On 02/20/2014 12:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
One app "with simple default choice and advanced options" effectively
*is* two apps, uncomfortably shoehorned into one UI. You get all the
disadvantages of complexity with none of the benefits of simplicity.
This is why it's a model most apps have
On 20 February 2014 17:44, Adam Williamson wrote:
> You get all the disadvantages of complexity with none of the benefits of
> simplicity.
"Jack of all trades, master of none".
Richard
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fe
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 12:01 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 02/19/2014 01:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 14:38 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> >> On 14 February 2014 21:43, Przemek Klosowski
> >> wrote:
> >>> If we are providing a next-generation UI for installing, to
On 02/19/2014 01:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 14:38 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 14 February 2014 21:43, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
If we are providing a next-generation UI for installing, to replace yum
That's not what we're doing.
To expand a bit: insofar as Softwar
On 19 February 2014 18:16, Adam Williamson wrote:
> For those
> who really want a GUI package installer, the old gpk is still available
> in a not-installed-by-default package (though I assume Richard will
> eventually drop it), and yumex is always an option.
There are quite a few distros that ha
On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 14:38 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 14 February 2014 21:43, Przemek Klosowski
> wrote:
> > If we are providing a next-generation UI for installing, to replace yum
>
> That's not what we're doing.
To expand a bit: insofar as Software - the tool we're discussing here,
an
On 17 February 2014 08:45, Christian Schaller wrote:
>
> Well with GCC we are assuming people will read docs and figure out the command
> line parameters needed to use gcc. So expecting people to read the docs on how
> to use yum or 'yum search' is not expecting to much in my opinion.
>
> That s
On 17 February 2014 08:45, Christian Schaller wrote:
> That said we should list the Developer Assistant in the Software center (or
> even have it installed by default)
> and that should be the tool IMHO to install these and other developer tools.
It's already in the software center (and ships an
- Original Message -
> From: "Przemek Klosowski"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 10:43:16 PM
> Subject: Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be
> listed in software center
>
> On 02/14
On 14 February 2014 21:43, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> If we are providing a next-generation UI for installing, to replace yum
That's not what we're doing.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
On 02/14/2014 01:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 13:02 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 28 January 2014 18:43, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GUIness'. As to the
latter, I th
2014-02-14 19:41 GMT+01:00 Adam Williamson :
> Do you actually want to use a tool like Software to install gcc?
>
> I just can't see why you would. You know gcc is what you want. You don't
> need a shiny description and some screenshots and user reviews on a 1-5
> star scale. 'yum install gcc' see
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 13:02 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
>> On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>>
>> > On 28 January 2014 18:43, Przemek Klosowski
>> > wrote:
>> > > There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GU
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 13:02 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> > On 28 January 2014 18:43, Przemek Klosowski
> > wrote:
> > > There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GUIness'. As to
> > > the
> > > latter, I think it's a mistake t
On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 28 January 2014 18:43, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GUIness'. As to the
latter, I think it's a mistake to have a primary application installation
tool that only deals with GUI apps, because it r
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:48:50 -0500, you wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:40:00PM -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
>> >> If you want to install a c++ compiler you would have to know the exact
>> >> package name of that compiler. There is no way to search for something
>> >> like
>> >> "compiler" with yu
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:40:00PM -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> >> If you want to install a c++ compiler you would have to know the exact
> >> package name of that compiler. There is no way to search for something like
> >> "compiler" with yum (AFAIK).
> > "yum search compiler"
> ... which lists a lo
On 01/28/2014 12:51 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Andreas Tunek
> wrote:
>> If you want to install a c++ compiler you would have to know the exact
>> package name of that compiler. There is no way to search for something like
>> "compiler" with yum (AFAIK).
>
> "yum searc
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>
>
>
> 2014-01-28 Matthew Miller
>
>>
>> I'm not sure I'm convinced. If someone is on the command line, isn't it
>> easiest to use a command-line tool to install those kinds of things?
>>
>
> If you want to install a c++ compiler you would ha
2014-01-28 Richard Hughes
> That's not the tool we've designed and built. We've built a GUI
> application installer, not a package installer.
>
>
That is awesome! Thank you! But in a lot of cases it is very nice to have a
GUI package installer.
/Andreas
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorap
2014-01-28 Matthew Miller
>
> I'm not sure I'm convinced. If someone is on the command line, isn't it
> easiest to use a command-line tool to install those kinds of things?
>
>
If you want to install a c++ compiler you would have to know the exact
package name of that compiler. There is no way to
On 28 January 2014 18:43, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GUIness'. As to the
> latter, I think it's a mistake to have a primary application installation
> tool that only deals with GUI apps, because it relegates text-based tools,
> such as 'units
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:43:09PM -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GUIness'. As to
> the latter, I think it's a mistake to have a primary application
> installation tool that only deals with GUI apps, because it relegates
> text-based tools,
On 01/25/2014 05:08 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
I can think
of several programs that I use daily that are simple enough so that there's
not much development happening to them. For example, the 'units' program,
which I showed recently to some mechanical engineers who use Linux and they
went 'OMG t
2014-01-27 Michael Scherer :
> Le lundi 27 janvier 2014 à 17:11 +0100, Andreas Tunek a écrit :
>> 2014-01-26 Michael Scherer :
>> > Le dimanche 26 janvier 2014 à 18:14 +0100, Heiko Adams a écrit :
>> >> Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:01 -0500 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
>> >> > Hi
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 13:05 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> Installing an application and then not finding it anywhere is
> confusing. So we limit it
> to visible apps i.e GUI apps.
Before people get too angry about this: Software is being designed as a
tool to do what's being discussed in this thread, i
Le lundi 27 janvier 2014 à 17:11 +0100, Andreas Tunek a écrit :
> 2014-01-26 Michael Scherer :
> > Le dimanche 26 janvier 2014 à 18:14 +0100, Heiko Adams a écrit :
> >> Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:01 -0500 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> >> > Hi
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, d
2014-01-26 Michael Scherer :
> Le dimanche 26 janvier 2014 à 18:14 +0100, Heiko Adams a écrit :
>> Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:01 -0500 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> >
>> > No this isn't an issue at all. No one is sayin
Le dimanche 26 janvier 2014 à 18:14 +0100, Heiko Adams a écrit :
> Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:01 -0500 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> > Hi
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
> >
> > No this isn't an issue at all. No one is saying that non gui
> >
Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:01 -0500 schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> Hi
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
>
> No this isn't an issue at all. No one is saying that non gui
> apps are
> useless or should be removed.
> The point is that gui
Am 26.01.2014 18:01, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
>
> No this isn't an issue at all. No one is saying that non gui apps are
> useless or should be removed.
> The point is that gui installer installs gui apps. If you want to
> install a
Hi
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
>
> No this isn't an issue at all. No one is saying that non gui apps are
> useless or should be removed.
> The point is that gui installer installs gui apps. If you want to
> install a command line tool whats wrong with
> using the command lin
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Les Howell wrote:
> On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 12:14 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
>> On 01/26/2014 11:08 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> > gcc isn't an application in a sense of "gui application" so there is
>> > to ways to install it
>> > either the user installs an IDE whic
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 12:14 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> On 01/26/2014 11:08 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > gcc isn't an application in a sense of "gui application" so there is
> > to ways to install it
> > either the user installs an IDE which pulls it in as dep or he/she
> > installs it using yum/d
* Lars E. Pettersson [26/01/2014 12:26] :
>
> Why is it not installed by default?
The last time I used it, it had a number of bugs that made it
unusable (bugs #883435 and bugs #949907 are the first that come to mind).
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fed
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> On 01/26/2014 11:08 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>
>> gcc isn't an application in a sense of "gui application" so there is
>> to ways to install it
>> either the user installs an IDE which pulls it in as dep or he/she
>> installs it using yum/dn
On 01/26/2014 12:18 PM, Heiko Adams wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:14 +0100 schrieb Lars E. Pettersson:
...
Would it not be better to have a 'software center' that includes ALL
software available, be they GUI related or not? Probably based on
rpm-packages, as that is what our system ulti
Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:14 +0100 schrieb Lars E. Pettersson:
> On 01/26/2014 11:08 AM, drago01 wrote:
> > gcc isn't an application in a sense of "gui application" so there is
> > to ways to install it
> > either the user installs an IDE which pulls it in as dep or he/she
> > installs it usin
On 01/26/2014 11:08 AM, drago01 wrote:
gcc isn't an application in a sense of "gui application" so there is
to ways to install it
either the user installs an IDE which pulls it in as dep or he/she
installs it using yum/dnf.
Would it not be better to have a 'software center' that includes ALL
s
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lars E. Pettersson wrote:
> On 01/23/2014 02:04 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>>
>> On 23 January 2014 12:37, David Howells wrote:
>>>
>>> What constitutes an 'application' in this sense? Does 'gcc' count for
>>> instance? How about 'find'?
>>
>>
>> No. In the AppS
On 01/23/2014 02:04 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 23 January 2014 12:37, David Howells wrote:
What constitutes an 'application' in this sense? Does 'gcc' count for
instance? How about 'find'?
No. In the AppStream and AppData definitions, a program is an
application if "it has a .desktop file
On 24 January 2014 19:15, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> The term 'hiding' conveys a wrong implication that abandonware is
> necessarily an embarrassment to be kept locked up in the attic.
I think that's the right implication.
> I can think
> of several programs that I use daily that are simple enou
Hi
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:27 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> It's not pretending anything if you question what I suggest you get input
> from the arm team they are the once that most recently went through all the
> packages right.
>
> Let's hear from them how well much time they spent
On 01/23/2014 03:26 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
I don't think we need to drop any packages, unless keeping that
package is actually making our life harder in a significant way. What
I think it's makes a lot of sense doing is -hiding- the applications
that are abandonware. Users that really want s
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:18:16 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
We should be able to calculate the number of components we as in
distribution actually can manage. We just need to agree on average
contribute time which could be 2.5 hours a day 5 days of the week or
something and
On 01/24/2014 01:51 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 24 January 2014 13:18, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>So I get to the point I'm trying to see and understand what role do
>distribution play in that future for Gnome and why is Gnome contributors
>wasting so much time and energy in distribution
On 24 January 2014 13:18, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> So I get to the point I'm trying to see and understand what role do
> distribution play in that future for Gnome and why is Gnome contributors
> wasting so much time and energy in distribution politics and compatability
> as opposed to ful
On 01/24/2014 10:39 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 24 January 2014 10:32, Björn Persson wrote:
I'm not familiar with APG but from your description it sounds like a
perfect example of stable and reliable software – the best kind there
is.
Right, so it belongs in Fedora; I don't think anyone is a
On 24 January 2014 10:32, Björn Persson wrote:
> I'm not familiar with APG but from your description it sounds like a
> perfect example of stable and reliable software – the best kind there
> is.
Right, so it belongs in Fedora; I don't think anyone is arguing
against that. There is a metric ton o
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>I mean, I'm a maintainer for the Fedora apg package.
>Last upstream release was 2003. I very rarely touch it.
>Yet, from time to time I still use it here, I suspect, but do not know
>that others install and use it.
>
>It has no bugs currently opened against it.
>
>It's not f
Am 24.01.2014 09:27, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
> I say we remove those unmaintained components and if and when interest comes
> back to maintain those components then
> they will just have to pass through package review again.
i say you remove *nothing* before you have asked for every sing
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:18:16AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> On 01/24/2014 05:50 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> >But, never deem that 5k components is the best number, comparing to
> >other Linux, we are far away behind. They can be used still at the
> >moment, why do we burden ours
Am 24.01.2014 09:18, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
> On 01/24/2014 05:50 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
>> But, never deem that 5k components is the best number, comparing to
>> other Linux, we are far away behind. They can be used still at the
>> moment, why do we burden ourselves by the insignific
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:00:29AM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:53:47PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:26:24 -0800
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I think ideally any process around this should have at least two parts:
> >
> > a
On 01/24/2014 05:05 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Agreed. It is atleast a metric that can be tweaked as opposed to
pretending that all packages with inactive upstreams is a deep
resource drain on Fedora.
It's not pretending anything if you question what I suggest you get
input from the arm
On 01/24/2014 05:50 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
But, never deem that 5k components is the best number, comparing to
other Linux, we are far away behind. They can be used still at the
moment, why do we burden ourselves by the insignificant numbers?
Quantity vs quality 5k - 7k was the number we
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:00:29AM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:53:47PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:26:24 -0800
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I think ideally any process around this should have at least two parts:
> >
> > a) an
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 13:50 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> Maybe we can learn some metrics from other distros as well. See how
> they handle such hot potatos when meeting zombie packagers.
I tend to assume Debian's pretty good at this stuff, but aside from
them, I strongly doubt the others are a
Maybe we can learn some metrics from other distros as well. See how
they handle such hot potatos when meeting zombie packagers.
But, never deem that 5k components is the best number, comparing to
other Linux, we are far away behind. They can be used still at the
moment, why do we burden ourselves
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 01:00 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > Even a simple list of packages ordered by the time from last
> > non-mass-rebuild release multiplied by the number of currently open
> > bugs would be quite us
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 01:00 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:53:47PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:26:24 -0800
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I think ideally any process around this should have at least two parts:
> >
> > a) an automat
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:53:47PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:26:24 -0800
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> I think ideally any process around this should have at least two parts:
>
> a) an automated/scriptable part.
>
> In this part the script uses cold hard facts to look for
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:26:24 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Well, let's say it's certainly not 'low-hanging fruit' :)
>
> I'm not saying I have all the answers, just suggesting a possibly more
> productive course. At least now we have people co-operatively
> discussing the possibilities and pote
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:19:11PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I mean, I'm a maintainer for the Fedora apg package.
> Last upstream release was 2003. I very rarely touch it.
> Yet, from time to time I still use it here, I suspect, but do not know
> that others install and use it.
Ooh. I do! Kee
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:19 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:08:13 -0800
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> > I don't think that's true at all. Would anyone on either side of the
> > debate object to an approach which tried to identify software that was
> > truly aband
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 00:15 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > I'm sure there's at least a certain amount of low-hanging fruit that
> > no-one would really mind getting rid of
>
> but how make the decisions and who do the work of investigation?
Sure, that's something that would have to get figured
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:08:13 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
...snip...
> I don't think that's true at all. Would anyone on either side of the
> debate object to an approach which tried to identify software that was
> truly abandoned either up- or down-stream - not just 'software that no
> longer r
Am 24.01.2014 00:08, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:55 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 23.01.2014 16:49, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
>>>
>>> On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate
>>>
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:55 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 23.01.2014 16:49, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
> >
> > On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >> So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate
> >> repository tree still included as Fedora and ena
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:06:16AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > What I wanted to point out is that forced removal
> > of packages _is not_ going to guarantee more packager's attention to
> > the rest of the distribution.
>
> Is there a reading comprehension problem in this thread? I don't r
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:18 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> Oh I see you apparently have no idea what we in the QA community do but
> since you dont we dont handle this matters so there is no point for me to
> file a ticket it would not lead anywhere
>
This seems pretty incoherent an
On 01/23/2014 06:09 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I don't agree with the premise at all and therefore unsurprising I
don't agree with this conclusion. In any case, I sincerely doubt you
will get even a single person other than yourself to agree with this
proposal but feel free to try filing a t
Hi
Cutting off inactively maintained packages being the only way we can deal
> with that which in turn will reduce the size of the distribution to
> something we actually can maintain or cover ( which probably is around 5k
> components )
>
I don't agree with the premise at all and therefore unsu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:09:25 +
Richard Hughes escribió:
> Hi,
>
> As the subject suggests, Fedora 22 will require applications to have a
> long description to be shown in the software center. We're introducing
> this change so that we can show a
On Jan 23, 2014, at 5:09 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> And at what point does package become
> unmaintained?
It seems self evident that it's at least insufficiently maintained, if it
doesn't meet the long description requirement to appear in software center. I
don't know how else you expect this t
On 01/23/2014 05:41 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
By going through those reports you will notice how long it took
for those patches to be applied as well as see all thos
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> By going through those reports you will notice how long it took for those
> patches to be applied as well as see all those that have yet to be applied.
>
Yep but these are n
On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If you have specific problems in any packages, feel free to point them
out.
Tracker bug [1] which fixes requirements on crontab as got approved by
the FPC [2].
Each of those ca 50 components contains a patch submitted by myself in
last July wh
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:08 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>>
>> That doesn't answer the question. You keep using the word "we". Who is
>> we?
>>
>
> We in quality assurance if you want us to come up with an official respond
> regardi
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:56 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
>
> Obviously not you...
>
That doesn't answer the question. You keep using the word "we". Who is we?
> To me this is pure community resources leakage due to distribution
litterers with the mentality of >packaging *everyt
On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
That doesn't answer the question. You keep using the word "we". Who
is we?
We in quality assurance if you want us to come up with an official
respond regarding inactively maintained packages I can put it on the
meeting agenda.
JBG
--
devel
On 01/23/2014 04:27 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 01/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >So, one possibility would be to move
less-maintained packages to a separate
On 23 January 2014 15:55, Reindl Harald wrote:
> consider packages for removal because upstream does not jump around
> and release at least once per year a new version is hmmm... i
> must not say the words in public
Please stop posting to this thread.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
deve
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> On 01/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
>> > >So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a
separate
> >repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default
>>> >That wo
On 01/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate
> >repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default
>That wont reduce the bugs reported against it...
That's not necessarily bad. And by categorizing thos
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 03:49:17PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate
> >repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default
> That wont reduce the bugs reported against it...
That's not necessarily bad.
On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate
repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default
That wont reduce the bugs reported against it...
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https:/
Am 23.01.2014 16:49, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
>
> On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate
>> repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default
>
> That wont reduce the bugs reported against i
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:23:49AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> "A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release in
> half a decade"
> Which poses security risk and bugs not being dealt and bad end user
> experience if our end user base chooses to install it.
> ( because if
Am 23.01.2014 14:06, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
> On 01/23/2014 12:09 PM, David Tardon wrote:
>> No, I think your reasoning is faulty and your attempts to see everything
>> in just black and white is fundamentally flawed. Anyway, that_was not_
>> the point of my mail. What I wanted to point out
On 01/23/2014 12:09 PM, David Tardon wrote:
No, I think your reasoning is faulty and your attempts to see everything
in just black and white is fundamentally flawed. Anyway, that_was not_
the point of my mail. What I wanted to point out is that forced removal
of packages_is not_ going to guaran
On 23 January 2014 12:37, David Howells wrote:
> What constitutes an 'application' in this sense? Does 'gcc' count for
> instance? How about 'find'?
No. In the AppStream and AppData definitions, a program is an
application if "it has a .desktop file that is visible in the menu".
i.e. not NoDisp
Richard Hughes wrote:
> As the subject suggests, Fedora 22 will require applications to have a
> long description to be shown in the software center.
What constitutes an 'application' in this sense? Does 'gcc' count for
instance? How about 'find'?
David
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fed
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:51:53AM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 23 January 2014 08:34, David Tardon wrote:
> > I have noticed that there are applications on the list that have
> > NoDisplay=true in their desktop file, e.g., libreoffice-startcenter.
>
> I've just downloaded libreoffice-4
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:23:49AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> On 01/23/2014 08:07 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:37:07PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >>On 01/22/2014 03:47 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> >>>On 22 January 2014 12:09, Richard Hughes wrot
Am 23.01.2014 12:13, schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 23 January 2014 10:12, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> have you ever considered software as done and no known bugs?
>
> Okay, I'll bite.
>
>> ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/apps/sound/mp3-utils/mp3info/
>> upstream may dead, upstream my be alive but no
On 23 January 2014 10:12, Reindl Harald wrote:
> have you ever considered software as done and no known bugs?
Okay, I'll bite.
> ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/apps/sound/mp3-utils/mp3info/
> upstream may dead, upstream my be alive but nothing to do
> the software does what it is expected to do
Am 23.01.2014 10:23, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
> "A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release
> in half a decade" Which poses security risk and bugs not being dealt
> and bad end user experience if our end user base chooses to install it
have you ever considered software a
On 01/23/2014 08:07 AM, David Tardon wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:37:07PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 01/22/2014 03:47 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 22 January 2014 12:09, Richard Hughes wrote:
That's a long way from what I'd like to see, but it's going up at about 1% per
mo
On 23 January 2014 08:34, David Tardon wrote:
> I have noticed that there are applications on the list that have
> NoDisplay=true in their desktop file, e.g., libreoffice-startcenter.
I've just downloaded libreoffice-4.2.0.2-2.fc21 and it has:
[Desktop Entry]
Version=1.0
Terminal=false
NoDisplay
1 - 100 of 111 matches
Mail list logo
