On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 07:06:27AM +1000, Brendan Jones wrote:
> On 06/03/2011 12:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Moving it to default in @system-tools seems fine to me as a first step.
> > However, that's not in the 'default' install (but it would place it on
> > the install media.) If it's want
tis 2011-06-07 klockan 13:50 -0400 skrev Bill Nottingham:
> Group updates are not a part of any normal update process (either
> via yum, or anaconda.)
yum upgrade is not a normal update process but it does include doing
"yum groupupdate Base". See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/YumUpgradeFaq
/ab
Ville Skyttä (ville.sky...@iki.fi) said:
> > I don't mind if it is installed by default. I just hope that it
> > doesn't get pulled in by another package during an update
>
> My plan is for F-16+ comps only, so this should not happen. I guess it
> would get pulled in by group updates though (ass
On 06/07/2011 07:25 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Right, sometimes it is more convenient to start off with a bogus
> completion and manually modify intermediate parts afterwards.
> bash-completion is simply too smart for this kind of usage.
Hitting Alt-/ instead of tab can be used to force filename
On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 04:33:15PM +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
>
>> Even if all it did was to get rid of bogus completions it would still
>> offer a better user experience at a small cost so it should be in the
>> default package set. Now it d
On Sun, Jun 05, 2011 at 04:33:15PM +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
> Even if all it did was to get rid of bogus completions it would still
> offer a better user experience at a small cost so it should be in the
> default package set. Now it does more than that.
It is not that easy, because it als
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 02:20:56PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> The response thus far seems to be somewhat net negative, but it seems to
> me that most of the negative feedback is also coming from people who
> haven't been using bash-completion for a while.
FWIW, it's always the default on _my_ in
On 06/02/2011 05:04 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Things like bash completion have massive performance implications on network
> and other slower file systems esp if its used for home directories.
Forgot to reply to this earlier, but I'd like to hear more details about
this, preferably in a bug rep
On 06/05/2011 03:46 PM, Alexander Boström wrote:
> Consider a hypothetical bash-uncompletion which just blacklists tab
> completion in those cases where it doesn't make sense but never adds any
> new completion sources.
I've suggested that to bash-completion earlier this year; the idea
hasn't tak
On Sat, Jun 04, 2011 at 01:12:41PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 04.06.2011 12:57, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> > Looking at what's currently in the @base group in comps-f16.xml.in tells
> > me that there's a *lot* of optional functionality already in it
>
> yes, it is currently too much and s
sön 2011-06-05 klockan 15:30 +0200 skrev drago01:
> 2011/6/5 Alexander Boström :
> > [...]
> > Consider a hypothetical bash-uncompletion which just blacklists tab
> > completion in those cases where it doesn't make sense but never adds any
> > new completion sources. Should that be installed by de
2011/6/5 Alexander Boström :
> [...]
> Consider a hypothetical bash-uncompletion which just blacklists tab
> completion in those cases where it doesn't make sense but never adds any
> new completion sources. Should that be installed by default? It would be
> rather small and light.
That's makes no
lör 2011-06-04 klockan 13:38 +0200 skrev Reindl Harald:
> no - i am using bash-completion since years on all machines
> but i do not like making default-install bigger as really needed
> let the users install what THEY think they need and do not go the
> apple-way deciding what is good for users
On 06/04/2011 01:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> what makes me [crazy] is the arrogant "we do not support third party software"
> [...]
First, saying "We do not support third-party software" is not arrogance,
but simply a statement of fact about our community.
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Who am
On Sat 4 June 2011 10:54:13 Reindl Harald wrote:
> but is here idiot-day today?
Please stop with this tone, it is very unexcellent behavior towards everyone
involved in this disucssion.
--
Ryan Rix -- http://rix.si
== OpenSource.com: Where Open Source Happens! ==
signature.asc
Description: Th
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 04.06.2011 13:20, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
>> but it seems to me that most of the negative feedback is also
>> coming from people who haven't been using bash-completion for a while
>
> no - i am using bash-completion since years on all machi
On 06/04/2011 02:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 04.06.2011 13:20, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
>> but it seems to me that most of the negative feedback is also
>> coming from people who haven't been using bash-completion for a while
>
> no - i am using bash-completion since years on all machines
N
Hi,
I somehow missed the top post, so sorry for replying in the middle of
the thread. Adding bash-completion by default gets a +1 from me.
Note that Ubuntu has been doing this for ages AFAIK, so it is being
used by a large group of users without very vocal complaints for years
now.
Regards,
Han
Am 04.06.2011 13:20, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> but it seems to me that most of the negative feedback is also
> coming from people who haven't been using bash-completion for a while
no - i am using bash-completion since years on all machines
but i do not like making default-install bigger as really
On 06/04/2011 02:20 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> I'd invite people to try out the latest packages, and if the issues are
> still present, filing bugs about them (preferably upstream at
> https://alioth.debian.org/projects/bash-completion/ if it's not
> packaging related, otherwise in Red Hat Bugzilla
On 06/02/2011 05:47 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>From a size perspective, it's not a huge deal - 500k with no deps that
> aren't already in @core. From a functionality perspective, it would be
> good to fix the issues it has with disconnected machines, etc. - I've
> always removed it personally be
Am 04.06.2011 12:57, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> Looking at what's currently in the @base group in comps-f16.xml.in tells
> me that there's a *lot* of optional functionality already in it
yes, it is currently too much and should be reviewed instead
taken as argument to put more stuff there
signat
On 06/02/2011 04:51 PM, Petr Sabata wrote:
> Why would you include an "optional functionality" (a quote from Packaging
> guidelines) package in the default installation?
I don't think being "optional functionality" alone prevents something
being installed by default. And the point of the quoted
On 06/03/2011 06:25 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> Since you are asking...I have a suggestion since I've used
> bash-completion for a few years:
> - make it modular (perhaps depending on environment variables?)
>
> why? Because some completions take a lot of time to load, as has
> already bee
On 06/03/2011 12:44 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Ville Skyttä wrote:
>
>> I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
>> my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
>> upstream hat on I expect things to further improve before F-16 is out.
>
Am 04.06.2011 10:38, schrieb drago01:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 04.06.2011 05:22, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
>>> It is not our job to work around bugs (or gratuitous incompatibilities with
>>> long-established Free Software packages) in proprietary software
>>
>
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 04.06.2011 05:22, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
>> It is not our job to work around bugs (or gratuitous incompatibilities with
>> long-established Free Software packages) in proprietary software
>
> WTF - Nobody said that
>
> but let the peopole
Am 04.06.2011 05:22, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> It is not our job to work around bugs (or gratuitous incompatibilities with
> long-established Free Software packages) in proprietary software
WTF - Nobody said that
but let the peopole out there fuck in peace with more and more per
default installed
Reindl Harald wrote:
> if there is a good reason - OK
> but not if the question is to change a default-setup in a way
> existing and used proprietary will have problems which are not
> existing without an OPTIONAL change
Well, installing bash-completion by default is the best way to ensure the
in
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:53 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 06:29:25PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> > Yeah. Bash-completion could stand to be broken up into a few sub-packages.
>> To solve what kind of problem exactly?
>
> Not necessarily sub-rpms. To solve the problem I was replyi
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 06:29:25PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > Yeah. Bash-completion could stand to be broken up into a few sub-packages.
> To solve what kind of problem exactly?
Not necessarily sub-rpms. To solve the problem I was replying to: some
operations are frustratingly slow, and maybe shoul
On 06/03/2011 09:22 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 03.06.2011 18:06, schrieb Peter Gordon:
>> Perhaps that is true; but what I believe Kevin is trying to convey is
>> that we (the Fedora community) should not and cannot stifle our progress
>> for the sake of some 3rd-party proprietary stuff.
>
> a
Am 03.06.2011 18:06, schrieb Peter Gordon:
> On 06/03/2011 08:49 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 03.06.2011 17:41, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
>>> David Howells wrote:
... and then you install acroread and things go horribly wrong due to
their attempt to work around bash completion of filename
On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 17:41 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> David Howells wrote:
> > ... and then you install acroread and things go horribly wrong due to
> > their attempt to work around bash completion of filenames with spaces [BZ
> > 702329].
>
> We do not support third-party proprietary software.
On 06/03/2011 08:49 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 03.06.2011 17:41, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
>> David Howells wrote:
>>> ... and then you install acroread and things go horribly wrong due to
>>> their attempt to work around bash completion of filenames with spaces [BZ
>>> 702329].
>>
>> We do not supp
On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 05:41:33PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> David Howells wrote:
> > ... and then you install acroread and things go horribly wrong due to
> > their attempt to work around bash completion of filenames with spaces [BZ
> > 702329].
>
> We do not support third-party proprietary so
Am 03.06.2011 17:41, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> David Howells wrote:
>> ... and then you install acroread and things go horribly wrong due to
>> their attempt to work around bash completion of filenames with spaces [BZ
>> 702329].
>
> We do not support third-party proprietary software.
this is a b
David Howells wrote:
> ... and then you install acroread and things go horribly wrong due to
> their attempt to work around bash completion of filenames with spaces [BZ
> 702329].
We do not support third-party proprietary software.
What's wrong with Okular or Evince?
Kevin Kofler
--
de
Excerpts from Ville Skyttä's message of Wed Jun 01 22:54:05 +0200 2011:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
>
> I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
> my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
> upstream hat on I ex
Ville Skyttä wrote:
> I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
> my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
> upstream hat on I expect things to further improve before F-16 is out.
... and then you install acroread and things go horri
On 2 Jun 2011 15:32, "Michael Cronenworth" wrote:
>
> On 06/02/2011 09:07 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> > +1 - I've found the impact of bash completion on disconnected machines
> > to be negative. I don't install it anymore for that reason.
>
> Sounds like a bug instead of a con.
I believe it has to r
On 06/03/2011 12:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Moving it to default in @system-tools seems fine to me as a first step.
> However, that's not in the 'default' install (but it would place it on
> the install media.) If it's wanted in the default install, the @base
> group is the best place for it (
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:32:21AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>> > +1 - I've found the impact of bash completion on disconnected machines
>> > to be negative. I don't install it anymore for that reason.
>> Sounds like a bug instead of
On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 09:32:21AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > +1 - I've found the impact of bash completion on disconnected machines
> > to be negative. I don't install it anymore for that reason.
> Sounds like a bug instead of a con.
Yeah. Bash-completion could stand to be broken up i
Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
> On 1 Jun 2011 21:54, "Ville Skyttä" wrote:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
> >
> > I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
> > my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and
On 06/02/2011 10:32 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 06/02/2011 09:07 AM, seth vidal wrote:
>> +1 - I've found the impact of bash completion on disconnected machines
>> to be negative. I don't install it anymore for that reason.
>
> Sounds like a bug instead of a con.
+1 : Due to horrible p
Am 02.06.2011 16:36, schrieb seth vidal:
>> please leave me in peace with discussins how a word is used and where
>> i mean simply the ability to install a minimal-system without any
>> optional software and this is getting harder every month
>
> I don't disagree - but @base is not that group. @c
Am Donnerstag, den 02.06.2011, 16:02 +0200 schrieb Reindl Harald:
> Am 01.06.2011 22:54, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
> >
> > I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
> > my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:21 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> > package-cleanup --leaves --all
>
> is listing "grub-0.97-66.fc14.x86_64"
> i hope you understand why i not trust this output :-)
grub isn't required.
> >> and then tell why the count of unneeded base-packages should be increased
On 06/02/2011 09:07 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> +1 - I've found the impact of bash completion on disconnected machines
> to be negative. I don't install it anymore for that reason.
Sounds like a bug instead of a con.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org
Am 02.06.2011 16:15, schrieb seth vidal:
>> so PLEASE install a new fedora and remove anything not needed for
>> ssh, rsync, scp and tell me how long it takes to find all of them
>>
>> what you do with such a machine:
>> decide what services you will install on this bare setup or
>> using as it i
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:11 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 02.06.2011 16:04, schrieb drago01:
> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Reindl Harald
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 01.06.2011 22:54, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to hav
Am 02.06.2011 16:04, schrieb drago01:
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 01.06.2011 22:54, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
>>>
>>> I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
>>> my opinion it'
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 15:04 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> On 1 Jun 2011 21:54, "Ville Skyttä" wrote:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
> >
> > I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default
> install. In
> > my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that
On 1 Jun 2011 21:54, "Ville Skyttä" wrote:
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
>
> I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
> my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
> upstream hat on I expect things to further imp
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 01.06.2011 22:54, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
>>
>> I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
>> my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, a
Am 01.06.2011 22:54, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
>
> I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
> my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
> upstream hat on I expect things to further impr
On Wed, Jun 01, 2011 at 11:54:05PM +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
>
> I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
> my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
> upstream hat on I expect thin
On 06/01/2011 10:54 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
>
> I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
> my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
> upstream hat on I expect things to further impr
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 23:54 +0300, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
>
> I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
> my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
> upstream hat on I expect things to f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
upstream hat on I expect things to further improve before F-16 is out.
Why I'm writing here is that
61 matches
Mail list logo
