On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:53 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Josh Boyer
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
On 2015-08-15, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Out of all of those sugges
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:41 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
>>> On 2015-08-15, Neal Gompa wrote:
Out of all of those suggestions, the only one that might have any
= real value woul
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
>> On 2015-08-15, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>> Out of all of those suggestions, the only one that might have any
>>> = real value would be renaming "kernel" to "linux", but only if we
>>> were intere
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2015-08-15, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> Out of all of those suggestions, the only one that might have any
>> = real value would be renaming "kernel" to "linux", but only if we
>> were interested in introducing other FOSS kernels as options into the
On 2015-08-15, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Out of all of those suggestions, the only one that might have any
> = real value would be renaming "kernel" to "linux", but only if we
> were interested in introducing other FOSS kernels as options into the
> distribution. At this time, I seriously doubt anyone w
On Aug 16, 2015 12:50 PM, "Reindl Harald" wrote:
>
>
>
> Am 16.08.2015 um 18:14 schrieb Roberto Ragusa:
>>
>> On 08/16/2015 10:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> no the architecture was created by Intel
>>>
>>> AMD added the 64bit capabilities in a compatible way other than Intel
itself tried
Am 16.08.2015 um 18:14 schrieb Roberto Ragusa:
On 08/16/2015 10:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
no the architecture was created by Intel
AMD added the 64bit capabilities in a compatible way other than Intel itself
tried with Itanium which was not able to run i686 instructions and later Intel
w
On 08/16/2015 10:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> no the architecture was created by Intel
>
> AMD added the 64bit capabilities in a compatible way other than Intel itself
> tried with Itanium which was not able to run i686 instructions and later
> Intel was forced to license the AMD extensions
Roberto Ragusa composed on 2015-08-16 10:47 (UTC+0200):
> dropping an underscore is nice too
That would be wonderful. Underscore is an contortive nuisance trying to touch
type top row with one pinkie while shifting with other pinkie, not to mention
even to see it when font is small or contrast lo
Am 16.08.2015 um 10:55 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 16.08.2015 um 10:47 schrieb Roberto Ragusa:
On 08/14/2015 02:38 PM, Wei-Lun Chao wrote:
Hi,
Is there already any discussion about:
rename arch name "noarch" to "all"
rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64"
rename package name "kernel-PAE" to "k
Am 16.08.2015 um 10:47 schrieb Roberto Ragusa:
On 08/14/2015 02:38 PM, Wei-Lun Chao wrote:
Hi,
Is there already any discussion about:
rename arch name "noarch" to "all"
rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64"
rename package name "kernel-PAE" to "kernel"
and even rename package name "kernel" to "
On 08/14/2015 02:38 PM, Wei-Lun Chao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there already any discussion about:
> rename arch name "noarch" to "all"
> rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64"
> rename package name "kernel-PAE" to "kernel"
> and even rename package name "kernel" to "linux"
IMHO
kernel-PAE -> kernel is
On 8/16/15, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Which is clearly labeled as a joke. Nobody is seriously proposing this.
Of course I'm not a fool ;)
--
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
http://awk.io
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fe
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Christopher Meng wrote:
> On 8/16/15, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> To be fair, Debian's use of "linux" over "kernel" is because they actually
>> support another kernel (the FreeBSD kernel). If the Fedora Project wanted
>> to add FreeBSD kernel support (which, as far as I
On 8/16/15, Neal Gompa wrote:
> To be fair, Debian's use of "linux" over "kernel" is because they actually
> support another kernel (the FreeBSD kernel). If the Fedora Project wanted
> to add FreeBSD kernel support (which, as far as I know, we don't), then we
> would have to talk about how to dea
On Sáb, 2015-08-15 at 15:33 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Sérgio Basto
> wrote:
>
> On Sáb, 2015-08-15 at 21:22 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> > On 8/14/15, Wei-Lun Chao wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Is there already any
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Sáb, 2015-08-15 at 21:22 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> > On 8/14/15, Wei-Lun Chao wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Is there already any discussion about:
> > > rename arch name "noarch" to "all"
> > > rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64"
>
On Sáb, 2015-08-15 at 21:22 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
> On 8/14/15, Wei-Lun Chao wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there already any discussion about:
> > rename arch name "noarch" to "all"
> > rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64"
> > rename package name "kernel-PAE" to "kernel"
> > and even rename p
On 8/14/15, Wei-Lun Chao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there already any discussion about:
> rename arch name "noarch" to "all"
> rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64"
> rename package name "kernel-PAE" to "kernel"
> and even rename package name "kernel" to "linux"
noarch doesn't mean all, and what's 'all'
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Petr Stodulka wrote:
>
>
> On 14.8.2015 14:38, Wei-Lun Chao wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there already any discussion about:
>> rename arch name "noarch" to "all"
>> rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64"
>> rename package name "kernel-PAE" to "kernel"
>> and even renam
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 12:33 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Wei-Lun Chao wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there already any discussion about:
>> rename arch name "noarch" to "all"
>> rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64"
>> rename package name "kernel-PAE" to "kernel"
>> and even ren
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 2:38 PM, Wei-Lun Chao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there already any discussion about:
> rename arch name "noarch" to "all"
> rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64"
> rename package name "kernel-PAE" to "kernel"
> and even rename package name "kernel" to "linux"
Why?
That doesn't sol
On 14 August 2015 at 06:38, Wei-Lun Chao wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there already any discussion about:
> rename arch name "noarch" to "all"
> rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64"
> rename package name "kernel-PAE" to "kernel"
> and even rename package name "kernel" to "linux"
There have been discussion
On 14.8.2015 14:38, Wei-Lun Chao wrote:
Hi,
Is there already any discussion about:
rename arch name "noarch" to "all"
rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64"
rename package name "kernel-PAE" to "kernel"
and even rename package name "kernel" to "linux"
IMO really bad idea in all cases.
Petr
--
d
Am 14.08.2015 um 14:38 schrieb Wei-Lun Chao:
Is there already any discussion about
why?
rename arch name "noarch" to "all"
benefits?
rename arch name "x86_64" to "amd64"
oh no - i remember a person working many years as a sysadmin downloaded
the i686 CentOS image while i said "the 64
25 matches
Mail list logo
