On 3/4/2010 5:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 08:54:28AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>
>> M A Young wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know if this has already been raised but I notice on the
>>> package-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org list that several Fedora 13
>>> packages keep get
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:11 AM, James Antill wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 00:14 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:19:48 -0800, Jesse wrote:
>>
>> > Extras had significantly fewer packages,
>>
>> Well, Fedora Extras 6 (x86_64) contained 5129 packages, which is only 300
>>
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
> Like most any group making hard decisions, the KDE SIG bases them on the
> best information available. Fact is, we extensively tested this new version
> for over a month, and every serious issue/blocker that was reported or
> identified was ad
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
>> It's actually almost no extra work to build the updates also for the
>> previous stable release. We have to build them for the current stable
>> anyway. It just means doing the usual routine (copying the specfile,
>> committing and runn
When i'm using bugzilla, i've noticed that i have some limited options in
flags
fedora-review: i have only a "?", i dont have any "+"
fedora-cvs: i can't change it, see the link below.
my info:
taljurf: Approved Groups: fedorabugs packager marketing altvideos freemedia
cla_fedora cla_done cvsl10n
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=555420
Marcela Mašláňová changed:
What|Removed |Added
-
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:11:47 -0500, James wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 00:14 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:19:48 -0800, Jesse wrote:
> >
> > > Extras had significantly fewer packages,
> >
> > Well, Fedora Extras 6 (x86_64) contained 5129 packages, which is only 300
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 16:19 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
>> Obviously this would require some tools work, but isn't it worth
>> considering?
>
> This is essentially serviced by KoPeRs
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/KojiPersonalRepos
Except this is still vaporwar
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 02:41:46 -0500, James wrote:
> > > % yum repolist --releasever=11 updates
> > > repo id repo name status
> > > updates Fedora 11 - x86_64 - Updates9,390
> ...
> > This probably won't go well unless yo
Till Maas wrote:
> F13 updates will be supported until F15 Alpha is created, so
> everyone has a about a three month update window to get from FN-updates to
> F(N+1)-updates or F(N+1)-updates-stable.
FN-updates to F(N+1)-updates-stable is unlikely to work, because FN-updates
will be including stu
Adam Williamson wrote:
> We have various different definitions of the Alpha, it seems. The
> working definition that QA / rel-eng have always worked on when deciding
> whether to ship it is, broadly, 'can you install it, boot it, get a
> network connection, and install updates'. That's what the cur
Kalev Lember wrote:
> If upstream really issues security fixes for 4.x-1,
Their security advisories include patches, which usually either apply just
fine to the old releases or have a version for the old releases included.
> then this is pretty much perfect. We get 4 or 5 bug fix releases, and
>
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:15:50PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora.
> If you would point me to such a "bleeding edge" policy then I could
> agree but I believe this is merely assumed by some and if you want the
> latest always you could use kde-
On Thursday 04 March 2010 22:13:05 Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:59 -0700, Ryan Rix wrote:
> > The problem is that there _aren't_ bug fixes for these old releases. When
> > 4.x comes out, upstream pretty much drops development on 4.x-1 except
> > for security issues which are back
Peter Jones wrote:
> It's very similar, but not quite the same, for a couple of reasons. To
> wit, Jesse's proposal mostly seems to focus on the repos being somewhat
> transient - "Bob wants a repo to test something" - whereas I'm discussing
> a longer-term purpose. Also, his is on a individual le
Juha Tuomala wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> What bugfix releases would we be supposed to push? There are no further
>> 4.3.x releases.
>
> Nothing, if that's the case.
That means bugs will no longer be fixed, is that a price we want to pay just
to avoid the small risk of re
John5342 wrote:
> Sorry. That was perhaps rather strongly worded. I was not suggesting
> going against policies if they are mandated. My complaint about sheep
> was towards the option of defering. Not the act of following what is
> mandated if such policies are passed. Until such stuff is mandated
On 4 March 2010 19:59, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I think we
> really need to be more conservative about what version of our default
> updating tool we include in our releases (and in fact pushing PackageKit 0.6
> as a post-release enhancement update once the issues with it are resolved
> and there is
Juha Tuomala wrote:
> Was it so that mysqld wants to communicate through fs sockets
> which does not work on NFS $HOME?
>
> [akonadiserver] Failed to use database "akonadi"
> [akonadiserver] Database error: "Can't connect to local MySQL server
> [through socket
> '/home/tuju/.local/share/akonadi/d
On 03/05/2010 02:06 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
>
> Maybe it isn't written down as a policy but in my mind it's a big part
> of the four foundations. Unless we want to make them "freedom friends
> frozen frustration" in the future ...
>
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations
The four foundations
Doug Ledford wrote:
> You only need enough details to know that it isn't impossible, not
> enough to know the exact route to get to the end goal.
Only an actually working implementation, or a detailed technical description
of one, can prove that it really isn't impossible and doesn't lead to
uns
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:52:56AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> One size does still not fit all, although this is a great idea for
> most packages in Fedora for packages in certain niches this is a bad idea.
>
> I've said this before (and got 0 response), I believe there should
> be some divide
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 06:46:01AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > F13 updates will be supported until F15 Alpha is created, so
> > everyone has a about a three month update window to get from FN-updates to
> > F(N+1)-updates or F(N+1)-updates-stable.
>
> FN-updates to F(N+1)-upd
Doug Ledford wrote:
> So, I'm going to reiterate my policy suggestion:
>
> Make Fedora releases (all of them) stable in nature, not semi-rolling.
> Make rawhide consumable as a semi-rolling release itself.
And let me reiterate my objections, because you asked for it. :-)
> Reasons:
>
> 1) Most
(Starting a new thread because this hardly has anything to do with the
original infamous thread.
Dear hall monitors: I hope I won't get put on moderation for posting this,
but this subthread didn't have much to do with the original subject. If you
also want me to stop posting to this split threa
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:42 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
> I have taken over the maintainership from Robert, and the new
> usb_modeswitch rpms are in rawhide now.
And F-13?
> Let me know if you guys need anything fixed on that :)
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
> maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
> every upstream release into the updates repository
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines
1. That policy is not
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=493799
--- Comment #39 from Richard W.M. Jones 2010-03-05 05:15:39
EST ---
Thanks Yulia, those are upstream here:
http://git.annexia.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 02:06 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
>>
>> Maybe it isn't written down as a policy but in my mind it's a big part
>> of the four foundations. Unless we want to make them "freedom friends
>> frozen frustration" in the future ...
>>
>
> h
Le Jeu 4 mars 2010 23:09, Till Maas a écrit :
> And they must pass all AutoQA tests, which is not a big issue currently,
> but will be if AutoQA becomes what I would like it to be.
People seem to assume AutoQA is going to be black/white tests. However, I
think we'll need automated warnings too
On 03/05/2010 03:45 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> So I don't see that policy as backing your claims at all.
>
Of course you don't which is part of the problem since you continue to
not treat the risk of regressions as seriously as you should even though
the latest push did cause problems despite
On 03/05/2010 03:55 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
> I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
> again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
> BZ as well?
>
A while back a kde update caused kmail to stop working on imap accounts
and I dont use th
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 03:55 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>> I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
>> again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
>> BZ as well?
>>
> A while back a kde update c
On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 06:39:11PM +, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:04 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, this looks useful. I will try to use them, too. From their
> > description they should be helpful to just check whether the current
> > SPEC would still build the curr
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 22:53 -0500, TK009 wrote:
> We will be automatically changing the version all rawhide bugs to Fedora 13.
> This will result in regular bugs reported against rawhide during the Fedora 13
> development cycle being changed to version ‘13' instead of their
> current assignment,
>
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:03:12 +0100, Kevin wrote:
> Yeah, basically "mash" is a really brute force solution, I think directly
> writing out only the new updates as the first prototypes of Bodhi did and as
> the Extras scripts also did/do is a much smarter solution. Always
> recomputing everythin
On 5 March 2010 13:51, Tareq Al Jurf wrote:
> When i'm using bugzilla, i've noticed that i have some limited options in
> flags
> fedora-review: i have only a "?", i dont have any "+"
> fedora-cvs: i can't change it, see the link below.
>
> my info:
> taljurf: Approved Groups: fedorabugs packager m
On 03/05/2010 04:33 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
> So you filed a bug. I will search for it. So you stop'd using it, BUT
> you faced more problems like that. Now that's interesting. Or is it
> that you blow into the same horn as others do? If so, i would have
> expected more from you
>
I faced m
Here is now a review request for fedora-easy-karma:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570771
pgp3bH9mzb8w2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 04:33 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>> So you filed a bug. I will search for it. So you stop'd using it, BUT
>> you faced more problems like that. Now that's interesting. Or is it
>> that you blow into the same horn as others do
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
>> Does that mean if Fedora N is released with KDE 4.x, the users get
>> 4.x+1 only in Fedora N+1? It sounds diagonally opposite to the
>> latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora.
>
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
>>> Does that mean if Fedora N is released with KDE 4.x, the users get
>>> 4.x+1 only in Fedora N+1? It sounds diagonally opposite
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Janssen
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
Does that mean if Fedora N is released with KDE 4.x, the users ge
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:12:51AM +0200, shmuel siegel wrote:
>On 3/4/2010 5:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 08:54:28AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>
>>> M A Young wrote:
>>>
I don't know if this has already been raised but I notice on the
package-annou...@lis
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:53:54PM -0500, TK009 wrote:
> I hope everyone is well. With the worst of the “snowpocalypse" behind us
> (here in the Northern Hemisphere) and the branching of Fedora 13, there
> is a bit of ‘spring cleaning’ the the bugzappers need to do. This
> e-mail is designed to
Hi,
I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to
this? I created a wiki page for this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Till/update_availability_speedup_ideas
The basic idea is to create new repo
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
> reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to
> this? I created a wiki page for this:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Till/update_availability_
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Thomas Janssen
wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Janssen
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
> D
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:08:09AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
> > reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to
> > this? I created a wiki
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>>
>> the problem is you have to depsolve both sets of pkgs separately keeping
>> in mind stable vs unstable. And the depsolving impacts the multilib
>> selection (and vice versa).
>
> I do not understand the problem, can you maybe give an example?
> Does the
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:06:33 -0800, Adam wrote:
> as we've explained several times,
It won't get more correct by simply repeating it over and over again.
> most packages that go to
> updates-testing for a few days *are* being tested, even if they get no
> apparent Bodhi feedback.
Certainly not
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 21:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I did explicitly explain to you and the other desktop SIGs at the start
> > of the F13 cycle that, because we just hadn't had time to discuss all
> > the thorny implications of the question, the desktop criteria wou
Compose started at Fri Mar 5 08:15:12 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
On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go
> to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently
> "stable" N release is just plain wrong. That kills what Fedora stands
> for out there in the wild. To be a lead
James Laska wrote:
> Quality isn't something you staff and hope they cover all your testing
> needs. Quality practices are expected of everyone at all stages of the
> process. In the QA team, we work to provide a framework and guidelines
> so people interested in making a difference have an oppor
Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
> I must be looking at the wrong places then... I could find no 4.4+
> RPMs either in one of the mirrors:
> http://apt.de.kde-redhat.org/kde-redhat/fedora/12/i386/unstable/RPMS/
4.4.0 is already an official update, why would kde-redhat carry it?
4.4.1 is not built yet. It
Till Maas wrote:
> Before you do anything that is described on that wiki page, it needs to
> be updated to match the current no frozen rawhide situation. Since it
> requires FESCo approval, targeting 2010-03-09 seems to be kind of
> unrealistic.
Quite the opposite, the switchover needs to happen A
Seth Vidal wrote:
> If only 3 of those 5 make it through updates-testing into updates, then
> you have to figure out if the other 3 actually need the versions of the
> other 2 or if they can work with what's already available in GA or
> updates.
How's that relevant to his proposal? Or more precise
>On 5 March 2010 13:51, Tareq Al Jurf wrote:
>>* When i'm using bugzilla, i've noticed that i have some limited options in
*>>* flags
*>*> fedora-review: i have only a "?", i dont have any "+"
*>*> fedora-cvs: i can't change it, see the link below.
*>>*
*>*> my info:
*>*> taljurf: Approved Groups:
For all those who're claiming users don't want upgrades like KDE 4.4.0:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-February/367266.html
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/2010-March/006102.html
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://ad
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:11:23PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > Especially it needs to be made sure that only bugs created prior to
> > adding "F13" to RedHat Bugzilla or the branching of F13, depending on
> > what happened later, are touched by the "Rawhide bug rebase".
>
>
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
>> I must be looking at the wrong places then... I could find no 4.4+
>> RPMs either in one of the mirrors:
>> http://apt.de.kde-redhat.org/kde-redhat/fedora/12/i386/unstable/RPMS/
>
> 4.4.0 is already an official updat
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Till Maas wrote:
>
> Here is my first feature request: please make the fedora buildsys
> specific items optional, e.g. if there is no sources file, then just
> skip all the CVS etc. stuff, but only fetch the tarball and update the
> spec. This would make it possible
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:53:59AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > Also a link to an example spec would be helpful.
>
> For just the #VCS key? Let me instead write up a formal proposal:
It helps to have something that is supposed to work to ge
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> For all those who're claiming users don't want upgrades like KDE 4.4.0:
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-February/367266.html
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/2010-March/006102.html
>
Now, lets see you take the leap in l
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
>> I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go
>> to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently
>> "stable" N release is just plain wrong. That kills w
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 05:31 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > We have various different definitions of the Alpha, it seems. The
> > working definition that QA / rel-eng have always worked on when deciding
> > whether to ship it is, broadly, 'can you install it, boot it, get a
I wrote:
> 4.4.1 is not built yet. It will probably be put into kde-redhat testing in
> addition to the official updates-testing (the exact same binary packages)
> for those who don't want to easily test it without pulling in all of
> updates-testing.
Uh, I butchered that sentence. I mean:
4.4.1 i
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 05:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:53 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> We should change or refine the Freeze Policy page then. Having different
> >> definitions of what is required for alpha to go out and what can go in
>
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
> > maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
> > every upstream release into the updates repository
> >
> > http://fedo
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:42:57PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:11:23PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Till Maas wrote:
>
> > > Especially it needs to be made sure that only bugs created prior to
> > > adding "F13" to RedHat Bugzilla or the branching of F13, depending on
>
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:27 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> Especially it needs to be made sure that only bugs created prior to
> adding "F13" to RedHat Bugzilla or the branching of F13, depending on
> what happened later, are touched by the "Rawhide bug rebase".
We already did that, though tk009 forgo
2010/3/5 Adam Williamson :
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> > We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
>> > maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
>> > every upstream release into the update
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:30 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
> Le Jeu 4 mars 2010 23:09, Till Maas a écrit :
>
> > And they must pass all AutoQA tests, which is not a big issue currently,
> > but will be if AutoQA becomes what I would like it to be.
>
> People seem to assume AutoQA is going to be
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> > We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
>> > maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
>> > every ups
* Thomas Janssen [05/03/2010 17:03] :
>
> If you ask me, i say, have a face, have a character and offer
> something the others dont. Fedora is exactly that right now.
We're left with the problem that what Fedora is right now isn't
working (massive amounts of updates that our users have to download
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > which go through updates-testing. They do not file positive
> > feedback for every single package because there's just too many, but if
> > they notice breakage, they file negative feedback.
>
> And they simply don't and can't notice
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:25 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
> again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
> BZ as well?
(snip)
> The nepomuk problem some face is something that falls under, damn,
> that
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 21:47 +0530, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
> > That's because you're misreading Rahul's claims. Rahul was replying to a
> > post which claimed Fedora has a 'policy' of being 'bleeding edge'.
>
> Uh, oh - it wasn't a *claim*. Its just the popular saying, urban
> myth, a general f
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:25 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
>> I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
>> again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
>> BZ as well?
>
> (snip)
>
>> The ne
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 17:40 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> There are regressions. But not just in KDE. But interesting that so
> much people cry about KDE only.
I agree with that, and I said so earlier in the thread...
> And Yes, it's always bad if terrible stuff happens. But you cant
> reduce *
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:19:25 -0800, Adam wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > > which go through updates-testing. They do not file positive
> > > feedback for every single package because there's just too many, but if
> > > they notice breakage, they file nega
Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said:
> > So what? That's not twice as much as FE6, which would not have taken
> > several hours to push into such a repo. Not even when running repoclosure
> > on the needsign repo prior to pushing and when updating repoview pages
> > afterwards. Simply becau
On 03/05/2010 03:25 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>>> I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go
>>> to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently
>>>
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> It doesn't change anything, though. No feedback => nothing to rely on.
> These recent discussions on this list could have been fruitful, btw.
> For some people it has become a game of "I'm right - you aren't",
> unfortunately.
Nothing l
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:03 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> It was claimed that recomputing is necessary for some obscure multilib
> corner cases. Let me suggest a radical solution for that: drop multilib
> repos! If users really want 32-bit packages, they should enable the 32-bit
> repo. Yes, t
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
> reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to
> this? I created a wiki page for this:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Till/update_availability_speedup_
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:11:10 -0800, Adam wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> > It doesn't change anything, though. No feedback => nothing to rely on.
> > These recent discussions on this list could have been fruitful, btw.
> > For some people it has become a ga
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:52:56AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Make rawhide consumable as a semi-rolling release itself.
>
> We already have this it is called early branching of the next release. I
> would fully agree with you if it were not for the early branching
> feature, which means we ef
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:26 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Nothing like that. It just frustrates me when people don't debate
> > correctly.
>
> Then consider stopping to send further replies. You -- and some other
> participants in these threads -- pipe out way too many replies in
> quick suc
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:23:17PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> > I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
> > reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to
> > this? I created a wiki page for this
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
> As I had expected, breaking up the monolithic
> packages into individual packages is a whole lot
> of unnecessary work. Better to provide releases
> as they occur, than to waste time unnecessarily
> breaking down the monolithic packages. To what
> end and benefit? Who,
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> > It seems to be missing something - it says 'all rpms that are not included
> > in the prior metadata will be deleted', but there's nothing in that proposal
> > as written that will cause rpms to fall out of the metadata.
>
> It was probably to unclear. T
On 03/05/2010 04:49 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Doug Ledford wrote:
>> So, I'm going to reiterate my policy suggestion:
>>
>> Make Fedora releases (all of them) stable in nature, not semi-rolling.
>> Make rawhide consumable as a semi-rolling release itself.
>
> And let me reiterate my objections, be
Orcan Ogetbil (oget.fed...@gmail.com) said:
> There is one more thing. Very important thing. We have been pushing
> KDE releases asap so far, and although it hurt me at times (at school
> and at work), I like it. I don't blame people who don't. Here is the
> thing: The bugs need to be reported mos
On 03/05/2010 02:52 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> One size does still not fit all, although this is a great idea for
> most packages in Fedora for packages in certain niches this is a bad idea.
>
> I've said this before (and got 0 response), I believe there should
> be some divide made between core pa
On 03/05/2010 09:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Uh, what? How does what you said relate to what I said in any way?
>
> Rahul wasn't claiming that Fedora has a strict conservative update
> policy. He was pointing out that Fedora does *not* have a strict
> bleeding-edge policy. Wherein is that 'ur
Author: kasal
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-DBIx-Class/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27846
Modified Files:
perl-DBIx-Class.spec
Log Message:
- filter also requires for "hidden" package declarations
Index: perl-DBIx-Class.spec
===
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:10:41PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 03/05/2010 03:25 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> >
> > Well, no. It wouldn't be a very hot leading distro. It would be
> > nothing more than any other distro with the same release-cycle.
>
> Assuming that other distros were packaging
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:25 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> The nepomuk problem some face is something that falls under, damn,
>> that shouldn't happen, but sh!t happens. I saw a lot more and even
>> terrible stuff happen in Fedora.
>
> So first you claim there's no regre
1 - 100 of 153 matches
Mail list logo
