wift-frontend', stop reason = exec
> frame #0: 0xf7fd84c0 ld-linux-aarch64.so.1`_start at dl-start.S:22
>
> That’s as far as I’ve gotten. I not sure what the next move should be;
> troubleshooting core libraries is not something I’ve done before and have no
> idea
d
be; troubleshooting core libraries is not something I’ve done before
and have no idea where to start.
Any help or suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I’ve been
extremely busy on non-packaging things and honestly don’t really have
the time to dig into this.
Thanks!
Ron_
ely wide usage. I've submitted
a review request bug at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2047943. I
addressed an initial concern regarding the install location and
nomenclature but I'm still looking for a sponsor. Any suggestions on how
to get someon
On Wed, Feb 09, 2022 at 09:37:45AM -, Raj J Putari wrote:
> Not sure what selinux really is but I think it makes polices based on system
> mechanics so nekto or netko the vulnerability scanner can be reversed
> engineered to generate custom policies on the fly
Well, no. It provides a policy
Not sure what selinux really is but I think it makes polices based on system
mechanics so nekto or netko the vulnerability scanner can be reversed
engineered to generate custom policies on the fly
Speaking of policy, a politics on the project would be nice
And try to use multi dimensional array
Hi, I am going to start working on upgrading qdigidoc 3.x spec file[1],
in order making it compatible with the new (beta) qdigidoc 4.x [2].
I am not yet confident in creating spec files from the scratch, like
often happens with major updates, so I would like to ask you some
suggestions that come
Ah, thanks. Indeed. It's a bit old, but nice… :) Thanks for packaging it.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Aha, so the discussion is about the "(not so) free" level packs already. Did
not know that, indeed. If so, everything is all right. And in any case, you can
still package it without these level packs. :)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproje
Oh, nice. In this case I'll take everything back…
I just got the impression, because of the prices list on the main website
(https://askbot.com/plans/) and on askbot.com I did not find a link to the repo…
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproj
On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 11:11 PM, rugk wrote:
> FYI, the game's name I could not remember was "Which way is up". See
> https://packages.debian.org/stretch/whichwayisup.
>
Nice game. I didn't know it.
I packaged it and it's available for review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=146477
I think you're misunderstanding the discussion; the issue is not whether it's
okay to package the game at all - as noted by Matthew and Zbigniew, being able
to use copyrighted levels and such is okay; see: Fedora packs Doom ports.
The current blocker is that the level packs (CCLPs) use a licence
> (Game engines which are open source and which work with redistributable but
> non-free content are a different special case.)
Actually that's the case here, as explained in another post. It does *not
require* the non-FLOSS binaries.
___
devel mailing
FYI, the game's name I could not remember was "Which way is up". See
https://packages.debian.org/stretch/whichwayisup.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Actually, BTW, one basic assumption you do is wrong: The game can be played
completely without the maybe-proprietary binary. There are FLOSS levels
inside/bundled IIRC.
Playing the original levels is just an "extra feature" and if you don't use it,
you don't use it.
Not allowing the software, b
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 07:47:48PM +0200, Christian Dersch wrote:
> On 06/17/2017 07:41 PM, Christian Dersch wrote:
> > On 06/17/2017 07:33 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> >> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >>> Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:
> >>>
> Am 16.
On 06/17/2017 07:41 PM, Christian Dersch wrote:
> On 06/17/2017 07:33 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>>> Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:
>>>
Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki:
> I took a shot at packaging the ga
On 06/17/2017 07:33 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:
>>
>>> Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki:
I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only
issue I h
On Sat, Jun 17, 2017 at 10:45:54AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:
>
> > Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki:
> >> I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only
> >> issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the
>
Björn 'besser82' Esser wrote:
> Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki:
>> I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only
>> issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the
>> only copyright info is a line at the end of the readme, stating: "Th
Artur Iwicki wrote:
> I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only
> issue I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the only
> copyright info is a line at the end of the readme, stating: "This package
> [...] may be distributed freely, as long as its
To anyone interested: I've finished packaging the game and would be grateful
for a review. I can do a review swap in exchange.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1462412
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe sen
Am 16.06.2017 um 22:52 schrieb Artur Iwicki:
I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only issue I have is
that the level packs don't really have a licence; the only copyright info is a line at
the end of the readme, stating: "This package [...] may be distributed fr
I took a shot at packaging the game and it went rather smoothly. The only issue
I have is that the level packs don't really have a licence; the only copyright
info is a line at the end of the readme, stating: "This package [...] may be
distributed freely, as long as its contents are left intact
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:18:13PM -, rugk wrote:
> > wonder what Legal's opinion on that would be.
>
> It worked in Debian. ;)
> Basically they did not package the original game files. I think they
> are even not included in the upstream project. They just state: "Do
> you have a file of th
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 7:28 PM, rugk wrote:
> Personally, I'd like such a system very much. It would make it possible for
> regular users to participate…
> And such participation can be the first step to becoming deeper involved into
> the project and becoming a packager, e.g.
>
> I don't know
Personally, I'd like such a system very much. It would make it possible for
regular users to participate…
And such participation can be the first step to becoming deeper involved into
the project and becoming a packager, e.g.
I don't know phpback, but uservoice is a popular software. It is propr
> I searched for tworld, is that the "Tile World" game recreating "Chip's
> Challenge"?
Yes.
> wonder what Legal's opinion on that would be.
It worked in Debian. ;)
Basically they did not package the original game files. I think they are even
not included in the upstream project. They just st
On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 10:49 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:41:15AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > > It'd be *nice* if there would be
> > > a maintained list, although I very much agree that it shouldn't be
> > > presented as something which a pool of developers are hovering
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:41:15AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > It'd be *nice* if there would be
> > a maintained list, although I very much agree that it shouldn't be
> > presented as something which a pool of developers are hovering over.
> It'd be nice, but I'd argue that a list that is perpetua
On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> It'd be *nice* if there would be
> a maintained list, although I very much agree that it shouldn't be
> presented as something which a pool of developers are hovering over.
It'd be nice, but I'd argue that a list that is perpetually ignore
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 04:55:08PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> There's a wiki page for this, but frankly I'd suggest it's not a high
> priority because we just don't have a pool of people hanging around
> looking for stuff to package; the existing page is huge and contains
> things that have be
On 2017-06-14, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 01:22 +0200, rugk wrote:
>> Finally I'm giving a list of some very useful pieces of software I am
>> partially missing after switching from Debian.
>
> There's a wiki page for this
The wiki cannnot be edited by people without any FAS
I have a bit of personal interest in Tox, so I took a look. qTox cannot be
included in the official repo because of dependency on ffmpeg. The dependency
list for uTox looks like it could be worked with (the filter_audio lib looks
the worst to me).
I searched for tworld, is that the "Tile World"
On Thu, 2017-06-15 at 01:22 +0200, rugk wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been looking into how to suggest packages for inclusion in Fedora
> for some time. See
> https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/106042/where-do-i-request-new-packages-to-be-added-to-the-fedora-repos/.
>
> Finally I'm giving a list of
Hi,
I've been looking into how to suggest packages for inclusion in Fedora
for some time. See
https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/106042/where-do-i-request-new-packages-to-be-added-to-the-fedora-repos/.
Finally I'm giving a list of some very useful pieces of software I am
partially miss
Il 20/11/2016 21:38, Nico Kadel-Garcia ha scritto:
>> I think it would be nice to make a discussion even for non Python
>> packages, so we can elaborate a sort of vademecum that a packager
>> could show to upstreams when there is a collaboration between them.
>>
>> Have a nice day
> Most upstream d
On 21 November 2016 at 21:49, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Piotr Ozarowski wrote:
>> In Debian we have https://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide
>> I guess more official, cross-distro document that we all point upstream
>> authors to would be a nice idea as well.
>
> It would
Il 20/11/2016 21:38, Nico Kadel-Garcia ha scritto:
>> I think it would be nice to make a discussion even for non Python
>> packages, so we can elaborate a sort of vademecum that a packager
>> could show to upstreams when there is a collaboration between them.
>>
>> Have a nice day
> Most upstream d
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Piotr Ozarowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> [Germano Massullo, 2016-11-20]
>> We often deal with upstream developers that bundle libraries in their
>> code, so to make a package we have to debundle them, etc.
>> This time, an upstream dev. asked me what he could do to make ea
On Nov 20, 2016 1:49 AM, "Germano Massullo"
wrote:
>
> We often deal with upstream developers that bundle libraries in their
> code, so to make a package we have to debundle them, etc.
> This time, an upstream dev. asked me what he could do to make easier
> the work of packagers.
> In this case th
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 2:48 AM, Germano Massullo
wrote:
> We often deal with upstream developers that bundle libraries in their
> code, so to make a package we have to debundle them, etc.
> This time, an upstream dev. asked me what he could do to make easier
> the work of packagers.
> In this cas
On Sun, 2016-11-20 at 15:42 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I think it comes down to:
> - don't bundle,
> - if you have to bundle, provide an easy and unambiguous configure
> switch
> to use the system version of the dependency,
> - never, never, patch stuff in-tree.
- Don't hard-cod
On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 08:48:27AM +0100, Germano Massullo wrote:
> We often deal with upstream developers that bundle libraries in their
> code, so to make a package we have to debundle them, etc.
> This time, an upstream dev. asked me what he could do to make easier
> the work of packagers.
> In
We often deal with upstream developers that bundle libraries in their
code, so to make a package we have to debundle them, etc.
This time, an upstream dev. asked me what he could do to make easier
the work of packagers.
In this case the software is python-netjsongraph [1] that bundles
javascript-d3
On Jul 18, 2016 10:30 PM, "Jeremy Fergason"
wrote:
>
>
> 3) Swift relies on LLDB for it’s REPL functionality on linux. This is
annoying because it creates a custom version of LLDB that conflicts with
the main lldb package. I can’t see anyway around this conflict as it is a
core assumption in th
All,
I’m working on a SPEC file for Apple’s swift programming language. I
believe it’s currently working and conforms to the community guidelines but
I have some questions:
1) The swift name conflicts with several existing packages. I’m thinking
swiftlang would be appropriate as this is similar
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 10:36:38PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > because the journal isn't optional in Fedora. And I think I'd combine
> > mail and sendmail (because the /usr/sbin/sendmail command can be
> > provided by a lot of alternatives, including the very lightweight
> > ssmtp).
> Yeah, I
On 03/20/2014 01:12 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:17:46PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> fail2ban-server - core components with minimal deps
> fail2ban-firewalld - firewalld support/configuration - requires firewalld
> fail2ban-hostsdeny - tcp_wrappers hosts.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Jonathan Underwood <
jonathan.underw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 March 2014 13:04, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Orion Poplawski
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 03/19/2014 09:10 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> >> > Ok using Jonathan's suggestion fo
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:17:46PM -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> >>>fail2ban-server - core components with minimal deps
> >>>fail2ban-firewalld - firewalld support/configuration - requires firewalld
> >>>fail2ban-hostsdeny - tcp_wrappers hosts.deny support - requires
> >>>tcp_wrappers
> >>>fai
On 20 March 2014 16:17, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> I am concerned that this looks like configuring the fail2ban package by
> installing more packages. If we started doing it everywhere multiple
> packages interact, it would combinatorially explode the number of packages
> and make the system hard
On 03/20/2014 12:24 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 03/19/2014 02:56 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 02:32:40PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
Hmm, I like this alternative a lot. I'm probably taking this too
far, but I'm thinking of:
fail2ban-server - core components with minim
On 20 March 2014 13:04, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Orion Poplawski
> wrote:
>>
>> On 03/19/2014 09:10 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>> > Ok using Jonathan's suggestion for the settings from a clean install I'm
>> > getting an error whether I use the systemd backend or not..
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:57 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 03/19/2014 09:10 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > Ok using Jonathan's suggestion for the settings from a clean install I'm
> > getting an error whether I use the systemd backend or not...
> >
> >[12698]: ERROR ipset
> > create fail2ban-ssh
On 03/19/2014 02:56 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 02:32:40PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> Hmm, I like this alternative a lot. I'm probably taking this too
>> far, but I'm thinking of:
>>
>> fail2ban-server - core components with minimal deps
>>
>> fail2ban-firewalld - fir
On 03/19/2014 09:10 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Ok using Jonathan's suggestion for the settings from a clean install I'm
> getting an error whether I use the systemd backend or not...
>
>[12698]: ERROR ipset
> create fail2ban-sshd hash:ip timeout 600
> firewall-cmd --direct --add-rule ipv4 filter
Ok using Jonathan's suggestion for the settings from a clean install I'm
getting an error whether I use the systemd backend or not...
2014-03-19 22:06:57,956 fail2ban.server.server[12698]: INFOChanged
logging target to /var/log/fail2ban.log for Fail2ban v0.9.0
2014-03-19 22:06:57,961 fail2ban.
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 02:32:40PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> Hmm, I like this alternative a lot. I'm probably taking this too
> far, but I'm thinking of:
>
> fail2ban-server - core components with minimal deps
>
> fail2ban-firewalld - firewalld support/configuration - requires firewalld
>
On 03/19/2014 05:38 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:09:31PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
- Stick it in a fail2ban-firewalld sub-package that requires firewalld.
Downside is that people need to figure out that they really should
install this for default installs. Upside
On 19 March 2014 15:10, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046816
> You are going to need fail2ban-0.9-2 - f20 build is here
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6651548. More testing
> would be much appreciated.
On a default F20 install w
On 19 March 2014 19:16, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 19.03.2014 20:14, schrieb Jonathan Underwood:
>> On 19 March 2014 15:10, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046816
>>> You are going to need fail2ban-0.9-2 - f20 build is here
>>> http://koji.fedoraproject
On 19 March 2014 19:23, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 19.03.2014 20:21, schrieb Jonathan Underwood:
>> On 19 March 2014 19:16, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> but with not take care of it you would end in having firewalld as mandatory
>>> dependency which is the main point of that thread - there are still w
Am 19.03.2014 20:21, schrieb Jonathan Underwood:
> On 19 March 2014 19:16, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> but with not take care of it you would end in having firewalld as mandatory
>> dependency which is the main point of that thread - there are still way
>> too much circular dependencies making it hard
Am 19.03.2014 20:14, schrieb Jonathan Underwood:
> On 19 March 2014 15:10, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>> See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1046816
>> You are going to need fail2ban-0.9-2 - f20 build is here
>> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6651548. More testing
>>
On 03/19/2014 07:42 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Orion Poplawski mailto:or...@cora.nwra.com>> wrote:
fail2ban doesn't work out of the box with firewalld. However, we can
drop a config file at /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/fedora-firewalld.conf to
enable it.
Whe
On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:09 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> fail2ban doesn't work out of the box with firewalld. However, we can
> drop a config file at /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/fedora-firewalld.conf to
> enable it.
Where is this configuration file available? I'd love to have a copy until
this get's
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 11:09:31PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> - Do we do this by default, because firewalld is the default firewall in
> Fedora? I would not want to require firewalld though because fail2ban
> can work perfectly fine without it, so it would be broken by default on
> systems wi
fail2ban doesn't work out of the box with firewalld. However, we can
drop a config file at /etc/fail2ban/jail.d/fedora-firewalld.conf to
enable it. I'm wondering:
- Do we do this by default, because firewalld is the default firewall in
Fedora? I would not want to require firewalld though becaus
Le Jeu 6 février 2014 21:38, Vidhun Vinod a écrit :
> 1. Most of the hosting companies do not support web-sockets.
And this is unlikely to change.
People deployed firewalls for a reason and I can't fathom why the web
sockets guys actually expected that wrapping protocols people didn't trust
in
Hey,
This is Vidun. I would like to get involved in the Google Summer Of Code
program with Fedora. I have an idea in mind which I would like to suggest
and probably work on. The idea description as of now is too vague but I
hope it drives my point. I'm looking for suggestions and feedback fro
On Qua, 2012-12-19 at 08:05 +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:38:24PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > 1 - Here:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Input_device_configuration#system-setup-keyboard
> >
> > we need update this because:
> > Command system-setup-key
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 09:38:24PM +, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 1 - Here:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Input_device_configuration#system-setup-keyboard
>
> we need update this because:
> Command system-setup-keyboard is not present in F18, now we got
> localectl set-x11-keymap.
was a
On 12/13/2012 04:38 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Hi,
1 - Here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Input_device_configuration#system-setup-keyboard
we need update this because:
Command system-setup-keyboard is not present in F18, now we got
localectl set-x11-keymap
For each of these suggestions
Hi,
1 - Here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Input_device_configuration#system-setup-keyboard
we need update this because:
Command system-setup-keyboard is not present in F18, now we got
localectl set-x11-keymap.
And need review system-config-keyboard ?
2 - as wrote and suggest in other email,
Greetings and salutations!
It is time once again to choose the name for the next release of Fedora.
Suggestions for names will be accepted beginning RIGHT THIS SECOND
(October 9, 2012), and ending promptly at the end of the day on October
16, 2012 (23:59:59 UTC). So mooove on over, and
commit 96ee09303372884a6f3c8a845a0221195b782d1f
Author: Paul Howarth
Date: Mon Jun 14 08:10:38 2010 +
- Incorporate package review suggestions (#602597)
- Use %{?perl_default_filter}
- Use DESTDIR instead of PERL_INSTALL_ROOT
perl-Package-Stash.spec | 11 +--
1
The device can be automatically mounted. It can be checked by its
label that is the original label released with the distro.
I think that should exists a relation between packages and the
repositories on a cached manner. If the repository is on a umounted
device (USB, CD/DVD-ROM) and is not possib
On 05/10/2010 05:43 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> Neither is fixing the RFE for PK, as it's notabug.
> But I firmly believe
> creting a text file, is the easier\maybe safer challenge.
>
PackageKit developers disagree with you. Since they are the ones doing
the work involved, their opinion has more
On 10/05/10 13:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
--snip--
>
> DVD repo is clearly not part of fedora-release at the moment. We are
> talking about the current reality. If you file a RFE and get
> fedora-release updated, then it will become easier but that is not the
> case now.
>
> Rahul
Neither is
On 05/10/2010 05:36 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 10/05/10 13:02, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> --snipp--
>
>
>> DVD repo does NOT show up automatically in the repository listing when
>> you install gnome-packagekit-extras.
>>
> I said if DVD.repo is releases with fedora-release*
> it *will* sho
On 10/05/10 13:02, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
--snipp--
>
> DVD repo does NOT show up automatically in the repository listing when
> you install gnome-packagekit-extras.
I said if DVD.repo is releases with fedora-release*
it *will* show up in default
There are manual fiddling involved
> in setting
On 05/10/2010 05:22 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 10/05/10 1
> How can you not click if it shows up in
> gnome-packagekit-extra?
> (admin/software/sources)
>
> Will not the packages be availabel in add\remove?
>
> They are on my tests.
>
> No user intervention required.
> (allow for the fact my test
On 10/05/10 12:48, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
--snipp--
>>>
>> How is it not as easy?
>>
>
> It is not a click through process.
>
> Rahul
How can you not click if it shows up in
gnome-packagekit-extra?
(admin/software/sources)
Will not the packages be availabel in add\remove?
They are on my
On 05/10/2010 05:06 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 10/05/10 12:25, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> --snip--
>
>>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-May/135944.html
>>> Should work for F13+
>>> even for new users.
>>>
>>>
>> What you describe is not as easy as enabling any other
On 10/05/10 12:25, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
--snip--
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-May/135944.html
>> Should work for F13+
>> even for new users.
>>
>
> What you describe is not as easy as enabling any other repository
How is it not as easy?
fedora-release*rpm
contains re
On 05/10/2010 04:48 PM, Frank Murphy wrote
> Hi Rahul,
> Check my reply from 11:04
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-May/135944.html
> Should work for F13+
> even for new users.
>
What you describe is not as easy as enabling any other repository and
there is no reason it sho
On 10/05/10 12:10, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
--snip--
>> All it takes is adding method to wiki.
>> "How to use DVD\CD as repo
>>
>
> Frank,
>
> We are trying to make the process easier by making it a click through
> process.
It doesn't help if you insist that it can be done manually.
> Everyone
On 05/10/2010 02:46 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> Look earlier in the thread,
> how to mount a DVD as a repo has been demonstrated.
>
> All it takes is adding method to wiki.
> "How to use DVD\CD as repo
>
Frank,
We are trying to make the process easier by making it a click through
process. It do
On 10/05/10 10:54, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 05/10/2010 10:16 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
--snip--
>>
>> Look earlier in the thread,
>> how to mount a DVD as a repo has been demonstrated.
>
> Yes, it has. And it's more difficult that installing from the repos.
> Which was my point.
>
> Andrew.
But t
On 05/10/2010 10:16 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 10/05/10 10:08, Andrew Haley wrote:
> --snip--
>>
>> This is a bad argument IMO. Many users are advanced in some areas,
>> but not others. The whole idea that "Fedora is a distro for advanced
>> users therefore it should be hard to use" is absurd.
On 10/05/10 10:08, Andrew Haley wrote:
--snip--
>
> This is a bad argument IMO. Many users are advanced in some areas,
> but not others. The whole idea that "Fedora is a distro for advanced
> users therefore it should be hard to use" is absurd.
How is it hard to use? excl. patented stuff.
I c
On 05/09/2010 02:28 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 09/05/10 13:34, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
>> If you have not see this at all, I've seen this frequently. Fedora
>> sucks in this area for many years. I've seen it, so whatever
>> arguments you bring; I KNOW that this bug IS very important and
>> shou
On Sun, 2010-05-09 at 20:13 +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
> sön 2010-05-09 klockan 11:22 +0430 skrev Hedayat Vatankhah:
>
> > No, the problem is this: PackageKit does not know how to mount a
> > removable media.
>
> Why do you even need to mount it? Removable media is of course
> automatically
On ۱۰/۰۵/۰۹ 10:43, Alexander � wrote:
> sön 2010-05-09 klockan 11:22 +0430 skrev Hedayat Vatankhah:
>
>
>> No, the problem is this: PackageKit does not know how to mount a
>> removable media.
>>
> Why do you even need to mount it? Removable media is of course
> automatically mounted wh
sön 2010-05-09 klockan 18:54 +0200 skrev Kevin Kofler:
> Many of them
> have updates anyway.
Use delta-RPMs (combining not the installed old version but the old
version on the DVD with the downloaded drpm).
/Alexander
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorapr
sön 2010-05-09 klockan 11:22 +0430 skrev Hedayat Vatankhah:
> No, the problem is this: PackageKit does not know how to mount a
> removable media.
Why do you even need to mount it? Removable media is of course
automatically mounted when you insert it (if someone is logged in on the
console).
/Ale
/*Kevin Kofler */ wrote on 05/09/2010 9:24:04 PM
+0450:
Frank Murphy wrote:
That *should not* be default for most users,
as it will end up breaking quite a lot,
if used with other repos. (updates,updates-tesing, 3rd party)
as %requires may have changed quite a bit since DVD was released.
Frank Murphy wrote:
> That *should not* be default for most users,
> as it will end up breaking quite a lot,
> if used with other repos. (updates,updates-tesing, 3rd party)
>
> as %requires may have changed quite a bit since DVD was released.
That shouldn't be a problem as long as updates is enab
On 09/05/10 13:34, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
>--snip--
>>
>> Frank
>>
> Well, sorry but you simply don't get it! Give a Fedora DVD to a new
> Linux user and tell him to install it on his own system.
Then ask him to
> install Eclipse from DVD since he will most probably NOT opt to
> customize his pac
/*Frank Murphy */ wrote on 05/09/2010 4:20:15 PM +0450:
On 09/05/10 12:34, Björn Persson wrote:
Frank Murphy wrote:
That *should not* be default for most users,
as it will end up breaking quite a lot,
if used with other repos. (updates,updates-tesing, 3rd party)
If using th
1 - 100 of 134 matches
Mail list logo
