On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > This doesn't mean I'm against doing Big Exciting New Things in general
> > or Fedora.next in particular, but I do want to stand up for the value of
> > just keeping your head down (hah, I know, Adam, practice what you
> > preach) and doing
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> The roles stuff? I have, though I'm not sure if I just failing to get it
> or something but I don't see anything there that looks especially useful to
> a server administrator.
>
> Other than pulling in a group of packages it's not really clear
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 12:06 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> Our mission and branding, including our foundations, tend to
>> steer away from the dull and towards new shiny. In fact, whenever
>> we do something that could be characterized as
Matthew Miller wrote:
>Our mission and branding, including our foundations, tend to
>steer away from the dull and towards new shiny. In fact, whenever we
>do something that could be characterized as head-down plodding forward
>progress instead of a bold leap, we hear *quite a bit* of sarcasm
>about
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 08:57 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:15:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Just to wax philosophical for a minute: I think there's a lot of value
> > in building boring stuff that works well, and I might be weird, but I
>
> [snip eloquent defens
On 01/29/2014 02:57 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:15:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Just to wax philosophical for a minute: I think there's a lot of value
in building boring stuff that works well, and I might be weird, but I
[snip eloquent defense of the virtues of b
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:15:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Just to wax philosophical for a minute: I think there's a lot of value
> in building boring stuff that works well, and I might be weird, but I
[snip eloquent defense of the virtues of boring basic distro work]
> This doesn't mean
On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 20:34 +0100, Robert M. Albrecht wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > * Although it's certainly not the only reason, Fedora as _solely_ a hobbyist
> >desktop is not ideal for an upstream for RHEL server and cloud products.
>
> No other system can be reinstalled / upgraded every six months.
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 01:53:56PM +, Ian Malone wrote:
> Cool. If I was to take this one step further then, an issue for Fedora
> Jam is we were limited in the customisations the could be made for a
> spin (e.g. defaulting users into certain groups to allow real time
> audio). While there's no
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:11:08PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > I wasn't being dismissive. I have seen no plans to alter the core of
> > how Fedora, at a package level, is built. In fact, if I did see a
> > proposal that said "we're not going to ship repositories or RPMs" I'd
> > be pretty d
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:00:25PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > Right now, the version of Python installed has to be the version that is
> > required for code in the base -- yum or dnf at the very least, possibly
> > puppet or chef, maybe firewalld or cloud-init. If your code isn't
> > Python3-ready w
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:58:55PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> The biggest things I can see from Fedora.Next is working on solving 1,2,3
> by making it easier and faster to either port or carry your own versions of
> the apps you need and making as much of the OS 'metric' as possible so th
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:20:33AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> I for one waited (and still wait) for a text that gives a brief
> overview; something like a four or five para text which outlines the
> consequences and how Fedora will look like in the end. Something easy to
> understand; so eas
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:04:52PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
>> This is again "hand wavy"(sorry for overusing this term). I can
>> already have multiple language stacks
>> for instance python, java, ruby and php on fedora (or pretty much any
>>
On 28 January 2014 13:38, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 08:34:23PM +0100, Robert M. Albrecht wrote:
> > >* Although it's certainly not the only reason, Fedora as _solely_ a
> > > hobbyist desktop is not ideal for an upstream for RHEL server and
> > > cloud products.
> > No o
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:16:40PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > I will be giving a talk on Sunday, February 9th in at DevConf in Brno,
> > CZ, and I'll post slides from that (probably here as text as well), and
> > I assume there will be video.
> That's great (I'll be there; Fosdem as well),
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 08:34:23PM +0100, Robert M. Albrecht wrote:
> >* Although it's certainly not the only reason, Fedora as _solely_ a
> > hobbyist desktop is not ideal for an upstream for RHEL server and
> > cloud products.
> No other system can be reinstalled / upgraded every six months.
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:04:52PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
> This is again "hand wavy"(sorry for overusing this term). I can
> already have multiple language stacks
> for instance python, java, ruby and php on fedora (or pretty much any
> other distribution) just fine today.
> And I don't expect it t
On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 19:04 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > Second, give people what they *do* care about: choices of language stacks
> > above the base level, and a layer of separation so that there isn't a big
> > impact when the base layer changes. To quote someone I talked to: No
> > distribution doe
Hi,
what is a role? Is database-server a usefull role?
Or would that go more to owncloud-server or joomla-server ...
This would then pull all packages in.
And if Owncloud supports several databases, Fedora should make a choice
and install only one of them. A user which cares so deeply to make
Hi,
* Although it's certainly not the only reason, Fedora as _solely_ a hobbyist
desktop is not ideal for an upstream for RHEL server and cloud products.
No other system can be reinstalled / upgraded every six months. That
single fact IMHO kills all other use cases.
If I need a stable Fe
On 28 January 2014 07:42, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> * General trend in Linux towards the base distribution being "boring" and
> not mattering. I asked several dozen different people at a gigantic
> Amazon
> conference why everyone was using the distribution they chose instead of
> Fedora, a
On 28/01/14 17:33, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:33:43PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
I think the reason that people have trouble defining what "Fedora
Server" might mean is that it simply doesn't make a huge amount of
sense as a thing.
Yes, that has traditionally been the s
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:19:38PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
>> You forgot the part where you explain how / why Fedora.next solves all
>> this issues. Some like "cloud and server usage" is more or less clear
>> (focus product) but the rest is a
On 01/28/2014 05:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Yeah, what? I'm not sure if that's lack of coffee or if I can blame my
computer in some way. I think that was supposed to be "That leaves little
room to" or something like that.
As for what I think... I expect the working groups will work with the Q
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:44:34AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > And that's reasonable. But as we have defined Fedora server as "not
> > > anything in particular", that drifts closer and closer to "not a
> > > thing". That leaves define release criteria -- let alone blockers.
> > Why do you t
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:19:38PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
> You forgot the part where you explain how / why Fedora.next solves all
> this issues. Some like "cloud and server usage" is more or less clear
> (focus product) but the rest is a bot hand weavy. For instance why
> should any of the changes
On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 09:44 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Matthew's sentence does not parse grammatically at all, which makes it
> hard for me to figure out what I'm saying,
"what he's saying", I meant. Good grief, my fingers and brain are not
connected this morning.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora
On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 17:40 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 05:33 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > And that's reasonable. But as we have defined Fedora server as "not anything
> > in particular", that drifts closer and closer to "not a thing". That leaves
> > define release crite
On 01/28/2014 05:33 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
And that's reasonable. But as we have defined Fedora server as "not anything
in particular", that drifts closer and closer to "not a thing". That leaves
define release criteria -- let alone blockers.
Why do you think we in QA are going to be defin
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:33:43PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> I think the reason that people have trouble defining what "Fedora
> Server" might mean is that it simply doesn't make a huge amount of
> sense as a thing.
Yes, that has traditionally been the stumbling block. But have you looked at
what
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:19:38PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > So that's some of my thoughts. More later -- gotta take the kids to the
> > dentist now. :)
> You forgot the part where you explain how / why Fedora.next solves all
> this issues. Some like "cloud and server usage" is more or less clear
>
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:42:54AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> So, here's some things I see.
Oh, I forgot one...
* There is a lot of excitement about containers right now. It's not a new
idea, but one where a lot of things have come together to make
containerization interesting and viable
On 28/01/14 14:42, Matthew Miller wrote:
* Fedora's drift towards being primarily a desktop OS (with other use areas
considered secondarily if at all) ends up practically restricting uses
which people really do want Fedora for. That's bad for people who want to
use Fedora in innovative
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> [...]
> So that's some of my thoughts. More later -- gotta take the kids to the
> dentist now. :)
You forgot the part where you explain how / why Fedora.next solves all
this issues. Some like "cloud and server usage" is more or less clear
(
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:39:53PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Understood, but OTOH it makes me wonder if Fedora.next is a step to
> big and needs to be split or something.
Well, in practical implementation, it probably _will_ be done as incremental
steps. For example, there's the possibilit
On 01/27/2014 01:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
No.
The Products will be defining an environment and a standard install
set. They may have separate initial*installation* repositories if
they need to provide different options to Anaconda, but beyond that
the intent is for all of the Products t
On 27 January 2014 13:06, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 01/27/2014 05:36 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
>> does this mean there will be things unavailable on some 'products'
>> that are not on others?
> No.
>
> The Products will be defining an environment and a standard install
> set. They may have sepa
>On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 12:04 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
>> After hacking a simple tool which provides a GUI for a repository file
>> it's possible to create repository packages complete with desktop and
>> appdata file. I have some 5-10 such repository packages under way, my
>> plan is to pus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/27/2014 05:36 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
> So without, unfortunately, the time to read through reams of stuff
> on this and with my user hat on (don't think I've seen any
> discussion of this on the users list), if it means how fedora
> actually works
On 23 January 2014 21:57, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:54 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> >
>> >> > To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:20:33AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 23.01.2014 19:26, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis
> > wrote:
> > The packaging guidelines are very daunting. Automating as much of
> > that as possible, either through spec c
On 1/26/14, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> I feel obligated to comment on this. JPackage and Fedora have taken
> different routes years ago and installing JPackage rpm on top of Fedora will
> likely break Fedora packages due to:
> * additional OSGi metadata Fedora ships but JPackage doesn't
> * dif
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>On 25.01.2014 17:35, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 11:20 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>
>>> Debian, who has a similar stance on
>>> non-free Software, does a way better job in that area than Fedora
>does.
>> Well, not really - they don't have a 's
- Original Message -
> From: "Alec Leamas"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 11:22:36 AM
> Subject: Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes
>
> On 1/25/14, Adam Williamson wrote:
&g
On 1/25/14, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 12:04 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
>
>
>> After hacking a simple tool which provides a GUI for a repository file
>> it's possible to create repository packages complete with desktop and
>> appdata file. I have some 5-10 such repository packa
On 25.01.2014 17:35, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 11:20 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
>> Debian, who has a similar stance on
>> non-free Software, does a way better job in that area than Fedora does.
> Well, not really - they don't have a 'similar stance', they have an
> offi
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:59:12 -0700
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:16:40 +0100
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> > Agreed. For example, "+1/like"-Buttons for a mailing list would be
> > good afaics, to get a rough impression how people think (just
> > wondering: will h
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:16:40 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
...snip...
> Agreed. For example, "+1/like"-Buttons for a mailing list would be
> good afaics, to get a rough impression how people think (just
> wondering: will hyperkitty or something from that camp of developers
> have this?). But t
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 08:43 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> "Guidelines" is a link to
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines :
>
> "Configuration for package managers in Fedora MUST ONLY reference the
> official Fedora repositories in their default enabled and disabled state
> (see
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 12:04 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
> After hacking a simple tool which provides a GUI for a repository file
> it's possible to create repository packages complete with desktop and
> appdata file. I have some 5-10 such repository packages under way, my
> plan is to push them in
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 11:20 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Debian, who has a similar stance on
> non-free Software, does a way better job in that area than Fedora does.
Well, not really - they don't have a 'similar stance', they have an
official non-free repository. That's kind of a significan
Hi!
On 23.01.2014 22:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:03 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
>> wikipedia page. Further: kororaproject.org, fedorautils-installer and
>> similar project show that there are people that want to make Fedora
>> better. But they do their work outside
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi!
On 23.01.2014 22:33, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis
> wrote:
>> On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>> […] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
>>> else should be include
Hi!
On 23.01.2014 20:57, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:03:02PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Okay, I'll bite (after thinking whether writing this mail is worth it):
> Thanks. I hope that I can make you feel that it was.
Thx for your answer – yes, I think it was worth it.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> [cut]
>
> The Fedoraproject once again chose to leave non-free out of Fedora. I
> appreciate that. I even think a lot of users understand why the
> Fedoraproject acts like this (now and earlier, too). But: it utterly
> hard to get non-fr
Hi!
On 23.01.2014 19:26, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis
> wrote:
>
> […]
Thx for your answer, just replying to some parts of it where I feel that
making additional statements bring the discussion forward.
>> What really gives me the creeps on those page
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 09:58 -0700, Eric Smith wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2014 2:33 PM, "Kevin Fenzi" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100
> > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > I'm still undecided if I overall like Fedora.next or fear it. But
> more
> > > and more I tend to the latter position
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:58:07 -0700
Eric Smith wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2014 2:33 PM, "Kevin Fenzi" wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100
> > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > I'm still undecided if I overall like Fedora.next or fear it. But
> > > more and more I tend to the latter position
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/23/2014 06:12 PM, Lars Seipel wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 05:07:16PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> Also possibly correct. However, that doesn't preclude the repos
>> as we know them today from still existing, with still the same
>> quality.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/23/2014 06:13 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 02:16:23PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you
>> are technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with
>> the
On Jan 24, 2014 10:29 AM, "Kevin Fenzi" wrote:
> The things they are working on have been known for years, but our 6
> month release cycle with no hope of being able to work on tooling
> hasn't allowed them to do so.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm certainly on board with lengthening a
release
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:58:07 -0700
Eric Smith wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2014 2:33 PM, "Kevin Fenzi" wrote:
> > This is not practical. Lots of people are thinking about a
> > fedora.next, qa folks are coding away, lots of people who normally
> > would be working on the next release are not. If we tell
On Jan 23, 2014 2:33 PM, "Kevin Fenzi" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > I'm still undecided if I overall like Fedora.next or fear it. But more
> > and more I tend to the latter position and wonder if it might be wise
> > to slow things down: Do one more
Colin Walters wrote:
>People have been constantly confused by whether "Fedora" does DHCP by
>default over the years, because we've flipped it several times. When
>we introduced it for clients/workstations, I consider it to have been a
>*massive* win to be able to plug in an ethernet cable and have
On 23/01/14 18:48, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
Even the formation of the working groups was odd - the original decision to
form them, as I read it, was that they were to explore the idea of doing
these three streams but within days it seemed that the qu
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 00:12 +0100, Lars Seipel wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 05:07:16PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Also possibly correct. However, that doesn't preclude the repos as we
> > know them today from still existing, with still the same quality.
>
> Server, desktop or embedded board
Josh Boyer (jwbo...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> I wasn't being dismissive. I have seen no plans to alter the core of
> how Fedora, at a package level, is built. In fact, if I did see a
> proposal that said "we're not going to ship repositories or RPMs" I'd
> be pretty damned upset, and I wouldn't
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 23:50 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 23:37 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> >
> >> > No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a
> >> > vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping so
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 02:16:23PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are
> technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos,
> the RPM format, or yum/dnf, their plans - under a reasonable
> interpretation of the discu
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 05:07:16PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Also possibly correct. However, that doesn't preclude the repos as we
> know them today from still existing, with still the same quality.
Server, desktop or embedded board, in today's Fedora it's all the same,
just with a different pac
Am 23.01.2014 23:49, schrieb drago01:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Reindl Harald
> wrote:
>>
>> Am 23.01.2014 23:37, schrieb drago01:
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson
>>> wrote:
No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a
vacuum. Ri
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 23:37 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>
>> > No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a
>> > vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in Fedora: our
>> > *only* way. If you want to instal
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 23.01.2014 23:37, schrieb drago01:
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson
>> wrote:
>>> No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a
>>> vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in F
Am 23.01.2014 23:37, schrieb drago01:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a
>> vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in Fedora: our
>> *only* way. If you want to install the Fedora-y vers
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 23:37 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> > No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a
> > vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in Fedora: our
> > *only* way. If you want to install the Fedora-y version of a particular
> > piece of software, yo
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 17:26 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> > Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are
>> > technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos,
>> > the RPM format, or yum/dnf, the
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 17:26 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are
> > technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos,
> > the RPM format, or yum/dnf, their plans - under a reasonable
> > interpretation of the discussi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> quoting simplified: >>> is Tom Hughes, >> is me, > is Josh. Restored
> part of Tom's original context.
>
>>> > The actual spins (or whatever you want to call them) aren't something
>>> > that bother me at all, as they are to my mind largely
quoting simplified: >>> is Tom Hughes, >> is me, > is Josh. Restored
part of Tom's original context.
>> > The actual spins (or whatever you want to call them) aren't something
>> > that bother me at all, as they are to my mind largely irrelevant for
>> > anybody other than a new user. When I bri
On 23 January 2014 14:14, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen
> wrote:
>
> > My view of the matter was pretty much the same as Tom's and I was at
> FLOCK.
> > The language at the sessions I attended was not one of "We would like to
> do
> > this" but that it
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:54 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> >
>> >> > To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on th
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 01:57:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> If these plans go ahead, we will have multiple official/blessed methods
> for deploying software on Fedora, potentially with different policies
> about what software they can include and how that software should be
> arranged, how d
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:57:38 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> The repos will still exist, but things will be different. At present,
> the Fedora repos are the single unified official Fedora method for
> deploying software on Fedora products. Any other method you can use to
> deploy software is not
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:54 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> >> > To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor
> >> > hat - that we will lose the gold stand
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> > To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor
>> > hat - that we will lose the gold standard unified packaging standards and
>> > single source and mech
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor
> > hat - that we will lose the gold standard unified packaging standards and
> > single source and mechanism for installing packages.
>
> I haven't seen anything fro
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:03 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> wikipedia page. Further: kororaproject.org, fedorautils-installer and
> similar project show that there are people that want to make Fedora
> better. But they do their work outside of Fedora and RPM Fusion;
> fixing the issues directly
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:03 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > […] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
> > else should be included? What different directions should we
> > consider? How will we make Fedora more awesome th
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi!
>
> On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > […] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
> > else should be included? What different directions should
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi!
>
> On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> […] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
>> else should be included? What different directions should we
>>
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
>
>
> On 23 January 2014 11:48, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>
>> > Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the way the whole thing
>> > seemed
>> > to be a fait accompli such that
On 23 January 2014 11:48, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> > Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the way the whole thing
> seemed
> > to be a fait accompli such that there seemed to be little point doing
> > anything other than sitting back and
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:03:02PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Okay, I'll bite (after thinking whether writing this mail is worth it):
Thanks. I hope that I can make you feel that it was.
> The main reason for that: Fedora.next is a huge effort that seems to
> make everything even more comp
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 23/01/14 18:26, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis
>> wrote:
>>
>>> And I really wonder if Fedora.next is really backed by those community
>>> contributors that are not involved in Fedora to deeply. On
On 23/01/14 18:26, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
And I really wonder if Fedora.next is really backed by those community
contributors that are not involved in Fedora to deeply. One reason for
I wonder the same. However, I don't think it's because
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Verbose: Yes, I really think the Fedora needs changes -- at some point
> a few years ago we mostly continued to do things as they have "always"
> been done (read: since Core and Extras merged), without thinking if
> those ways are still
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi!
On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
> […] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
> else should be included? What different directions should we
> consider? How will we make Fedora more awesome than ever in the
> coming
98 matches
Mail list logo
