On 01/03/10 00:06, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> (Sorry, I reordered the replies a bit so I can reply to them without
> referring back and forth.)
It's also called "political licence"
>
> Frank Murphy wrote:
>> On 02/27/2010 04:30 PM, Mail Lists wrote:
>> an
>>>
1:
>>>I do want updates. Kernel updat
On Friday 26 February 2010 16:22:37 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > Maybe some package rating included in PackageKit would be nice - for
> > stable packages it's indicator that this package is worth to install, for
> > testing package it would mean it's working (but again - who's g
On 3/1/2010 10:44 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> One problem of updates-testing is - it takes so much time to be pushed and
> then mirrored. More rawhide approach should be used here. Users who are really
> interested in testing usually downloads from Koji directly.
>
It is not so simple. When I
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Config-Any/F-13
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv26990
Modified Files:
perl-Config-Any.spec sources
Log Message:
* Mon Mar 01 2010 Chris Weyl 0.19-1
- update by Fedora::App::MaintainerTools 0.004
- PERL_INSTALL_ROOT => DE
Le Dim 28 février 2010 17:24, Adam Williamson a écrit :
>
> On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 11:43 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>> There are things only packagers can fix. Everything else should be
>> handled by tools so packagers can focus on the parts where they add real
>> value. If a process change p
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:25 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Mail Lists wrote:
>> Kernel should follow mainline stable - as reasonably soon after
>> release and our testing as possible.
>>
>> Core daemons - ditto.
>
> But that's quite different from what that proposed policy mandates.
No it isn't ..
On 28 February 2010 18:39, James Antill wrote:
> I can't think of any reason why you'd need, or want, to have
> updates-testing checks block any other GUI operation.
To show the list of newest updates to the user...
>> If we could speed up the dep checking and downloading, I agree it
>> would b
Jon Masters wrote:
> One thing I would suggest being considered in an alternative proposal is
> a compromise policy for specific stacks or non-critical path packages.
> For example, if the standard policy affecting me as a GNOME user is that
> major changes will be confined to new releases (my very
James Antill wrote:
> Mike didn't say that, Mike said that if a user was intentionally not
> updating to Fedora 12 due to the newer KDE ... you've just removed that
> choice from them. And for no real gain, as anyone who wanted to the KDE
> update could easily move to Fedora 12 to get it.
That ar
Frank Murphy wrote:
> It's also called "political licence"
No, it's not really the same thing. ;-)
I didn't try to distort your viewpoint, just highlight the contradictions.
But this time I'm replying in order. :-)
> If you mean these points from "Mail Lists" then yes.
Yes, that's what I mean.
Alexander Boström wrote:
> It could install a file in /etc/foo.d that causes something that
> loads /etc/foo.d/* to break.
That's not automatic breakage, you'd still have to install the package (or
get it installed through one of the already discussed mechanisms: Obsoletes,
Provides collision, a
On 01/03/10 11:17, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Frank Murphy wrote:
>> It's also called "political licence"
>
> No, it's not really the same thing. ;-)
>
> I didn't try to distort your viewpoint, just highlight the contradictions.
>
> But this time I'm replying in order. :-)
>
>> If you mean these points
"Nicolas Mailhot" writes:
> Clearly, bohdi/bugzilla/pk interaction is not good enough to collect
> the kind of feedback needed for the karma system to work. And bohdi
> should get smarter about identifying packages that need this
> feedback. Critical path is a good first approximation but what wo
2010/3/1 Richard Hughes :
> On 28 February 2010 18:39, James Antill wrote:
>> I can't think of any reason why you'd need, or want, to have
>> updates-testing checks block any other GUI operation.
>
> To show the list of newest updates to the user...
>
>>> If we could speed up the dep checking and
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 11:47 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
> > One thing I would suggest being considered in an alternative proposal is
> > a compromise policy for specific stacks or non-critical path packages.
> > For example, if the standard policy affecting me as a GNOME user is
Compose started at Mon Mar 1 08:15:14 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires libboost_serialization-mt.so.5
emotion-0.1.0.042-5.fc12
tl;dr version: Empower, rather than restrict, maintainers. Encourage
them to test by increasing test accuracy, coverage, unique
configurations, and visibility.
I don't think FESCo wishes to destroy the freedom of package
maintainers. I also don't think package maintainers want to release
broken pa
Hello,
I'd like to ask on your opinion on dual lived modules in
our distro. I knew that Mandriva has the main perl package
and also provide rpms of sub-packages, which are easier to
update. They are using patch that allows them override the
core modules. Also debian has perl core and sub-packages
a
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 15:49 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> On 02/28/2010 03:39 PM, Henrique Junior wrote:
> > As Chen Lei said, the fact that JOGL needs this code may mean that it
> > will be blocked forever for packaging, but I do not particularly see a
> > big problem.
> > For more details, please
Hi, could these bug messages be a little more specific? I believe I've
fixed this issue [1] (filled originally as [2]) already, but from [1] it
isn't clear what version of the package was tested -- the supposedly
fixed one or some previous version?
Thanks,
Martin
References:
[1] https://bugzilla.
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Aaron Faanes wrote:
I agree to almost everything you wrote.
> - Allow maintainers to see number of downloads by users who have
> opted-in to share that data. If not number, then a simple range.
*That* would be awesome. Because besides of bugs and some guys in I
Hi Martin,
see bug footer - This is autogenerated bugzilla, I'm sorry if the problem is
already fixed or reported. Additionally I apologize if that directory ownership
was requested earlier by some bugzilla (some directories were probably added
into filesystem package later, so your package shou
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:57:06PM +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> see bug footer - This is autogenerated bugzilla, I'm sorry if the problem is
> already fixed or reported. Additionally I apologize if that directory
> ownership
> was requested earlier by some bugzilla (some directories were pro
Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:57:06PM +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Yet the bug entry is missing important information, the NVR of the
> tested package and also IMHO this is not something that should checked
> in a stable release, but Rawhide or maybe branched-Rawhide, because thi
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 15:48:15 +0100,
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Aaron Faanes wrote:
>
>
> > - Allow maintainers to see number of downloads by users who have
> > opted-in to share that data. If not number, then a simple range.
>
>
> *That* would be awesome. Be
>
>> - Allow maintainers to see number of downloads by users who have
>> opted-in to share that data. If not number, then a simple range.
>
>
> *That* would be awesome. Because besides of bugs and some guys in IRC
> who tell you that they like the software you package, you have no
> feedback if y
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 15:48:15 +0100,
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Aaron Faanes wrote:
>>
>>
>> > - Allow maintainers to see number of downloads by users who have
>> > opted-in to share that data. If not n
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
> direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
> problem (e.g. a policy discouraging direct stable pushes for some specific
> types
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:48:15PM +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Aaron Faanes wrote:
>
> I agree to almost everything you wrote.
>
>
> > - Allow maintainers to see number of downloads by users who have
> > opted-in to share that data. If not number, then a simpl
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:57:11PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:48:15PM +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Aaron Faanes wrote:
> >
> > I agree to almost everything you wrote.
> >
> >
> > > - Allow maintainers to see number of downlo
Bruno Wolff III writes:
> A couple of problems. Which packages are downloaded from mirrors is not
> currently available to Fedora. [...]
Would it be crazy to reorganize the mirror system in such a way that
normally download http requests come to fedoraproject.org, but are
redirected at the http-
Whilst cleaning up some recently adopted orphans, I discovered that
perl-Nmap-Parser has been tagged with the wrong license since August
2008. Upstream changed the license from GPLv2+ to MIT sometime back in
2007 and I've just corrected it in rawhide (and will do on all
branches too in the near fut
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:48:15PM +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Aaron Faanes wrote:
>>
>> I agree to almost everything you wrote.
>>
>>
>>> - Allow maintainers to see number of downloads by users who have
>>> opted-in to share that da
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 02:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Jackson wrote:
> > By my count, that's three misrepresentations in one paragraph. I
> > certainly hope they were not deliberate.
>
> I'm not deliberately misrepresenting anything or anyone, I just stated my
> perception of the facts.
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:44 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> I would like to collect feedback on this issue. If you want to disable
>> direct stable pushes, why? Could there be a less radical solution to that
>> problem (e.g. a policy
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:57:11PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:48:15PM +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Aaron Faanes wrote:
>> >
>> > I agree to almost everything you wr
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 03:48:15PM +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Aaron Faanes wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree to almost everything you wrote.
> >>
> >>
> >>> - Allow maintainers to see number of
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Iain Arnell wrote:
> Whilst cleaning up some recently adopted orphans, I discovered that
> perl-Nmap-Parser has been tagged with the wrong license since August
> 2008. Upstream changed the license from GPLv2+ to MIT sometime back in
> 2007 and I've just corrected it in rawhide
On 03/01/2010 11:48 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Iain Arnell wrote:
>
>> Whilst cleaning up some recently adopted orphans, I discovered that
>> perl-Nmap-Parser has been tagged with the wrong license since August
>> 2008. Upstream changed the license from GPLv2+ to MIT sometime ba
On 02/26/2010 08:55 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> That would be a ridiculous decision. It would be much better to disable
>> that feature only for those update submitters who really have been
>> dilettantish enough to use it inappropriately more than once.
>
> Yeah, that's a
On 03/01/2010 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> If you think this isn't the right way
> to provide a safety net for package maintainers - what is?
With the understanding that you're not specifically asking me that
question, I'd say that I'd prefer to first try to automate checks for
the most frequent
This is off topic, but important to open software developers & supporters
Brazil may be punished because government supports free software...
IIPA is willing to put Brazil in the black list of copyrights because
Federal & State governments support free software. According to IIPA, by
supporting f
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto wrote:
> This is off topic, but important to open software developers & supporters
>
Yes - this is definitely off-topic. Please do not continue this thread.
Thank You.
-sv
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedor
On 03/01/2010 05:52 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 02/26/2010 08:55 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> That would be a ridiculous decision. It would be much better to disable
>>> that feature only for those update submitters who really have been
>>> dilettantish enough to use it in
On 03/01/2010 11:57 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/01/2010 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
>> If you think this isn't the right way
>> to provide a safety net for package maintainers - what is?
>
> With the understanding that you're not specifically asking me that
> question, I'd say that I'd
Peter Jones writes:
> [...] You weren't elected "FESCo Monitor"; the guy who comes and
> tells the mailing list whenever FESCo is discussing something you
> think is scary. [...]
One need not be "elected" to do that. Anyone reading the public
fesco irc logs may do the same without special disp
On 03/01/2010 12:33 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> The solution to actually improve quality are along the lines of
> * maintainers to acting more carefully and think twice about what they
> are pushing.
This is the plan that already isn't working.
> * rel-eng to implement automated procedures to c
Compose started at Mon Mar 1 09:15:14 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
anaconda-13.32-1.fc13.i686 requires python-urlgrabber >= 0:3.9.1-5
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 r
On 03/01/2010 12:52 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> Peter Jones writes:
>
>> [...] You weren't elected "FESCo Monitor"; the guy who comes and
>> tells the mailing list whenever FESCo is discussing something you
>> think is scary. [...]
>
> One need not be "elected" to do that. Anyone reading the
On 03/01/2010 12:48 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> I'd also like a policy in place to help us avoid situations like the
> recent dnssec unpleasantness.
Sure. I'm just not at all convinced that if those packages had sit in
testing for $ARBITRARY_PERIOD_OF_TIME that they would have been tested
and fixed.
Hello,
I have seen the long thread about Updates Policy. I just wish
to inform you that I (as part of the QA team) have been working
on a draft of exactly such a policy. I suppose I will be able
to make it public during this week. I will post a link here,
so all the people will have some basis wh
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Please rev perl-RRD-Simple to latest release
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569568
Summary: Please rev perl-RRD-Simple to latest release
On 03/01/2010 06:55 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/01/2010 12:33 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> The solution to actually improve quality are along the lines of
>> * maintainers to acting more carefully and think twice about what they
>> are pushing.
>
> This is the plan that already isn't working.
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/01/2010 12:48 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> > I'd also like a policy in place to help us avoid situations like the
> > recent dnssec unpleasantness.
>
> Sure. I'm just not at all convinced that if those packages had sit in
> testing for $ARBITRARY_
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 11:57 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/01/2010 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> > If you think this isn't the right way
> > to provide a safety net for package maintainers - what is?
>
> With the understanding that you're not specifically asking me that
> question, I'd
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Will Woods wrote:
>
>> * Has ABI/API change (and is a Critical Path package)
>
> This should be handled by the current rpmguard test:
> https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/wiki/rpmguard
>
> since changing the ABI/API should generally change the soname/version,
> thus changing the
Thankyou for starting all this hard work with the certainty that it *will*
be blamed by some people.
As an end User I extremely like that Fedora does not ban newer packages from
Stable releases.
At the same time I can see how direct pushes can sometimes create unforseen
bugs.
I however do not se
For anyone who wants to attempt this, there is a very basic and
seemingly abandonded popcon for rpm written in perl for opensuse at:
http://gitorious.org/opensuse/popcorn
(although gitorious.org seems down right now from here).
I agree with Mike that you would really need to figure out a effic
On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 16:59:40 -0500 (EST)
Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> >> A quicker way of seeing if a bug report was alread made, and more
> >> quickly being able to report bugs then spending 15-30 with bugzilla
> >> would help me in reporting more bugs. I li
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 13:01 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/01/2010 12:48 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> > I'd also like a policy in place to help us avoid situations like the
> > recent dnssec unpleasantness.
>
> Sure. I'm just not at all convinced that if those packages had sit in
> testing
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:30:18PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Will Woods wrote:
> > So I think it would be shortsighted for FESCo to refuse to even discuss
> > a policy about what manual testing is currently required, since any plan
> > for improving the quality of the di
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:11:20 -0600 (CST)
Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>
> > On 03/01/2010 12:48 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> > > I'd also like a policy in place to help us avoid situations like
> > > the recent dnssec unpleasantness.
> >
> > Sure. I'm just not
Currently I am following F13 and I have been noticing a lot of packages
disappearing from updates-testing before showing up in the branched release
(but similar things happen with normal updates, just less often).
When things disappear from updates-testing it isn't immediately obvious
if this is b
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 22:45:12 +0100
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 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 bec
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:30:18PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Will Woods wrote:
>
>>> So I think it would be shortsighted for FESCo to refuse to even discuss
>>> a policy about what manual testing is currently required, since any
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 13:16:09 -0500,
Will Woods wrote:
>
> That's an interesting test case, actually. I'm not sure we currently
> check packages against the corresponding versions *other* releases.
You'd want to also check obsoltess.
Packages that are dropped without be obsoleted can also
Hi all!
My username on my private pc is josephine, my username on my
workstation is josephine.tannhauser, but my fas-username is tannhauser.
how can I use fedora-cvs on these machines? It seems that fedora-cvs
want to use the local username. How can I change this behavior with
editing a configfil
On 03/01/2010 11:05 AM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> My username on my private pc is josephine, my username on my
> workstation is josephine.tannhauser, but my fas-username is tannhauser.
>
> how can I use fedora-cvs on these machines? It seems that fedora-cvs
> want to use the local
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 08:05:00PM +0100, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
> how can I use fedora-cvs on these machines? It seems that fedora-cvs
> want to use the local username. How can I change this behavior with
> editing a configfile in my home-dir? I don't want to edit the
> fedora-cvs package-f
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569568
Paul Howarth changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
Tom spot Callaway (tcall...@redhat.com) said:
> * Causes broken deps
> * Breaks clean upgrade path between releases
> * Has ABI/API change (and is a Critical Path package)
Actually, I'd say that any ABI change should block a stable push until it's
fixed, period - critical path or not.
If someone
Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said:
> > For most bugfixes, the user doesn't notice at all. When a user gets a
> > bugfix on something they've hit, they think "oh, that's nice, Fedora fixed
> > it", but they don't really care whether it cam Monday or Friday. For every
> > regression they hi
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said:
>>> For most bugfixes, the user doesn't notice at all. When a user gets a
>>> bugfix on something they've hit, they think "oh, that's nice, Fedora fixed
>>> it", but they don't really care whether it cam Mon
Seth Vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> > Given that we don't provide an easily accessible user-friendly rollback
> > mechanism, I don't know that that's actually applicable to the general case,
> > though.
>
> yum history undo works pretty well. Not flawless, to be sure - but it's
> not
Frank Ch. Eigler (f...@redhat.com) said:
> > Clearly, bohdi/bugzilla/pk interaction is not good enough to collect
> > the kind of feedback needed for the karma system to work. And bohdi
> > should get smarter about identifying packages that need this
> > feedback. Critical path is a good first app
On 03/01/2010 11:46 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>> One thing to consider: while from a psychological standpoint, a regression
>>> is indeed perceived as much worse than an unfixed bug, from a technical /
>>> practical standpoint it's actually the smaller issue: you can rollback to
>>> the version of the
mån 2010-03-01 klockan 20:13 +0100 skrev Till Maas:
> But I wonder, how do you access CVS without this?
You shouldn't need it. What happens if you don't have it?
CVS records the root location in the checked out copy, so you only need
to supply a CVS root when doing cvs checkout and even then yo
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 09:09:08PM +0100, Alexander Boström wrote:
> mån 2010-03-01 klockan 20:13 +0100 skrev Till Maas:
>
> > But I wonder, how do you access CVS without this?
>
> You shouldn't need it. What happens if you don't have it?
It still seems to work. :-)
> CVS records the root loca
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:30 AM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> Hello,
> I'd like to ask on your opinion on dual lived modules in
> our distro. I knew that Mandriva has the main perl package
> and also provide rpms of sub-packages, which are easier to
> update. They are using patch that allows them ove
James Antill wrote:
> The current state of play is (taking a random kde example):
>
> kdeutils F11 GA 4.2.2-4.fc11
> kdeutils F11 Updates 4.4.0-1.fc11
> kdeutils F12 GA 4.3.2-1.fc12
> kdeutils F12 Updates 4.4.0-1.fc12
>
> ...so if someone tries to update from F11 (with updates) using an F
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 20:00UTC (3pm EST) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
Followups:
None.
New Business:
#343 cloture rule/procedure for fesco meetings
#344 Policy proposal: contributing to Fedora should be FUN
Fedora E
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> 1. upgrades which disrupt, regress or break things. Those can only be
> pushed to Rawhide, if at all.
Such as KDE 4.4, just to pick a recent example. I had to log out and log in
again before I could start Kmail again. That can be quite disruptive if I have
long-running proc
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 12:06 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
> But for rolling back an update, yum requires that the old package is
> still available. We only keep the very latest version in the updates,
> so unless your previous version was from the initial release, you're out
> of luck. My last yum-up
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, James Antill wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 12:06 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
>
>> But for rolling back an update, yum requires that the old package is
>> still available. We only keep the very latest version in the updates,
>> so unless your previous version was from the initi
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Seth Vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
>>> Given that we don't provide an easily accessible user-friendly rollback
>>> mechanism, I don't know that that's actually applicable to the general case,
>>> though.
>>
>> yum history undo works pretty w
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Data-JavaScript:
14a2e422d2a22d34749e762614b4736f Data-JavaScript-1.13.tgz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:29:21 +0100
Thomas Spura wrote:
> Is it allowed to create a file ~/.mpd.conf, when building in koji and
> deleting afterwards?
>
> I need to write down a password into that file, for running a
> testsuite. If that file does not exist, I can't run mpich2 tests.
How does th
Björn Persson wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> 1. upgrades which disrupt, regress or break things. Those can only be
>> pushed to Rawhide, if at all.
>
> Such as KDE 4.4, just to pick a recent example. I had to log out and log in
> again before I could start Kmail again. That can be quite disruptive
On 02/26/2010 08:00 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 01:40 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> While the ethos as defined on the wiki mentions staying close to upstream
>>> and getting the latest software, there's nothing that says that it's done
>>> via updates
On 02/26/2010 08:52 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Jackson wrote:
>> By my count, that's three misrepresentations in one paragraph. I
>> certainly hope they were not deliberate.
>
> I'm not deliberately misrepresenting anything or anyone, I just stated my
> perception of the facts. It may well b
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 16:51 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> To be pedantic, Fedora is what it is. What the leadership has to say
> doesn't really matter in terms of what Fedora *is*, only in terms of
> what Fedora is *supposed to be*. In order to know what Fedora really
> is, a person would need to
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 10:16 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> 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 Ubun
Am Montag, den 01.03.2010, 22:40 +0100 schrieb Hans Ulrich Niedermann:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:29:21 +0100
> Thomas Spura wrote:
>
> > Is it allowed to create a file ~/.mpd.conf, when building in koji and
> > deleting afterwards?
> >
> > I need to write down a password into that file, for runni
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 09:44 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> One problem of updates-testing is - it takes so much time to be pushed and
> then mirrored. More rawhide approach should be used here. Users who are
> really
> interested in testing usually downloads from Koji directly.
We do pushes d
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 01:27 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > It seems like extra work for packagers, but in the end it kinda takes the
> > pressure off: you only *have* to ship the important fixes to /updates,
> > /backports is optional,
>
> That's already a bad thing, users
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 08:07 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > So yeah, I agree it's not a perfect system - detailed suggestions for
> > improving it would be welcome, I'm sure.
>
> Alternatives:
>
> * Abandon it (I don't think this would change anything wrt. to QA in Fedora)
Um. Hard to put this
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 12:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> It doesn't take a mind reader to realize that an upstream BUGFIX release,
> well, FIXES BUGS! ;-)
They also often shovel in entirely non-related changes on the basis that
they're perfectly obvious and trivial and simple changes that Can't
Split off from the stable pushes in Bodhi thread just because I'd like
to see it not get lost.
On 02/27/2010 11:35 AM, Mail Lists wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 12:42 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> Currently I am following F13 and I have been noticing a lot of packages
> disappearing from updates-testing before showing up in the branched release
> (but similar things happen with normal updates, just less often).
>
> When things disa
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 11:57 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/01/2010 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> > If you think this isn't the right way
> > to provide a safety net for package maintainers - what is?
>
> With the understanding that you're not specifically asking me that
> question, I'd
1 - 100 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
