On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:52 AM, James Antill wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 01:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> My point is that there are plenty of users who want the current updates or
>> even more updates.
>
> "Citation needed"
>
Just a few out of so many:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bu
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> this is a *terrible* idea. We may see users as a 'resource', but they
> don't see themselves this way. We should not interrupt their usage of
> their computer to try and exploit them to our ends.
What if it was an opt-in scheme? Users woul
2010/2/27 James Antill :
> And how many silently cursed the 100s of MBs you forced on them? How
> much did the above people appreciate the firehose more than having to
> fix one bad update.
> F12 is 3 months old and has ~8GB of updates for x86_64, but the
> firehose has pumped out 18GB of package
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 03:11:50AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > I do not remember that I ever wanted to downgrade something except that I
> > am still missing kpdf/kprinter, but both went away in a distribution
> > upgrade.
>
> kprinter is still available in the kdebase3 packa
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:52:53AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 01:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > , those users have very few choices
>
> And, again, you are wrong.
> Rawhide and Debian unstable are both the obvious choices, Gentoo is
> still used by some I think. A lit
On 26 February 2010 19:25, Kevin Kofler wrote:
[..]
> Well, as I wrote, the packager should have tested the package he's pushing
> out, of course! Especially for a new package, it's the only way to know it
> works. Something that doesn't work at all has no business being pushed to
> anywhere, even
On 26 February 2010 19:58, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 08:26:59 -0500, Orcan wrote:
>>
>>> Another annoying issue is updates with no explanations. There is a
>>> "Notes" field in bodhi that many people just ignore for an unk
On 02/27/2010 08:25 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 02:09 -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 06:03 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>>
2) Recent dnssec-conf updates all did receive se
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:26:22 +0100, Christian wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 02/21/2010 02:15 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >Upgrade from 12+updates to 13+updates+testing
> > ==
> [...]
> > Broken packages in fedora-12-x86_64:
> >
>
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:54:02PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> b. Given a, I would say people should stop posting to this thread. If
> you have a better updates policy in mind, perhaps you could draft up a
> proposal for what you think it should be? Or wait for a real proposal
> to comment on?
Si
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 05:28:26PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 19:53 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:01:56AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 18:56 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Something I am dreaming about is to ha
Till Maas wrote:
> Yes, the printing from okular, e.g. this bug report:
> https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=181290
Hmmm, that's an interesting one…
> Basically I miss every difference in the UI behaviour between kprinter
> and the printing dialog in okular. E.g. the dialog does not remember to
Orion Poplawski wrote:
> I certainly can't see the need for it to appear in F11 (isn't the fact
> that someone hasn't bothered upgrading to F12 indication that they are
> looking for a little stability?).
We're evaluating the option of not doing the updates for the oldstable [1]
releases. We can
Chris Adams wrote:
> IMHO you're developing the wrong distro. It is statements like yours
> that contribute to the "Fedora is a rolling beta" perception (and I
> don't think that's a good perception to have). If you want to target
> rawhide with rolling releases of KDE, have fun. Once a release
James Antill wrote:
> And, again, you are wrong.
> Rawhide and Debian unstable are both the obvious choices, Gentoo is
> still used by some I think. A little more work with a little more
> stability then gives you Debian testing and now moving to the latest
> Fedora pre-releases.
> Yes, those op
Orion Poplawski wrote:
> There is plenty of room for something in between your vision of Fedora
> and CentOS.
But that room is filled by other distros, such as Ubuntu. Why do we need to
be another Ubuntu?
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fe
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Again, one key to providing good quality packages is "not let bugs hit
> your users".
>
> In many cases this means, "pushing upstream updates" because upstream
> has fixed some known bugs, Fedora users haven't reported yet.
>
> It would be utterly silly and grossly neglige
Oh, and by the way:
Orion Poplawski wrote:
> There is plenty of room for something in between your vision of Fedora
> and CentOS.
There is plenty of room for something in between your vision of Fedora
and Rawhide. :-)
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
htt
Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> About new package point, what about the negative impact of newly
> pushed package on distribution as a whole if it breaks to launch or
> crashes in some event(produced in some essential functionality) and
> was missed by packager/reviewer (2 people) ?
It won't automatically
Paul W. Frields wrote:
> How'd it happen? I commented directly in the Bugzilla bugs with the
> link and told the subscribers to the bugs that the package would not
> be issued until some of them tested it and posted feedback to tell me
> their bugs were fixed.
I see why you're doing it, but still
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Bruno Wolff III said:
>> P.S. I don't use enablerepo. I'll yum install a local copy of the rpm and
>> see what it needs if it doesn't install successfully.
>
> That seems like extra and unnecessary work. You doesn't do anything
> without telling you, so "y
On Friday 26 February 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:12:53PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 17:14 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > > Also repoquery returns F12 results but accepts --releasever:
> > > $ repoquery --releasever=rawhide --repoid=fedora kernel
> >
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 03:00:39PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Friday 26 February 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:12:53PM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2010-02-26 at 17:14 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > > > Also repoquery returns F12 results but accepts --releas
On Saturday 27 February 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> > About new package point, what about the negative impact of newly
> > pushed package on distribution as a whole if it breaks to launch or
> > crashes in some event(produced in some essential functionality) and
> > was misse
Till Maas wrote:
> Pushing less updates to F(current-1) is probably something many
> maintainers can live with. But I have also heard of people using
> F(current-1) and feeling like secondary users, because they did not get
> the updates that F(current) got.
Yes. IMHO the old stable release deserv
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 08:45:11PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> >>
> > Those people should use a more conservative distribution. Try CentOS maybe.
> > Frequent updates are an integral part of the Fedora experience.
> >
> There is plenty of room for something in between your vision of F
Ville Skyttä wrote:
> That "reason" could be a bad Obsoletes in the new package.
That's why I said "new packages that don't replace anything" in my original
message. If they Obsolete something else, then they're not really new
packages.
> And even the new Name and Provides from the new package
On 02/27/2010 02:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> At the point where you have a reported bug, you have a tester.
>
> Not necessarily. Sadly, there are people who report bugs and then don't read
> their bugmail, ever. :-(
Also does not apply to
* sporadic bugs.
* non-determi
Branches affected: F-13 and devel
Since OpenCV has deleted few weeks ago the autotools based build system,
we will switch to cmake :
https://code.ros.org/trac/opencv/changeset/2528
The main issue is that the two build system set two different sonames
(2.0.0 for cmake, 4.0.0 for autotools). Open
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 02:04:20PM +, Rawhide Report wrote:
> Broken deps for i386
> --
> geglmm-0.1.0-3.fc13.i686 requires libgegl-0.0.so.0
> Broken deps for x86_64
> --
>
On 26 February 2010 22:54, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> - If stable pushes were more restricted, perhaps that would get us more
> testing? If someone required a newer version and could easier
> install/test from updates-testing and provide feedback, don't we all
> win? Perhaps we could have PackageKit/
On 27 February 2010 20:24, Haïkel Guémar wrote:
> Branches affected: F-13 and devel
>
>
> Since OpenCV has deleted few weeks ago the autotools based build system,
> we will switch to cmake :
> https://code.ros.org/trac/opencv/changeset/2528
>
[..]
Are you kidding ? No *communication* :( At this st
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
> > IMHO you're developing the wrong distro. It is statements like yours
> > that contribute to the "Fedora is a rolling beta" perception (and I
> > don't think that's a good perception to have). If you want to target
> > rawhide with
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> > Chris Adams wrote:
> > > IMHO you're developing the wrong distro. It is statements like yours
> > > that contribute to the "Fedora is a rolling beta" perception (and I
> > > don't think that's a good percept
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 09:44:11AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> > > Chris Adams wrote:
> > > > IMHO you're developing the wrong distro. It is statements like yours
> > > > that contribute to the "Fedora
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 02:55:41PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> New packages which don't Obsolete existing packages or Provide existing
> provided names cannot cause any of the above. (They may technically trigger
Special care should be given to the auto-generated Provides. I remember
a pack
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 08:45 +, Camilo Mesias wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > this is a *terrible* idea. We may see users as a 'resource', but they
> > don't see themselves this way. We should not interrupt their usage of
> > their computer to try and exploi
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 10:57 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Sorry, I was replying in haste. I should've made clear that I was
> > talking more in general, and don't have any specific direct knowledge of
> > the dnssec case. I know of multiple cases where updates have been pushed
> > hastily, but
On 02/27/2010 03:13 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:52 AM, James Antill wrote:
>> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 01:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> My point is that there are plenty of users who want the current updates or
>>> even more updates.
>>
>> "Citation needed"
>>
>
> Just
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 11:41 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> Ok, maybe the question should be then: How much does AutoQA support me
> writing these tests? E.g. this test is pretty simple, but afaics there
> is no easy support for the common tasks that are needed to run the test,
> but not really part of
Compose started at Sat Feb 27 08:15:15 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1
e_dbus-0.5.0.050-3.fc12.i686 requires lib
On 02/27/2010 11:27 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 10:57 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> Yeah, it's not perfect: there are cases where we have, say, a complex
> kernel update which works fine for most people but causes a significant
> regression for some particular bit of hardw
James Antill writes:
> [...]
> Probably the saddest thing about this giant flamewar you've started is
> [...]
For what it's worth, I have seen no lack of courtesy from Kevin Kofler
in this thread, so the accusation of "flamewarism" would be more
appropriately directed to those who have not kept
On 02/27/2010 10:38 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> in today. Next time a user tells you "I want a newer X" tell them
> "Upgrade to rawhide".
>
> -Mike
In my opinion rawhide is NOT a rolling release at all. Please stop
telling people to use rawhide as a rolling release. it isnt.
--
devel m
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 09:44:11AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chris Adams wrote:
> > > > > IMHO you're developing the wrong distro. It is statement
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Mail Lists wrote:
> On 02/27/2010 10:38 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> > in today. Next time a user tells you "I want a newer X" tell them
> > "Upgrade to rawhide".
> >
> > -Mike
>
>
>
> In my opinion rawhide is NOT a rolling release at all. Please stop
> telling people to
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 13:26 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Oh, and by the way:
>
> Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > There is plenty of room for something in between your vision of Fedora
> > and CentOS.
>
> There is plenty of room for something in between your vision of Fedora
> and Rawhide. :-)
To quot
Le 27/02/2010 16:28, Rakesh Pandit a écrit :
> On 27 February 2010 20:24, Haïkel Guémar wrote:
>> Branches affected: F-13 and devel
>>
>>
>> Since OpenCV has deleted few weeks ago the autotools based build system,
>> we will switch to cmake :
>> https://code.ros.org/trac/opencv/changeset/2528
>>
>
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 09:44:11AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > >
> > > > Chris Adams wrote:
> > > > > IMHO you're developing the wrong distro. It is statement
On Saturday 27 February 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> If they Obsolete something else, then they're not really new packages.
I that's the blanket generalization I read it as, I don't agree with it, but
meh.
> Well, true, new packages which Provide some common virtual Provides like
> bluez-dbus-pi
On 02/27/2010 04:30 PM, Mail Lists wrote:
an
>
>
> I do want updates. Kernel updates, for example, are very important -
> they carry many improvements - not just drivers but functionality as
> well. The ones that are less obvious are the bugs that happen rarely but
> that can be nasty (an occasio
On 2/27/2010 5:05 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
>> There is plenty of room for something in between your vision of Fedora
>> and CentOS.
>>
> But that room is filled by other distros, such as Ubuntu. Why do we need to
> be another Ubuntu?
>
It's not filled by Ubu
Bad timing ===> unicap package (required by opencv) splitting for F-11+
Current unicap has been splitted into 3 new packages libunicap, libucil
and libunicapgtk, no warnings, no meta-package provided for compatibility.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567109
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
Hi,
Is there any particular reason why online recovery is disabled in F11 pgpool-II?
Online recovery is a very important feature (fundamental, must have)
and I have to build pgpool-II just to enable it. Can't it be enabled
in spec?
Regards,
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:30:52 -0500,
Mail Lists wrote:
>
> [speaking of which where on earth is 2.6.32.9 ]
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=158902
And if you want the latest 2.6.33 build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=158529
There is also a
On 02/27/2010 12:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:30:52 -0500,
> Mail Lists wrote:
>>
>> [speaking of which where on earth is 2.6.32.9 ]
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=158902
>
> And if you want the latest 2.6.33 build:
> http://koji.fed
On 02/27/2010 12:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:30:52 -0500,
> Mail Lists wrote:
>>
>> [speaking of which where on earth is 2.6.32.9 ]
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=158902
Thank you .. but I really meant where are as far as updates-
Hello,
i can not import the browser-cert from fedora in to mozilla.
Mozilla says that it can not be imported for unknown reasons.
Can somebody help me?
regards,
Dirk
--
Gottschalk IT + Internet UG (haftungsbeschränkt)
Klüsenborn 9
52156 Monschau (Kalterherberg)
Tel.: +49 2472 8026049
Fax.: +49
2010/2/27 Rakesh Pandit
> On 27 February 2010 20:24, Haïkel Guémar wrote:
> > Branches affected: F-13 and devel
> >
> >
> > Since OpenCV has deleted few weeks ago the autotools based build system,
> > we will switch to cmake :
> > https://code.ros.org/trac/opencv/changeset/2528
> >
> [..]
>
> Are
Noticed that the partitioning menu changed some and can be confusing,
esp if doing a dual boot (win 7 and Fedora). A couple things I ran
into, and not sure if bugs or just *how it works*
Setup - 2 HD's, both sata, one has Windows and other has Fedora.
1 - During selection, chose just the HD
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:51:06 -0500,
Mail Lists wrote:
>
> Thanks. Are there any toolsets (dracut, grubby, or other system tools)
> that need to be updated to move from .33 fc12 to either .33 or .34 out
> of f13 ?
I don't know. I didn't try 2.6.33 on any f12 systems before I updated to
f1
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 12:52:18 -0500,
Mail Lists wrote:
> On 02/27/2010 12:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:30:52 -0500,
> > Mail Lists wrote:
> >>
> >> [speaking of which where on earth is 2.6.32.9 ]
> >
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?bui
On 27/02/10 17:51, Mail Lists wrote:
--snipped--
>
>
>Thanks. Are there any toolsets (dracut, grubby, or other system tools)
> that need to be updated to move from .33 fc12 to either .33 or .34 out
> of f13 ?
>
> gene
iirc linux-firmware replaces kernel-firmware, some plymouth stuff.
Do a y
On 28 February 2010 00:04, Karel Klic wrote:
> Dne 27.2.2010 17:41, Haïkel Guémar napsal(a):
>>
>> Le 27/02/2010 16:28, Rakesh Pandit a écrit :
>>>
>>> Are you kidding ? No *communication* :( At this stage we never wanted
>>> an update for any reason, nor extra work for lot of other folks. Alas
>>>
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I'm putting my thoughts here... but this is again one of those threads
> that has about 500 forks and people nit picking back and forth, so I am
> never sure where to do a general reply. ;)
There has been a draft a while ago which did not res
On 02/27/2010 01:23 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Why wouldn't you want try the koji version if you were willing to try an
> updates-testing version? If it doesn't work for you, you boot the previous
> kernel, pretty much the same as when there is a bad test version.
Me ? I am running koji vers
No problem :)
I'm not familiar with buildroot overrides (it requires rel-eng
agreement, right ?), besides the unicap recent split has been thrown
into the mix. Should we ask them to be include into the override request ?
H.
>
> Added devel back to CC.
>
> Nice.
>
> Ok, no problem, was not eve
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:45:36 -0500, Bill wrote:
> > > To phrase a strawman differently:
> > >
> > > "No update is pushed to users without verification and testing from
> > > entities
> > > other than the packager."
> >
> > No, thanks. The "popular"/"high profile" packages will get their usual
>
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Dirk Gottschalk
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> i can not import the browser-cert from fedora in to mozilla.
> Mozilla says that it can not be imported for unknown reasons.
>
> Can somebody help me?
Disable the torbutton add-on. No kidding.
failing that, try
pk12util -i ce
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:45:49AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> > Did you read what he wrote? I feel tempted to just copy the paragraph
> > Kevin wrote again, because it already answers your question: Rawhide is
> > not partly rolling as Fedora is.
> > And a
Compose started at Sat Feb 27 09:15:11 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
balsa-2.4.6-3.fc13.i686 requires libgmime-2.4.so.2
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextra
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 08:43:58PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> I like it more to have bugs fixed
> in F(current) at the cost of not fixing that much bugs in F(current-1)
> to keep it stable.
This should read as "to have more bugs fixed in F(current)" (even at the
cost of maybe introduce regressions
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 06:26:53PM +0100, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any particular reason why online recovery is disabled in F11
> pgpool-II?
>
> Online recovery is a very important feature (fundamental, must have)
> and I have to build pgpool-II just to enable it. Can't it be
Hello folks,
the upstream of unicap splitted the unicap package into libunicap, libucil
and libunicapgtk. On run-time they're 100% compatible with unicap, but only
all three new packages together replace the previous unicap package. Thus
none of libunicap, libucil ands libunicapgtk has a provides
2010/2/27 Toshio Kuratomi :
> Could you please file a bug at bugzilla.redhat.com to make sure trhe
> maintainer sees the request?
Done
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569058
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
W dniu 27 lutego 2010 21:51 użytkownik Michał Piotrowski
napisał:
> 2010/2/27 Toshio Kuratomi :
>> Could you please file a bug at bugzilla.redhat.com to make sure trhe
>> maintainer sees the request?
>
> Done
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569058
>
BTW. I've got one i686 which need
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 20:18 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Three times "Could". Let's talk about it when you know something definite,
> please, but before it will become another hurdle.
That's ironic - given that that's exactly what the people defending this
proposal wanted to do, while it's so
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 20:18 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > Three times "Could". Let's talk about it when you know something definite,
> > please, but before it will become another hurdle.
>
> That's ironic - given that that's exactly what the peo
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:17:43 -0800, Adam wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 20:18 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > Three times "Could". Let's talk about it when you know something definite,
> > please, but before it will become another hurdle.
>
> That's ironic - given that that's exactly what t
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:45:49AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > > Did you read what he wrote? I feel tempted to just copy the paragraph
> > > Kevin wrote again, because it already answers your question: Rawhide i
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 10:45:49AM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > > Did you read what he wrote? I feel tempted to just copy the paragraph
> > > Kevin wrote again, because it already answers your question: Rawhide i
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:48 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>>
>> Afaik the KDE updates work very well and I know a fanatic KDE user who
>> cannot expect to wait for the next KDE update, because he knows of bugs
>> that are fixed in it. Usually he does not even need
On 02/27/2010 02:05 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> About F-11, F-12, F-13: yeah, pretty much. They should all contain the
> same stable version of most software.
Then why have numbered Fedora releases at all? Just so we can bump the
wallpaper every once in a while?
Josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Josh Stone wrote:
> On 02/27/2010 02:05 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> About F-11, F-12, F-13: yeah, pretty much. They should all contain the
>> same stable version of most software.
>
> Then why have numbered Fedora releases at all? Just so we can bump the
> wallpape
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:05:54 -0500, Orcan wrote:
> About rawhide: rawhide could/should contain more experimental stuff,
> such as beta releases or cvs snapshots of actively and frequently
> developed software.
Why? And what would be the benefit?
> About F-11, F-12, F-13: yeah, pretty much. They
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 03:48:08PM -0600, Mike McGrath wrote:
> I'm sure that guy loves it. Me? I don't like not being able to predict
> what my desktop looks like tomorrow. Just so I'm clear, if we had
> implemented what you are proposing... Fedora 11, Fedora 12, Fedora 13
> branched and rawh
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:05:54 -0500, Orcan wrote:
>
> > About rawhide: rawhide could/should contain more experimental stuff,
> > such as beta releases or cvs snapshots of actively and frequently
> > developed software.
>
> Why? And what would be the be
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 05:05:54PM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> About rawhide: rawhide could/should contain more experimental stuff,
> such as beta releases or cvs snapshots of actively and frequently
> developed software.
Such a repo would be nice, but it won't work for Rawhide as it is,
becaus
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 11:28:28PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:05:54 -0500, Orcan wrote:
>
> > About rawhide: rawhide could/should contain more experimental stuff,
> > such as beta releases or cvs snapshots of actively and frequently
> > developed software.
>
> Why? An
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:05:54 -0500, Orcan wrote:
>
>> About rawhide: rawhide could/should contain more experimental stuff,
>> such as beta releases or cvs snapshots of actively and frequently
>> developed software.
>
> Why? And what would b
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 05:47:18PM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Where to start and where to stop with upgrade madness?
>
> This is exactly what we should be debating on. How can we draw a
> borderline? Example:
My proposal: If it pass
On 02/27/2010 04:21 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 26 February 2010 22:54, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> - If stable pushes were more restricted, perhaps that would get us more
>> testing? If someone required a newer version and could easier
>> install/test from updates-testing and provide feedback, don
On Saturday, 27 February 2010 at 16:44, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >
> > > Chris Adams wrote:
> > > > IMHO you're developing the wrong distro. It is statements like yours
> > > > that contribute to the "Fedora is
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:45 AM, Camilo Mesias wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> this is a *terrible* idea. We may see users as a 'resource', but they
>> don't see themselves this way. We should not interrupt their usage of
>> their computer to try and exploit th
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 7:31 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Paul W. Frields wrote:
>> How'd it happen? I commented directly in the Bugzilla bugs with the
>> link and told the subscribers to the bugs that the package would not
>> be issued until some of them tested it and posted feedback to tell me
>>
Hi,
In bugzilla 564095 there is mention of an lirc update, lirc-0.8.6-4.fc12,
that fixes an issue with lirc on 2.6.32 kernels that has been
submitted to updates-testing.
This package does not seem to exist there and the link to its bodhi entry
from the bugzilla page links to an entry for bind ...
96 matches
Mail list logo
