About three weeks ago, I've run into multiple package review requests
being marked FE_NEEDSPONSOR by a person who is a sponsored already
with a different email address [at Red Hat]:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/554234#c6
Sometimes FE_NEEDSPONSOR is set by mistake, because submitters
misunderstand
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 18:24 -0500, Owen Taylor wrote:
> we seem to have things set up to run configure as:
>
> --build=i386-redhat-linux-gnu
> --host=i386-redhat-linux-gnu
> --target=i686-redhat-linux-gnu
>
> Which, according to my reading of the autoconf manual means:
>
> * Build on a i386-
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 09:05 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> About three weeks ago, I've run into multiple package review requests
> being marked FE_NEEDSPONSOR by a person who is a sponsored already
> with a different email address [at Red Hat]:
>
> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/554234#c6
>
> Som
Le Lun 1 février 2010 22:05, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
>
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> Sure it is, it's changelog style #3 of
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
>
> No, it's not style #3. It's 2 or more style #3 entries collapsed into 1,
> which is not one of the allowed
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 14:00 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 01, 2010 at 01:38:13PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> > 1) The present packages need to be fixecd. Sounds like fipscheck, hmaccalc,
> > and openssh. They are violating the FHS which is prohibited by the
> > Guidelines.
I would refuse to allow two accounts.
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 09:05 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> According to yesterday's reply, the person really wants to create a second
> account. Whatever the full plan may be, so far it only creates confusion.
>
> --
> Michael Schwendt
> Fedora releas
2010/2/1 Christopher Brown :
> On 15 January 2010 11:03, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
>> 2010/1/14 Matthew Garrett :
>>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 01:46:52PM +0100, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
>>>
thats exactly what i am "complaining" about. it states that burning
failed. id expect it to tell me that polli
On Mon, 2010-02-01 at 15:47 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi again, folks. Here is another draft of the privilege escalation
> policy. This is the sixth draft (second to this list). Changes: one of
> Kevin Kofler's queries alerted me to the fact that somehow all the
> changes between draft 1 and
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> That is your interpretation. I see nothing on this page to support this
> claim. And actually it is contrary to format #3 logic, since its main
> difference with other changelog formats is that the version is not part of
> the entry header, so there's no reason to limit one
On Mon, 1 Feb 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Owen Taylor (otay...@redhat.com) said:
>> Looking at the build logs for F-12, e.g.:
>>
>> http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/glib2/2.22.4/1.fc12/data/logs/i686/build.log
>>
>> we seem to have things set up to run configure as:
>>
>> --build=i38
On 02/02/2010 06:33 AM, Dominic Hopf wrote:
> Am Montag, den 01.02.2010, 17:07 -0600 schrieb Ian Weller:
>> I feel like I'm neglecting the terminator package because I don't have
>> enough time to send the bugs and feature requests upstream or debug them
>> myself. Anybody interested, give me a
> I say we keep polling and find other ways of saving the planet.
This is not about the change of default behaviour... keep on polling
all the way you want... i just wanted to point out that the
application gives confusing and partially wrong feedback to the user
which confuses the user. Saving th
On 02/02/2010 04:08 PM, steve wrote:
> On 02/02/2010 06:33 AM, Dominic Hopf wrote:
>> Am Montag, den 01.02.2010, 17:07 -0600 schrieb Ian Weller:
>>> I feel like I'm neglecting the terminator package because I don't have
>>> enough time to send the bugs and feature requests upstream or debug th
Le Mar 2 février 2010 11:35, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
>
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>> That is your interpretation. I see nothing on this page to support this
>> claim. And actually it is contrary to format #3 logic, since its main
>> difference with other changelog formats is that the version is not
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Mar 2 février 2010 11:35, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
>>
>> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>> That is your interpretation. I see nothing on this page to support this
>>> claim. And actually it is contrary to format #3 logic, since its main
>>> difference with o
hi,
wrt: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=560180
I've attached a patch as the answer to this bug as comment 5.
I'm not sure if its the correct thing to do though.
Can you excellent people please check it up and confirm it for me?
regards,
Ankur
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fe
just for the rerecords, only Gtk and Qt have good international support
tk and alike got serious problems rendering many scripts
including Arabic script (which is used by many languages and it's the
second most widely used script after latin script)
(wx works fine because in linux it depend on Gtk)
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> About three weeks ago, I've run into multiple package review requests
> being marked FE_NEEDSPONSOR by a person who is a sponsored already
> with a different email address [at Red Hat]:
>
> http://bugzilla.redhat.com/554234#c6
>
> Sometimes FE_NEEDSP
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> According to yesterday's reply, the person really wants to create a second
> account.
In general, my recollection is that is not permitted. I suppose there may
be special circumstances where it may be permissible.
-- Rex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproj
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Specifically: "Individuals using multiple accounts without prior written
> approval will have all but one account terminated. "
And what does that matter when everyone can create enough nick
names and free email addresses to join Fedora? :)
In security
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Juha Tuomala wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > Specifically: "Individuals using multiple accounts without prior written
> > approval will have all but one account terminated. "
>
> And what does that matter when everyone can create enough nick
> names and
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
> but we catch you doing it (and we have) and we'll do something about it.
Just for curiosity, what? Prevent doing it again? How?
Like said, it's a joke.
Tuju
--
Ajatteleva ihminen tarvitsee unta.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
This is a report of the weekly KDE-SIG-Meeting with a summary of the
topics that were discussed. If you want to add a comment please reply
to this email or add it to the related meeting page.
--
= Weekly KDE Summary
Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham said:
> We have an existing bug where if you're in single-user mode, and
> SELinux is active, various commands don't print to the console.
> The root of this is the single-user shell isn't running in the
> right SELinux context, as there's nothing to distinguish t
Le Mar 2 février 2010 15:16, Muayyad AlSadi a écrit :
> Python TkInter and tcl/tk is an example of big sad show case for linux
> because in windows TkInter or tcl/tk supports Arabic perfectly
>
> that's because the developers of freetype in Linux dropped opentype
> support and moved that to the
On 2 February 2010 15:12, Sebastian Vahl wrote:
> * setroubleshoot introduced a hard dependency on gnome-packagekit (#561001)
> * The dependency should be made generic or setroubleshoot has to be removed
> from KDE spin.
Is it just a dep on the PackageKit session API? If so can't we just
add a vi
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:01:25AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> It's not automatically enforcable that's true but we catch you doing it
> (and we have) and we'll do something about it. Turns out the honor system
> wasn't enough to keep people honorable so we had to make a rule.
IIRC this change
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 03:28:03PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 2 February 2010 15:12, Sebastian Vahl wrote:
> > * setroubleshoot introduced a hard dependency on gnome-packagekit (#561001)
> > * The dependency should be made generic or setroubleshoot has to be removed
> > from KDE spin.
>
>
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:01:25AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> > It's not automatically enforcable that's true but we catch you doing it
> > (and we have) and we'll do something about it. Turns out the honor system
> > wasn't enough to keep people honorab
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Juha Tuomala wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > but we catch you doing it (and we have) and we'll do something about it.
>
> Just for curiosity, what? Prevent doing it again? How?
>
> Like said, it's a joke.
>
We'd keep banning you and if you kept abusi
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Juha Tuomala wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>> but we catch you doing it (and we have) and we'll do something about it.
>>
>> Just for curiosity, what? Prevent doing it again? How?
>>
>> Like said, it's
>* Second releng compose system was setup for testing (Oxf13,
> 18:41:01)
>* ACTION: Oxf13 will test multiple concurrent composes to compare
> completion time (Oxf13, 18:41:32)
Related to performance of composing install media using pungi:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
> that but we're not going to make it easy for people to route round our
> systems and procedures. I assure you, it's not a joke just because it's
> not automatically detectable.
And how does that happen? You don't know even *now*
a) who am i
b) am i wh
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Seth Vidal wrote:
> And I'd suspect that intentionally entering into an agreement with knowingly
> false information is a kind of Fraud in just about every country.
Feel free to sue that 0 euros email-address, which provider doesn't
know who uses it.
Tuju
--
Ajatteleva i
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:47:13AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:01:25AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >
> > > It's not automatically enforcable that's true but we catch you doing it
> > > (and we have) and we'll do something abou
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 07:54 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> >* Second releng compose system was setup for testing (Oxf13,
> > 18:41:01)
> >* ACTION: Oxf13 will test multiple concurrent composes to compare
> > completion time (Oxf13, 18:41:32)
>
> Related to performance of composing
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Juha Tuomala wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> And I'd suspect that intentionally entering into an agreement with knowingly
>> false information is a kind of Fraud in just about every country.
>
> Feel free to sue that 0 euros email-address, which provider
Am Dienstag, den 02.02.2010, 16:38 +0530 schrieb steve:
> On 02/02/2010 04:08 PM, steve wrote:
> > On 02/02/2010 06:33 AM, Dominic Hopf wrote:
> >> Am Montag, den 01.02.2010, 17:07 -0600 schrieb Ian Weller:
> >>> I feel like I'm neglecting the terminator package because I don't have
> >>> enou
Hello all,
I wanted to bring a few things up and I wanted to bring them up on
de...@lists.fp.o because this is where most people spend their time.
First off: "Does letting thousands of contributors do what they
want have a negative impact on our OS? (Mike)"[0]
- I would prefer that this be
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 10:28:37AM -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> Hello all,
> I wanted to bring a few things up and I wanted to bring them up on
> de...@lists.fp.o because this is where most people spend their time.
>
> First off: "Does letting thousands of contributors do what they
> want h
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Seth Vidal wrote:
> Out of curiosity is your point to be antagonistic or are you actually trying
> to improve things?
If cleaning false assumptions and admitting that some areas are real
problems - is improving, that's what I'm doing.
> If it is just the former then you a
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 10:28 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> Now, we come to the part that I feel is going to be viewed as a
> touchy subject by many. Why are there words like "letting" and
> "allow" being thrown around so often? I understand there are
> guidelines and policies for certain thing
On Fri, 2010-01-29 at 07:53 +1300, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-27 at 17:03 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Unblocked orphan fbset
>
> I would have thought there was a little more call for this these days...
> is there an alternative tool?
drmfb doesn't implement the fbdev mode settin
Compose started at Tue Feb 2 08:15:08 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
PySolFC-cardsets-1.1-5.2.noarch requires PySolFC = 0:1.1
PySolFC-music-4.40-5.noarch requires PySolFC = 0:1.1
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires li
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Adam Miller wrote:
> Hello all,
> I wanted to bring a few things up and I wanted to bring them up on
> de...@lists.fp.o because this is where most people spend their time.
>
> First off: "Does letting thousands of contributors do what they
> want have a negative impact
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Juha Tuomala wrote:
>> Out of curiosity is your point to be antagonistic or are you actually trying
>> to improve things?
>
> If cleaning false assumptions and admitting that some areas are real
> problems - is improving, that's what I'm doing.
You don't appear to be doing t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Use GnuPG with Firefox : http://getfiregpg.org (Version: 0.7.10)
iEYEARECAAYFAktoWG8ACgkQkZOYj+cNI1d6MwCeOBegidrasLG6OgROhP
Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) said:
> One other note about this: this would break with a separate /usr and a
> failure in mounting /usr, because (at least in F12) /sbin/sulogin is
> linked against libfreebl3.so (which is in /usr/lib{,64}). It looks like
> libfreebl3.so was moved from /lib{,64}
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> And to answer your question about what "isnt' broken". I suggest you look
> at our http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics page. We've only seen
> growth in 2 of our last 6 releases. Think about that.
While I don't see that as directly re
Panu Matilainen (pmati...@laiskiainen.org) said:
> > %{_host} is set by the rpm package in the macros file, %{_build} defaults
> > to the value of %{_host}. %{_target_platform} comes from --target on
> > the command line, plus the usual vendor/OS bits
> >
> > --target is what is set by rpm/mock. I
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, inode0 wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > And to answer your question about what "isnt' broken". I suggest you look
> > at our http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics page. We've only seen
> > growth in 2 of our last 6 releases. Think about t
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> In my mind this comes into play where the interests of one sig and
> another conflict as to how a package or configuration should perform.
> When there are more than one group trying to modify the behavior of a
> package, or asking the mai
If you're the maintainer of a kde/cmake-based package, and use the
%cmake_kde4 macro, I just implemented changes in rawhide (to
kde-filesystem-4-34 and kdelibs-4.3.98-3) to drop the usage of
-DCMAKE_SKIP_RPATH:BOOL=ON
as previously threatened(1).
If you want or need to continue with the old behav
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Adam Miller
wrote:
> Hello all,
> I wanted to bring a few things up and I wanted to bring them up on
> de...@lists.fp.o because this is where most people spend their time.
>
> First off: "Does letting thousands of contributors do what they
> want have a negati
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Seth Vidal wrote:
> You don't appear to be doing that. You seem to just be attempting the
> 'gadfly' method of helping matters. I'd like you to remember what
> result that achieved for Socrates.
Whatever. I'm not interested in talking *about us* or getting
personal, so let'
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 11:02 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> I will agree with that, I can see an application space for certain
> decisions when presented with conflict, but how often does this happen
> and how is it currently, as well as how has it been in the past,
> handled and resolved?
>
As sigs
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:54 AM, inode0 wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> And to answer your question about what "isnt' broken". I suggest you look
>> at our http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics page. We've only seen
>> growth in 2 of our last 6 releases. Thin
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, inode0 wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> > And to answer your question about what "isnt' broken". I suggest you look
>> > at our http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics page. We've only
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, inode0 wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, inode0 wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >> > And to answer your question about what "isnt' broken". I suggest you
> >> > look
> >> > at our htt
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:28 AM, Robyn Bergeron
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:54 AM, inode0 wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>> And to answer your question about what "isnt' broken". I suggest you look
>>> at our http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics page.
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 10:28:01AM -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:54 AM, inode0 wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >> And to answer your question about what "isnt' broken". I suggest you look
> >> at our http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statis
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Unless you were misquoted the question you asked was:
>
> "Isn't it amazing how thousands of contributors doing whatever they want
> created such a spectacular OS?" [1]
That was a rhetorical answer to the question, "Does letting thousands
o
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:15:15AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 11:02 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> > I will agree with that, I can see an application space for certain
> > decisions when presented with conflict, but how often does this happen
> > and how is it currently, as we
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:47:13AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:01:25AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >
> > > It's not automatically enforcable that's true but we catch you doing it
> > > (and we have) and we'll do something abou
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
> I think that the Fedora Project's target audience needs to be people who
> want to work on open source operating systems. If you want to market the
> Fedora Project, that's the audience that needs to be addressed.
>
> If you want to market a physical
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I think that the Fedora Project's target audience needs to be people who
> want to work on open source operating systems. If you want to market the
> Fedora Project, that's the audience that needs to be addressed.
>
> If you want to marke
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:05:22PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I think that the Fedora Project's target audience needs to be people who
> want to work on open source operating systems. If you want to market the
> Fedora Project, that's the audience that needs to be addressed.
I don't think t
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 10:28:11AM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> I am sorry, but I do not see a real need for special guideline for the
> fipscheck checksums. The policy where these checksums should/will be
> placed should be decided by the fipscheck package itself. Of course I
As soon as multiple p
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:05:22PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
>> I think that the Fedora Project's target audience needs to be people who
>> want to work on open source operating systems. If you want to market the
>> Fedora Project, th
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:15 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
>
> Your example doesn't work, Xubuntu is still bound to the package set
> in the Ubuntu repositories in the same sense that the Xfce Spin is
> bound to the package set in the Fedora repositories. The difference is
> that we understand that the
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 11:33 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > again, comments are welcome! This is probably going to FESco next week,
> > not tomorrow, apparently they have a heavy schedule tomorrow.
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Fedora_privilege_escalation_policy
>
> Wha
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:54:37PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
> > I think that the Fedora Project's target audience needs to be people who
> > want to work on open source operating systems. If you want to market the
> > Fedora Project, that's the au
On 2 February 2010 15:44, Till Maas wrote:
> While you are fixing PackageKit dependencies, can you also remove the
> PackageKit-yum-plugin dependency from PackageKit? The plugin seems not
> to be necessary, as it can be disabled in
> /etc/yum/pluginconf.d/refresh-packagekit.conf and still the gnom
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 01:15:29PM -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> Your example doesn't work, Xubuntu is still bound to the package set
> in the Ubuntu repositories in the same sense that the Xfce Spin is
> bound to the package set in the Fedora repositories. The difference is
> that we understand tha
Tomas Mraz wrote:
> There is still a slight problem with the library checksums especially
> for the libgcrypt library which currently resides in /%{_lib}. This
> means that if it looks for the checksum in %{_libdir}/fipscheck the /usr
> might not be mounted during the checksum verification.
Will a
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> This changelog style conforms to the existing spec, it has been in use in
> Fedora for several years, it may surprise you, but changing the spec
> retroactively is not the way to prove your point.
There's a spec? Where? I want to read it.
Björn Persson
signature.asc
Des
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:15 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
>>
>> Your example doesn't work, Xubuntu is still bound to the package set
>> in the Ubuntu repositories in the same sense that the Xfce Spin is
>> bound to the package set in the Fedora re
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
> My other mail suggests that one way to work with this is to create new
> conflicting packages that are optimized for the different usages. There's
> other ways as well but the general theme is that we need to be looking at
> ways to open up what people
On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:18:26 +0100, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> I'm trying to debug an issue for the upstream author of ocp and am
> running into an issue where gdb is showing "" for
> variables even though I've compiled the program with gcc -g -O0.
[...]
> Compiler excerpts:
>
> gcc -g -O0 -fPIC -W
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 07:59:38PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 2 February 2010 15:44, Till Maas wrote:
> > While you are fixing PackageKit dependencies, can you also remove the
> > PackageKit-yum-plugin dependency from PackageKit? The plugin seems not
> > to be necessary, as it can be disabl
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>Ubuntu is better than Debian
If you honestly believe that, I have pitty on you.
-AdamM
--
http://maxamillion.googlepages.com
-
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ w
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Would that mean that users who don't start with one of these 'products'
> get to magically try and choose which implementation of which they want?
> Perhaps even mix and match, leaving QA and the developers to sort out
> the results.
>
> Fu
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:22:37PM -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> I think the responsibility of these things should be placed upon the
> SIG members who perform the functions from within these different
> groups. Why not have a QA person from each SIG work together with the
> larger QA efforts instea
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 21:04 +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
> > There is still a slight problem with the library checksums especially
> > for the libgcrypt library which currently resides in /%{_lib}. This
> > means that if it looks for the checksum in %{_libdir}/fipscheck the /usr
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Adam Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> > Would that mean that users who don't start with one of these 'products'
> > get to magically try and choose which implementation of which they want?
> > Perhaps even mix and match, leaving QA an
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:19:35PM -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> >Ubuntu is better than Debian
>
>
> If you honestly believe that, I have pitty on you.
For the market they're aiming at? I don't think there's any doubt at
all.
--
Matth
Adam Miller (maxamill...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> > Furthermore, you then leave 'downstream' higher-level packages and
> > applications having to, for example, code to PolicyKit0, PolicyKit1, or
> > consolehelper, depending on what each 'product' use case might use. Or,
> > having to build their
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 20:13 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 10:28:11AM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>
> > I am sorry, but I do not see a real need for special guideline for the
> > fipscheck checksums. The policy where these checksums should/will be
> > placed should be decided by t
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:22:37PM -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
>
>> I think the responsibility of these things should be placed upon the
>> SIG members who perform the functions from within these different
>> groups. Why not have a QA person f
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> QA is a particular skill set, not every sig has a QA member and requiring
> it wouldn't work either. I feel it's like assuming that just because I've
> done turbogears apps that someone would ask me to do CSS as well. I don't
> think it's sa
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:18:07PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:18:26 +0100, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> > I'm trying to debug an issue for the upstream author of ocp and am
> > running into an issue where gdb is showing "" for
> > variables even though I've compiled the prog
On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Take a random downstream app. (Firefox is an example, but there are many
> others.) Right now, it only needs to track a single version of python,
> or a single auth framework, even if it may be used on any desktop or any
> spin. The implica
Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 2 February 2010 15:12, Sebastian Vahl
> wrote:
>> * setroubleshoot introduced a hard dependency on gnome-packagekit
>> (#561001) * The dependency should be made generic or setroubleshoot has
>> to be removed from KDE spin.
>
> Is it just a dep on the PackageKit session
Adam Miller (maxamill...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> > Take a random downstream app. (Firefox is an example, but there are many
> > others.) Right now, it only needs to track a single version of python,
> > or a single auth framework, eve
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 02:32:19PM -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > If a spin wants to use a modified kernel package, what's the procedure
> > for ensuring that it receives the same level of QA as the normal kernel?
>
>
> That's not something
On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 09:30:44PM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 20:13 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 02, 2010 at 10:28:11AM +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> >
> > > I am sorry, but I do not see a real need for special guideline for the
> > > fipscheck checksums. The policy
inode0 wrote :
> To be clear I wasn't suggesting there actually was a marketing
> problem, although there is probably always a marketing problem in the
> absence of a monopoly.
>
> I can imagine other approaches though. What are the characteristics of
> good contributors? Market to that segment o
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> This changelog style conforms to the existing spec, it has been in use in
> Fedora for several years, it may surprise you, but changing the spec
> retroactively is not the way to prove your point.
Uh, the Fedora packaging guidelines DO have the power to change the
require
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 14:36 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 2:29 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> > Take a random downstream app. (Firefox is an example, but there are many
> > others.) Right now, it only needs to track a single version of python,
> > or a single auth framework,
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 14:16 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 13:15 -0600, Adam Miller wrote:
> >>
> >> Your example doesn't work, Xubuntu is still bound to the package set
> >> in the Ubuntu repositories in the same sense th
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
