On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:42:07AM -0700, stan wrote:
Wouldn't it make more sense to have a way for package maintainers to
decide if a bug was local or upstream, and a button they could push to
automatically send it upstream?
I really like Stan's idea. The root of this problem lies in the
histo
On 19/09/16 20:27, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 09/18/2016 10:16 PM, Jeff Fearn wrote:
>
>> Hi, we might be able to extend the External Trackers extension in RH
>> Bugzilla to be able to create as
>> well as sync bugs.
>
> Between which issue trackers is that supported?
Currently, Bugzilla
On 09/18/2016 10:16 PM, Jeff Fearn wrote:
Hi, we might be able to extend the External Trackers extension in RH Bugzilla
to be able to create as
well as sync bugs.
Between which issue trackers is that supported?
JBG
___
devel mailing list -- devel@l
On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 08:16 +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote:
> Hi, we might be able to extend the External Trackers extension in RH
> Bugzilla to be able to create as
> well as sync bugs.
>
> We've shared the code with upstream to see if they like our approach
> so far.
>
> Fedora is our biggest user com
On 17/09/16 03:19, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:42:07AM -0700, stan wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400
>> Matthew Miller wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzi
On 17/09/16 03:27, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 17:19 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it
>> without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what
>> *upstream* version of the software was used, h
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:27:30 -0500
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
[snip]
> I don't care so much about all that (it's more important for systemd
> due to distro integration), I just want the bug reporter CCed on the
> upstream bug, and able to respond when I ask a question.
Yeah, that would probably be
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:19:24 +
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it
> without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what
> *upstream* version of the software was used, how I can reproduce the
> bug using generic inst
On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 17:19 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it
> without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what
> *upstream* version of the software was used, how I can reproduce the
> bug using generic instal
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:42:07AM -0700, stan wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and
> > > > > bug-trackers completely² and to Ask F
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and
> > > > bug-trackers completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage
> > > > team could [...]
> > > But th
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers
>> > > completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could [...]
>> > But there's no triage
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and
> > > > bug-trackers completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage
> > > > team could [...]
> > > But th
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers
> > > completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could [...]
> > But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection without
> > a dedic
On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 23:09 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers
> > completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could [...]
>
>
> But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection without
> a de
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:46:53PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:44:06AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount
> > bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if
> > _someone_
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:21:44AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 14 September 2016 at 10:44, Jason L Tibbitts III
> wrote> > I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount
> > bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if
> > _someone_ loo
On 09/13/2016 04:41 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
- Original Message -
- Original Message -
I'm seeing 24 bugs at:
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all
including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882
Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage fire
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Matthew Miller
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to exp
On 09/14/2016 05:46 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
What I'd_really_ love to see is a layer separating bug trackers from
end users.
That layer already exist in the form of irc forum and askbot does it not?
( someone from the support sub-community can provide information how
successful these are )
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> > Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this
>>> > at all -- there's "orphaned", but that's n
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this
>> > at all -- there's "orphaned", but that's not user-visible.
>> Our current model actually could expres
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this
> > at all -- there's "orphaned", but that's not user-visible.
> Our current model actually could express this though. We could put
> the weakly maintained packages
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:44:06AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount
> bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if
> _someone_ looked at RH bugzilla for those packages and did something
> with them.
On 09/14/2016 07:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
My impression is, in many cases, it's ego, which prevents to acknowledge
they need "to divert".
I'm not sure what you mean by divert.
This is a Dinglish "politically correct" phrase to describe "to
partially give up/step down", "make room to others"
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 04:44:38PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>> (a) The maintenance status of a package is not a binary variable. It
>> is easy to imagine a third state - weakly maintained.
>
> Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really a
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 04:44:38PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> (a) The maintenance status of a package is not a binary variable. It
> is easy to imagine a third state - weakly maintained.
Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this
at all -- there's "orphaned", but that'
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:01:14 -0400
Josh Boyer wrote:
> Quite simply, there are valid cases where a maintainer, or a group of
> maintainers, cannot scale to the number of bugs a package can
> generate. The larger and more complex a package, the more likely that
> is. That isn't anyone's fault or
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 06:24 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ralf Corsepius
>> wrote:
>
>
>>> In this areas I primarily see 2 groups:
>>> - Maintainers, who are overloaded with BZs.
>>> IMO, this primarily is an ego pr
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:43:31 -0500
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 08:33 +0200, Jakub Filak wrote:
> > Does GNOME Bugzilla support XMLRPC? Is there any testing instance
> > ABRT team
> > can play with?
>
> Yes and yes, but is XMLRPC being removed from upstream Bugzilla? I
> th
On 09/14/2016 06:24 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In this areas I primarily see 2 groups:
- Maintainers, who are overloaded with BZs.
IMO, this primarily is an ego problem and partially a project
management/leadership problem.
I mostly disagre
On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 09:51 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> So, I'm going for the crazy idea front here, now that RHBZ is hooked
> onto
> fedmsg, should we try to write a tool creating bugs on GBZ for each
> gnome bugs
> created on RHBZ and sync comments between both instances? (well, we
> would
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 04:24:02PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> OK this is the most frustrating of a TON of frustrating parts of this
> conversation.
>
> 1. WHY DO WE SHIP PACKAGES THAT WE 'KNOW' AREN'T MAINTAINED?
> 2. Why are people 'maintainers' of such packages if they know upstream
>
On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 08:33 +0200, Jakub Filak wrote:
> Does GNOME Bugzilla support XMLRPC? Is there any testing instance
> ABRT team
> can play with?
Yes and yes, but is XMLRPC being removed from upstream Bugzilla? I
think I read that somewhere (but can't find a reference now when I
search). It'd
On 09/14/2016 02:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount
bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if
_someone_ looked at RH bugzilla for those packages and did something
with them.
This responsibility
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 09/14/2016 04:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>
>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes:
>>
>>
>> RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH
>> RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "mainta
On 13 September 2016 at 21:24, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 13 September 2016 at 16:03, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> OK this is the most frustrating of a TON of frustrating parts of this
> conversation.
>
> 1. WHY DO WE SHIP PACKAGES THAT WE 'KNOW' AREN'T MAINTAINED?
> 2. Why are people 'maint
On 09/14/2016 04:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes:
RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH
RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what
RC> users are using.
I disagree in general;
Whom do you report pro
On 14 September 2016 at 10:44, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes:
>
> RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH
> RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what
> RC> users are using.
>
> I disagree in general;
> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes:
RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH
RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what
RC> users are using.
I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount
bugzilla basically becomes
On 09/13/2016 07:44 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
That is the crux of the problem with this approach. It is impossible
for a user to determine which packages have maintainers that look in
RH Bugzilla and which do not.
We could have a “Tire Fire” product besides the “Fedora” product in
bugzilla.redha
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:20:06PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 18:49 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > If ABRT is a firehose of bugs flying to RH's bugzilla, would the
> > situation be
> > really better if the reports were sent to gnome's BZ?
>
> Yes, it would. Keep
On 09/13/2016 07:19 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing
bugs :-(
We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their
bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL proce
On 09/13/2016 05:00 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers
> (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME
> and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's
> simply not reasonable
On 09/13/2016 07:44 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
That is the crux of the problem with this approach. It is impossible
for a user to determine which packages have maintainers that look in
RH Bugzilla and which do not.
IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH
Bugzilla, becau
On 09/13/2016 06:32 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
>
> A couple of things could be done to help with that:
> - Bring back the x-bugzilla .desktop metadata, and have ABRT file upstream
> bugs
Does GNOME Bugzilla support XMLRPC? Is there any testing instance AB
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:53:06PM -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
> Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to
> F24 a couple of months ago:
>
> 1. deja-dup gui:
>
> one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option in order
> to be offered the "Backup Now" opti
On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:46 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> I'm not sure it really is unmaintained. There was 34.2 release this
> April, by the looks of things.
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=10035
Aaaand I do see it in Software now. At long last!
--
devel mailing
On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 17:17 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
>
> if it is unmaintained why does its GUI operation change between Fedora
> versions?
I'm not sure it really is unmaintained. There was 34.2 release this
April, by the looks of things.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:03:28 -0500
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
> > It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup
>
> Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you
> reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be tol
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> Everyone having `watchbugzilla` on a package is automatically cc'ed
> to the bug reports.
> In the early days of pkgdb2, I had it be: everyone with
> `watchbugzilla` or `commit` but I was asked to remove that last
> condition [1].
Would it be possible to show that infor
On 09/13/2016 04:03 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
>> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup
>
> Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you
> reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be told it's the wrong
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 13 September 2016 at 16:03, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
>>> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup
>>
>> Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1].
On 13 September 2016 at 16:03, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
>> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup
>
> Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you
> reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be told it's th
On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup
Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you
reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be told it's the wrong
place
Unfortunately, I think deja-dup is unmaintaine
On 09/13/2016 12:31 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> For which one of the problems you listed? It would certainly have been
> interesting to list those in your original mail.
It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup
>
> - Original Message -
>> On 09/13/2016 11:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 18:49 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> If ABRT is a firehose of bugs flying to RH's bugzilla, would the
> situation be
> really better if the reports were sent to gnome's BZ?
Yes, it would. Keep in mind that upstream maintainers are responsible
for far fewer packages than F
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:19:04PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> > > This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs
> > > :-(
> > > We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their
> > > bug reports ar
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Michael Catanzaro
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers
> (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME
> and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's
> simply not r
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-(
We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their
bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes
them :-(
One lesson I have lea
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:32:20PM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
>
> > This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-(
> > We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their
> > bug reports are going to be ignored
- Original Message -
> Could you elaborate a little on your reasoning/thoughts please?
>
> I am quite interesting to understand your point of view.
> From where I stand, we are offering a way for someone to unlock someone's
> else
> computer without a password.
> I understand the proced
- Original Message -
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > I'm seeing 24 bugs at:
> > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all
> > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882
>
> Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage fire as far as I'm concerned. I
For which one of the problems you listed? It would certainly have been
interesting to list those in your original mail.
- Original Message -
> On 09/13/2016 11:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> To be
- Original Message -
> Hi,
>
> To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers
> (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME
> and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's
> simply not reasonable to expect them to
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:24:33PM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:30:07AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at:
> > > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fp
- Original Message -
> This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-(
> We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their
> bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes
> them :-(
>
> Even if we can't enhance Red
- Original Message -
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:30:07AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at:
> > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all
> > > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.c
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 09/13/2016 05:09 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
>> This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-(
>> We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their
>> bug reports are going to be igno
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
>
> eg, update the component description to tell user to file in GNOME
> bugzilla instead, and have a bot that adds a comment to any new bugs
> that are still filed, closing them WONTFIX and asking the user to
> re-open against upstream G
On 09/13/2016 05:09 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-(
We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their
bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes
them :-(
One lesson I have
On 09/13/2016 11:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers
>> (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME
>> and freedesktop c
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers
> (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME
> and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's
> simp
Hi,
To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers
(including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME
and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's
simply not reasonable to expect them to read all the bugs that are
assigned to them
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:30:07AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> > I'm seeing 24 bugs at:
> > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all
> > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882
>
> Fedora's bugzilla is a garbag
- Original Message -
> I'm seeing 24 bugs at:
> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all
> including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882
Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage fire as far as I'm concerned. I already made
that abundantly clear I think.
>
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:05:32AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message -
> >
> >
> > Dne 9.9.2016 v 21:53 Roger Wells napsal(a):
> > > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to
> > > F24 a couple of months ago:
> > >
> > >
> > > 2. fingerpr
- Original Message -
>
>
> Dne 9.9.2016 v 21:53 Roger Wells napsal(a):
> > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to
> > F24 a couple of months ago:
> >
> >
> > 2. fingerprint identification:
> >
> > The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works f
Dne 9.9.2016 v 21:53 Roger Wells napsal(a):
> Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to
> F24 a couple of months ago:
>
>
> 2. fingerprint identification:
>
> The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However
> I prefer not to use it. The user se
On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 17:45 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
>
> Let me know if you think I should submit this upstream somewhere.
Probably to gnome-shell on bugzilla.gnome.org , I guess.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . n
On 09/09/2016 04:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 15:53 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
>> Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to
>> F24 a couple of months ago:
>>
>> 1. deja-dup gui:
>>
>> one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016, Adam Williamson wrote:
2. fingerprint identification:
The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However
I prefer not to use it. The user set up specifies that fingerprint login
is disabled.
However whenever I am asked for a password the fingerp
On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 15:53 -0400, Roger Wells wrote:
> Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to
> F24 a couple of months ago:
>
> 1. deja-dup gui:
>
> one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option in order
> to be offered the "Backup Now" option.
>
Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to
F24 a couple of months ago:
1. deja-dup gui:
one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option in order
to be offered the "Backup Now" option.
The details option in the progress dialog will only display tw
84 matches
Mail list logo
