On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 01:40:59PM +, Mark R Bannister wrote:
> I sense an attitude of "not my responsibility" here, and a wider problem with
> the
> way that Linux is developed. Jared told me in this posting
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-December/160499.html that
> F
On 12/16/2011 03:40 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Mark R Bannister (m...@proseconsulting.co.uk) said:
that affect critical components such as glibc. Now you're telling me that when
you collectively make decisions about what goes into Fedora, you have no regard
for what the knock-on effect is for d
Mark R Bannister (m...@proseconsulting.co.uk) said:
> that affect critical components such as glibc. Now you're telling me that
> when
> you collectively make decisions about what goes into Fedora, you have no
> regard
> for what the knock-on effect is for downstream, not even how that might
>
precate your separate
> nss_db package, and continue to package nss_db separately using source from
> http://sf.net/projects/nssdb.
Mark,
I've contacted the glibc maintainer in Fedora, who is swamped with
work right now, but he's agreed to look over your proposal as quickly
as he can. I
On 12/16/2011 01:40 PM, Mark R Bannister wrote:
On 16th Dec 2011, 11:37, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 12/16/2011 09:26 AM, Mark R Bannister wrote:
If this isn't fixed now, in Fedora, then it's likely to cause more pain when it
finally reaches RHEL.
Fedora does not have any bearing on what d
On 12/14/2011 10:02 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
That reminds me that you were talking to the glibc upstream about their
sometimes cavalier attitude to significant changes. How did that go? Did you
get a sense that they understood where we
hen RHEL6 will be supported for years to come.
By your statement "if you can't prepare your infrastructure for these changes
..." it sounds to me like you're happy to be causing pain for system
administrators. Change is sometimes a necessity, yes, but change for the sake
of
.On 12/16/2011 09:26 AM, Mark R Bannister wrote:
If this isn't fixed now, in Fedora, then it's likely to cause more pain when it
finally reaches RHEL.
Fedora does not have any bearing on what downstream distribution based
on Fedora be it Red Hat or something else do.
So even in the unlikely
On Wed 14/12/11 21:08 , Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com sent:
> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Mark R Bannister proseconsulting.co.uk>
>>> > that the nss_db package has been deprecated, and that the new nss_db
>>> > support in
>>> > glibc no longer use
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 10:36 AM, Mark R Bannister
>> > that the nss_db package has been deprecated, and that the new nss_db
>> > support in
>> > glibc no longer uses Berkeley DB format.
>>
>> I appreciate your concerns, but unfortunately most of the glibc
s one:
> >
> >
http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=2666d441c2d8107b1987b869714189af64b954c6
> >
> > that the nss_db package has been deprecated, and that the new nss_db
> > support in
> > glibc no longer uses Berkeley DB format.
>
> I appreci
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 9:48 AM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
> That reminds me that you were talking to the glibc upstream about their
> sometimes cavalier attitude to significant changes. How did that go? Did you
> get a sense that they understood where we're coming from?
My discussion with the gli
On 12/14/2011 08:44 AM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
I appreciate your concerns, but unfortunately most of the glibc
development decisions happen in the upstream glibc community, and we
in Fedora don't always have a lot of pull when it comes to those sorts
of decisions.
That reminds me that you were
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 8:16 AM, Mark R Bannister
wrote:
> I note from this posting:
>
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-July/153665.html
>
> And this one:
>
> http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=2666d441c2d8107b1987b869714189af64b954c
I note from this posting:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2011-July/153665.html
And this one:
http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=2666d441c2d8107b1987b869714189af64b954c6
that the nss_db package has been deprecated, and that the new nss_db support in
glibc no
On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 02:15:21PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> glibc now includes libnss_db again, so the nss_db package is no longer
> needed from f16 onward.
Okay, I've updated git, pkgdb, and comps, and filed a ticket with
release engineering to block the builds from the compo
glibc now includes libnss_db again, so the nss_db package is no longer
needed from f16 onward.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schwab, sch...@redhat.com
GPG Key fingerprint = D4E8 DBE3 3813 BB5D FA84 5EC7 45C6 250E 6F00 984E
"And now for something completely different."
--
devel mailing
17 matches
Mail list logo
