be

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

> 2015-03-16 15:52 GMT+01:00 Jaroslav Reznik : > > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DisabledRepoSupport > > > "Disabled Repositories Support" sounds better than "Help People Install > Non-Free Software in Fedora", but the res

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

Richard Hughes wrote: > Perhaps, when we stop writing low level tools with specific > latency requirements in interpreted languages... +1 In fact, IMHO, we should stop writing ANYTHING in interpreted languages. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://ad

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 17 March 2015 at 15:35, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > Wait, the metadata download and search code is not shared? What would it > take to make it so? No. The dnf code is in python and the libhif code is in C. > /me wonders how many unicorns and kittens will have to die before we get rid > of all

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

> I wonder, are there any implications for dnf in terms of being consistent with > the new behavior of Gnome Software? Wait, the metadata download and search code is not shared? What would it take to make it so? /me wonders how many unicorns and kittens will have to die before we get rid of al

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mar 17, 2015 5:18 AM, "Jan Zelený" wrote: > > On 16. 3. 2015 at 15:52:10, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support = > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DisabledRepoSupport > > > > Change owner(s): Richard Hughes > > > > The Software too

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 17 March 2015 at 11:18, Jan Zelený wrote: > Personally, I don't like the semantics of these semi-disabled repos. It beats > the purpose of disabling the repos in the first place, doesn't it? disabled=0 means "don't download packages or metadata" which means if we search for "chromium" nothing

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 16:11 -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 15:25 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Other examples might be preview releases of certain software that > > are not yet stable enough to be in Fedora proper or whose > > installation might be too disruptive

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 16. 3. 2015 at 15:52:10, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DisabledRepoSupport > > Change owner(s): Richard Hughes > > The Software tool and PackageKit now support disabled repositories to help >

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

One representative example would be software that is extremely useful to a large group of people but whose packaging is a nightmare. For example, a great many people enjoy the Chromium repository in COPR. Probably Brackets [1] is a good candidate too. And Atom [2]. Both already are in the COPRs

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 15:25 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > Other examples might be preview releases of certain software that are > not yet stable enough to be in Fedora proper or whose installation > might be too disruptive during a stable lifecycle. Like for example > the recent GNOME 3.12 r

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 13:48 -0400, Mike Pinkerton wrote: > On 16 Mar 2015, at 12:57, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > a) This change impacts users, while these COPRs are not useful > > > to them. > > > > There are no COPR repo files that are installed by default today, > > which means none of them u

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 16 Mar 2015, at 12:57, Josh Boyer wrote: a) This change impacts users, while these COPRs are not useful to them. There are no COPR repo files that are installed by default today, which means none of them use this mechanism yet. Which means there is literally no change for any user at thi

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 03/16/2015 05:26 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> >> On Mar 16, 2015 12:23 PM, "Ralf Corsepius" > > wrote: >> > >> > On 03/16/2015 04:49 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, March 16, 2015 04:36:40

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 03/16/2015 05:26 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Mar 16, 2015 12:23 PM, "Ralf Corsepius" mailto:rc040...@freenet.de>> wrote: > > On 03/16/2015 04:49 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> >> On Monday, March 16, 2015 04:36:40 PM Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> >>> On 03/16/2015 03:52 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mar 16, 2015 12:23 PM, "Ralf Corsepius" wrote: > > On 03/16/2015 04:49 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: >> >> On Monday, March 16, 2015 04:36:40 PM Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> >>> On 03/16/2015 03:52 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: This feature aims to reduce the technical hurdles for users and dev

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 03/16/2015 04:49 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: On Monday, March 16, 2015 04:36:40 PM Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 03/16/2015 03:52 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: This feature aims to reduce the technical hurdles for users and developers to locate software packaged for a distribution, but which needs to

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Mon, 2015-03-16 at 16:22 +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote: > > 2015-03-16 15:52 GMT+01:00 Jaroslav Reznik : > > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support = > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DisabledRepoSupport > > > "Disabled Repositories Support" sounds better than "

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On Monday, March 16, 2015 04:36:40 PM Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 03/16/2015 03:52 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: > > This feature aims to reduce the technical hurdles for users and developers > > to locate software packaged for a distribution, but which needs to be > > clearly identified as not officia

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

On 03/16/2015 03:52 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: This feature aims to reduce the technical hurdles for users and developers to locate software packaged for a distribution, but which needs to be clearly identified as not officially included (or possibly sanctioned) by that distribution. Does this

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

2015-03-16 15:52 GMT+01:00 Jaroslav Reznik : > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support = > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DisabledRepoSupport > > "Disabled Repositories Support" sounds better than "Help People Install Non-Free Software in Fedora", but the result is

F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

= Proposed Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DisabledRepoSupport Change owner(s): Richard Hughes The Software tool and PackageKit now support disabled repositories to help users locate software in additional repositories which are not