Adam Williamson wrote:
> To answer the question someone posed earlier in the thread, when I was
> doing a lot of testing of various F13 RC2 installs yesterday, none of
> them - not the default desktop install from DVD, the desktop spin, the
> KDE spin or the Xfce spin - had more than 12 updates ava
Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) said:
> > And right now the values used are scaled to the hardware we have at
> > hand. So adjusting it wouldn't help Fedora one bit.
>
> Makes me wonder about your HW.
>
> Fact is, extending the limits to 200MB (the hard-coded limit is 100MB) I
> having no
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 17:19 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Why does the large size of some game files matter? _Number_ of
> updates matters (ie. 140 is a bit large) but on the other hand F13 has
> been in limbo for such a long time I'm not surprised.
It really hasn't. We accepted submissions
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 23:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> The reason is that it is *game* and it is not part of the default set.
> Anyone who chooses to install it will get an updated game. I think the
> focus here is misguided. We should be paying attention to updates of the
> default package
On 05/11/2010 07:33 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 05/11/2010 07:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:23:35PM -0400, James Antill wrote:
> It again goes to the point of "why bother making releases at all", if
> they mean so little. And, trying to be less grumpy, maybe moving some
> packages to "rawhide only" style of repos. would make everyone happy (we
> could even call
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
> >>>As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for
> >>> wesno
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/11/2010 07:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >> On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
On 05/11/2010 10:31 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> I think the point is that if the release was done in
> February, there's really no reason it should be a F-13
> *update* at GA.
>
The reason is that it is *game* and it is not part of the default set.
Anyone who chooses to install it will get an
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 08:29 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> , and we now have
>> deltarpms (and a huge thank to to all responsible there), so I really
>> don't think it's that big of an issue.
>
> As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltar
On 05/11/2010 09:35 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> On 05/11/2010 01:12 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
>
>> And so what ?
>>
>> In OpenArena's case, last stable releases were:
>> * 0.8.5: 02/23/2010
>>
> Feb 2nd, 2010 - that's a long time ago.
>
Yep. The primary maintainer at that time recently
On 05/11/2010 07:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
> >>>As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for
> >>> wesno
On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
>>>As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for
>>> wesnoth-data due to it's size.
>> Then fix this deficiency of your proce
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 08:27:30 -0500,
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > I don't think either wesnoth or openarena are on the desktop spin.
> > They are probably only on the games spin. So the impact of those,
> > really should not be that big. (Compared to say the effect
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
> > As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for
> > wesnoth-data due to it's size.
> Then fix this deficiency of your process and provide them.
>
>
>
Patches welcome.
--
Xose Vazquez Perez (xose.vazq...@gmail.com) said:
> On 05/11/2010 06:05 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
>
> > On 05/11/2010 01:12 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
> >> And so what ?
> >>
> >> In OpenArena's case, last stable releases were:
> >> * 0.8.5: 02/23/2010
> >
> > Feb 2nd, 2010 - that's a long time a
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> It's unfortunate that these two big packages didn't make it into the
> base repo, but such is life. ;(
As this is the first time we've done the early branching... I
certainly expect mistakes right around the time of the branch freeze
and for
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 12:23 -0400, James Antill wrote:
> Within Fedora deltarpms have a limit of applying only to rpms less than
> 100MB, so there are no deltarpms. Anyone who wants to blame rel-eng for
> that is free to fix the delarpm code...
On that subject, anyone who wants to fix this would
On Tue, 11 May 2010 17:19:41 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 02:14:58AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
> >
> > Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make
> > anyone think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates
> > with a combined size
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
> As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for
> wesnoth-data due to it's size.
Then fix this deficiency of your process and provide them.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailma
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:14 PM, James Antill wrote:
> 6.2M wesnoth-1.8.1-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> 12M hanazono-fonts-20100222-2.fc13.noarch.rpm
> 48M xmoto-0.5.3-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> 260M wesnoth-data-1.8.1-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
> 318M openarena-0.8.5-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
>
> ...the last being particularly
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 08:29 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On 05/11/2010 01:14 AM, James Antill wrote:
> > Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
> > think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
> > combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 10:30 +0200, H. Guémar wrote:
> > It is not part of a default package set.
>
> Even if it were, blocking bugfixes in order to reduce updates size is
> nothing but stupid.
It wasn't bugfixes, it was a new upstream release, and yes size does
matter. All mirrors, public and p
On 05/11/2010 06:05 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> On 05/11/2010 01:12 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
>> And so what ?
>>
>> In OpenArena's case, last stable releases were:
>> * 0.8.5: 02/23/2010
>
> Feb 2nd, 2010 - that's a long time ago.
You said that, because you haven't seen really the oldest packag
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 02:14:58AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
>
> Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
> think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
> combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
>
> 6.2M wesnoth-1.8.1-1.fc13.x8
On 05/11/2010 01:12 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
> And so what ?
>
> In OpenArena's case, last stable releases were:
> * 0.8.5: 02/23/2010
Feb 2nd, 2010 - that's a long time ago.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On 05/11/2010 01:14 AM, James Antill wrote:
>> Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
>> think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
>> combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 a
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:18:23 +0200,
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Richard Hughes [11/05/2010 11:05] :
> >
> > I wonder what the number is for packages on the desktop spin? I guess
> > that's a bit more reasonable.
>
> I'm left wondering what problem we're trying to solve here. I'm gussing
> it
On 05/11/2010 01:14 AM, James Antill wrote:
> Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
> think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
> combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
>
> 6.2M wesnoth-1.8.1-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> 12M hana
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I don't think either wesnoth or openarena are on the desktop spin.
> They are probably only on the games spin. So the impact of those,
> really should not be that big. (Compared to say the effect an openoffice.org
> would have.)
... and wesnoth multiplayer doesn't work on
> Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
> think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
> combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
yeah, over 750 MB where 584 MB belongs to wesnoth and openarena. So without
these two games it's
Am Dienstag, den 11.05.2010, 02:14 -0400 schrieb James Antill:
> Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
> think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
> combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64,
This number is kind of irrelevant as nobody will
* Richard Hughes [11/05/2010 11:05] :
>
> I wonder what the number is for packages on the desktop spin? I guess
> that's a bit more reasonable.
I'm left wondering what problem we're trying to solve here. I'm gussing
it's one of :
* there are too many updates (for whom? how is this a problem?)
* t
On 11 May 2010 07:14, James Antill wrote:
> Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
> think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
> combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
I wonder what the number is for packages on the deskto
On 05/11/2010 02:00 PM, H. Guémar wrote:
>> It is not part of a default package set.
>>
> Even if it were, blocking bugfixes in order to reduce updates size is
> nothing but stupid.
> We have presto/deltarpm for that (since these packages mostly contain
> unchanged binary data like images, it
> It is not part of a default package set.
Even if it were, blocking bugfixes in order to reduce updates size is
nothing but stupid.
We have presto/deltarpm for that (since these packages mostly contain
unchanged binary data like images, it should work pretty well).
What's the point in having new
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Janssen
wrote:
> What was that for? To start another flamewar including the challenge
> for a explicit person?
Quite, a possibly valid point losing out to a flamebait codicil.
-Cam
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorapr
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM, James Antill wrote:
> Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
> think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
> combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
>
> 6.2M wesnoth-1.8.1-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
>
On 05/11/2010 11:44 AM, James Antill wrote:
> Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
> think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
> combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
>
> 6.2M wesnoth-1.8.1-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> 12M hanazo
And so what ?
In OpenArena's case, last stable releases were:
* 0.8.5: 02/23/2010
* 0.8.1: 10/31/2008
You can't blame OpenArena's maintainer for that, do you ?
The same goes for Wesnoth, 1.8.1 maintenance release was issued 2 May
so less than two weeks ago (1.8 was released 1st april !)
Best reg
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 02:14:58 -0400,
James Antill wrote:
>
> 6.2M wesnoth-1.8.1-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> 12M hanazono-fonts-20100222-2.fc13.noarch.rpm
> 48M xmoto-0.5.3-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
> 260M wesnoth-data-1.8.1-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
> 318M openarena-0.8.5-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
I don't think either w
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 02:14:58AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
>
> Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
> think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
> combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
>
> 6.2M wesnoth-1.8.1-1.fc13.x8
Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
6.2M wesnoth-1.8.1-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
12M hanazono-fonts-20100222-2.fc13.noarch.rpm
48M xmoto-0.5.3-1
44 matches
Mail list logo
