On 03/10/2010 06:55 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
> meeting.
>
> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
>
Follow basic IRC etiquette for meetings
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_IRC#Meetin
- "Adam Williamson" wrote:
> There actually already *is* a review point
> prior to moving to -updates, but it's currently owned by rel-eng and
> is
> not highly publicized, and very little gets rejected. It is there,
> though: rel-eng explained this earlier in the threads, and explained
> that
On 03/09/2010 06:20 PM, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 05:55:33PM +, Terry Barnaby wrote:
>> On 09/03/10 16:50, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:33:45AM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
I have limited time to do system installs and maintenance. Stickin
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 04:51:52PM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > You need to update packages from updates-testing first and then it's
> > useful to run it. Please look at the wiki for example output.
>
> Would your script break, say, if he was using the bodhi-client from
Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
> meeting.
>
> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
Seth, respect would be a good starting point.
> 20:45:30 I know there are pe
> I think Fedora's balance has moved a bit to far in the fast-moving, frontier
> direction
This could be fixed by better feedbacks (statistics, autoQA, more
testers, integration of bodhi in package managers, etc ...), so
maintainers can adapt their update policy.
Another idea would be defining pa
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Christoph Wickert
wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
>
>> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
>> meeting.
>>
>> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
>
> Seth, resp
On 03/08/2010 02:59 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 11:25 AM, Ivana Hutarova Varekova wrote:
>
>>For now in fedora there are 11 packages which contains language
>> mutations of man-pages (man-pages-{cs,da,de,es,fr,it,ja,ko,pl,ru,uk})
>> and man-pages package.
>>Only 2
On 03/10/2010 11:40 AM, Ivana Hutarova Varekova wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 02:59 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/08/2010 11:25 AM, Ivana Hutarova Varekova wrote:
>>
>>> For now in fedora there are 11 packages which contains language
>>> mutations of man-pages (man-pages-{cs,da,de,es,fr,it,ja
LinuxDonald wrote:
> Am 10.03.2010 00:41, schrieb Rex Dieter:
> > LinuxDonald wrote:
> >> Here is the bug report for that at bullet bug tracker:
> >> http://code.google.com/p/bullet/issues/detail?id=337
> >
> > OK, I've provide an upstreamable patch and bullet.pc.cmake file in
> > bugzilla.
>
> T
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07:39AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
>
>> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
>> meeting.
>>
>> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
>
>Set
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:25:06PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>
> > On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >> ===
> >> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
> >> ===
> >>
>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 06:47:00AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> "We shouldn't be held hostage to various threats. We shouldn't be afraid to
> try something because a vocal few are ranting against it."
>
> I could, of course, be very wrong. However threatening to leave the project
> if various t
Instead of worrying about the occasional brokenness caused by an update to a
stable release, how about focusing on a mechanism to easily recover from it? As
long as the update hasn't corrupted any critical files, my non-optimal solution
is to head over to koji, grab the last version of the broke
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 06:47:00AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07:39AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
> >
> >> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
> >> meeting.
> >>
> >>
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 13:06, Steven I Usdansky
wrote:
> Instead of worrying about the occasional brokenness caused by an update to a
> stable release, how about focusing on a mechanism to easily recover from it?
> As long as the update hasn't corrupted any critical files, my non-optimal
> sol
On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 01:28:39AM +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> > Moreover you also have the option of updating security fixes only.
>
> That option doesn't really exist, as was already demonstrated:
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-March/131926.html
S
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:47:00 -0500, Josh wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:07:39AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 20:25 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
> >
> >> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
> >> meeting.
> >>
> >> Jonathan, D
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Seth, respect would be a good starting point.
>
>> 20:45:30 I know there are people that will leave Fedora if
>> we decide a policy that forbids major updates. both users and
>> contributors
>> 20:45:42 cwickert: people threatening to leave shoul
On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 7:24:18 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 13:06, Steven I Usdansky
> Your proposal especially doesn't address the third point. How do
> effectively you rollback the package on the mirrors when you don't
> control them?
Assuming reversion to an o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/10/2010 01:06 PM, Steven I Usdansky wrote:
> Instead of worrying about the occasional brokenness caused by an update to a
> stable release, how about focusing on a mechanism to easily recover from it?
There is no real recovery for traditional
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> I can agree with that last sentence in parts. Please don't forget the
> order of incidents, however. First the early-warning system with hundreds
> of messages and multiple threads, which made several packagers think "do
> they want to ruin the co
On 03/10/2010 05:36 PM, Steven I Usdansky wrote:
> Instead of worrying about the occasional brokenness caused by an update to a
> stable release, how about focusing on a mechanism to easily recover from it?
> As long as the update hasn't corrupted any critical files, my non-optimal
> solution is
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:38:09PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> >> 20:45:42 cwickert: people threatening to leave should leave
>> >> 20:45:48 orphan your packages and go
>> >> 20:45:57 I'll be glad to clean up that mess
>>
>> While the phrasing may or may not be over the top, I read that m
On 09/03/10 20:43, James Laska wrote:
> Some basics I'd propose as a starting point for defining acceptance
> criteria include:
>
> 1. repoclosure/conflicts - no package update can introduce broken
> deps or conflicts. I'd recommend we apply this to both
> 'updates-testing'
- "Michal Nowak" wrote:
> - "Michal Nowak" wrote:
>
> > - "Jakub Jelinek" wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:24:29AM -0500, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> > > > Michal Nowak writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Past months I spent investigating `gold' - the new GNU linker
> > > > > an
Next week is the wiki freeze for Fedora 13 Release Notes.
If you have something important that needs to be in the release notes,
update the appropriate wiki beat.
Go to
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Documentation_Beats
and select the appropriate beat. Then add a note to that beat.
Your update
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 07:55:08 -0500 (EST), Seth wrote:
> Michael,
>
> Do you really think you're attitude has been respectful and helpful
> throughout all the time. Do you consider history at all?
It seems to be enough that you do. Whatever you may remember
correctly, I don't know what it is.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 07:50:25AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> Do you like it when someone, who isn't getting their way threatens to take
> their ball and go home?
>
There is a big difference between people threatening to take their ball
home if something happens that they don't like, and peopl
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:59:56 +, Ewan wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 07:50:25AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> > Do you like it when someone, who isn't getting their way threatens to take
> > their ball and go home?
> >
> There is a big difference between people threatening to take their b
On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 01:29:28AM +0100, Milos Jakubicek wrote:
> Also thanks for packaging that immediately -- what about installing it
> by default? It's a tiny package and we really do want our users to
> provide feedback.
I do not mind, if it is installed by default, but I am not sure,
whe
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 15:51 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> It surprised me to see FESCo fight like that in a meeting. Some members
> are beside themselves in rage. Steering is hard, let's go shopping.
Whether someone is 'besides themselves in rage' is really hard to infer
from an irc log. I wou
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
> why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
> No volunteer package maintainer is in general forced to create updates
> and I am very sure that the
On 03/09/2010 05:23 PM, nodata wrote:
> Does Zimbra still ship as a blob of specific versions of lots of open
> source software, of which the specific versions cannot be changed?
Also, the last time I looked, it had a bundled copy of the Sun JDK (not
the open sourced one either).
~spot
--
devel
On Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 16:22, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
> > why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
> > No volunteer package maintain
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
>>
>> Another question - how many broken things we shipped in release that could be
>> fixed by updates? We shipped lot of unfinished, feature incomplete stuff in
>> history...
>>
>> Nobody can't s
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Another question - how many broken things we shipped in release that could
>>> be
>>> fixed by updates? We shipped lot of unfinished, feature i
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:46:54 -0500 (EST)
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, drago01 wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Seth Vidal
> > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Another question - how many broken things we shipped in r
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:22:37AM -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>
> > Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
> > why package maintainer decided to become Fedora package maintainers.
> > No volunteer package main
Hi,
I tried to install this new Goddard thing on my laptop and it seems to be b0rken
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572243
Any chance to get graphical installer with vesa driver?
Regards,
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mai
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:06:58AM -0800, Steven I Usdansky wrote:
> Instead of worrying about the occasional brokenness caused by an
> update to a stable release, how about focusing on a mechanism to
> easily recover from it? As long as the update hasn't corrupted any
> critical files, my non-opti
On Wednesday 10 March 2010 17:14:41 Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried to install this new Goddard thing on my laptop and it seems to be
> b0rken https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572243
>
> Any chance to get graphical installer with vesa driver?
>
> Regards,
> Michal
afaik yo
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 14:59 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> There is no strong dependency between "man" and "man-pages".
>
> "man" is just one utility amongst many utilities which can be used to
> process man-pages.
Perhaps it would make sense to introduce a Provides:(man-reader) or some
such
On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> Good news everyone,
>
> you can probably expect to receive more positive bodhi karma for your
> updates in the future (or you already got unexpected much), because
> there is now a script called 'fedora-easy-karma'[0], that makes
> providing feedb
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:38:53PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 16:22, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:08 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> >
> > > Afaics this does not affect some minor issue, but a fundamental reason
> > > why package
On 10/03/10 16:14, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I tried to install this new Goddard thing on my laptop and it seems to be
> b0rken
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572243
>
> Any chance to get graphical installer with vesa driver?
>
> Regards,
> Michal
What version *.iso did yo
2010/3/10 Frank Murphy :
> On 10/03/10 16:14, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tried to install this new Goddard thing on my laptop and it seems to be
>> b0rken
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572243
>>
>> Any chance to get graphical installer with vesa driver?
>>
>> Regards,
Hi,
Please review the attached patch for this bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538525
Description is included in the patch:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398875&action=edit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398875&action=diff
Thanks.
--
Endi S. Dewata
Compose started at Wed Mar 10 08:15:05 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
accountsdialog-0.5.1-1.fc14.i686 requires libcheese-gtk.so.17
calibre-0.6.42-1.fc14.i686 requires libMagickCore.so.2
calibre-0.6.42-1.fc14.i686 re
2010/3/10 Michal Hlavinka :
> On Wednesday 10 March 2010 17:14:41 Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tried to install this new Goddard thing on my laptop and it seems to be
>> b0rken https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572243
>>
>> Any chance to get graphical installer with vesa driver
Hi,
Please review the patch for the following bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570542
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398976&action=edit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398976&action=diff
Thanks.
--
Endi S. Dewata
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@l
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:53:49 -0500,
Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> What I don't get, seriously, is why people in 2. can't use rawhide or
> the latest updates-testing and instead pretend to inflict "almost
> rawhide" on everybody else.
Because updates-testing is really for testing not for providing
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 14:06:12 -0500,
Doug Ledford wrote:
>
> Things like the libata kernel change and KDE 3 to 4 migration are
> intentional events and all that's needed to make the transition smooth
> is to coordinate the release of a seamless upgrade package set. You
I lived through the
On Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 17:34, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:38:53PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
[...]
> > Agreed. However, we should ask ourselves if it's better to have a package
> > in our distribution even if it doesn't fit ideally with the rest
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 15:43:04 -0500,
James Laska wrote:
>
> 1. repoclosure/conflicts - no package update can introduce broken
> deps or conflicts. I'd recommend we apply this to both
> 'updates-testing' and 'updates' (but that's detailed below)
> 2. Package sanity
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> You forget people developing proprietary software...
>
> Why would we want to encourage or even support that?
I don't expect Fedora to encourage it (nor should we, IMO)... but that
doesn't change the reality of $DAYJOB. If Fedora drops multilib, I w
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:20:21 +0530,
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> As opposed to fake security threats? In the case of the kernel, if the
> new kernel update we rush through without passing via updates-testing
> repo doesn't boot you can always boot back into an older kernel but
We can do that, b
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>>> You forget people developing proprietary software...
>>
>> Why would we want to encourage or even support that?
>
> I don't expect Fedora to encourage it (nor should we, IMO)... but that
> doesn't change the reality of $DAYJ
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 00:52:38 +0530,
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> Let me know what you think
This should be split into two policy proposals.
One should cover QA related processes for pushing updates.
The second should cover expectations on what kinds of updates packagers
should be pushing to
A newer version of gdbm (1.8.0->1.8.3) has been pushed into rawhide
(devel) branch. This version changes libgdbm soname, so all packages
using gdbm _must be rebuilt_.
The soname change is needed as the new version moves dbm and ndbm
routines to separate library gdbm_compat.
The new version fix
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:29:42 -0600, Matthew wrote:
>
>>> There are just too many -devel packages and their dependencies to be ever
>>> relevant to someone for multi-arch installs. Far more users install i686 on
>>> 64-bit CPUs, and I have doubts that x86_64 installation us
On 03/08/2010 09:29 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> There are just too many -devel packages and their dependencies to be ever
>> relevant to someone for multi-arch installs. Far more users install i686 on
>> 64-bit CPUs, and I have doubts that x86_64 installation users do mu
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 18:25 +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
> A newer version of gdbm (1.8.0->1.8.3) has been pushed into rawhide
> (devel) branch. This version changes libgdbm soname, so all packages
> using gdbm _must be rebuilt_.
>
> The soname change is needed as the new version moves dbm and ndbm
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:30:05 -0600, Matthew wrote:
> Probably because
> I need multilib and have never experienced multilib-related problems (or
> if I have, they were so trivial as to be thoroughly forgettable).
Just out of interest, does enabling a separate 32-bit repository on a
64-bit insta
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 04:06:58 -0800,
Steven I Usdansky wrote:
> Instead of worrying about the occasional brokenness caused by an update to a
> stable release, how about focusing on a mechanism to easily recover from it?
> As long as the update hasn't corrupted any critical files, my non-opt
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 10:00 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 18:25 +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
> > A newer version of gdbm (1.8.0->1.8.3) has been pushed into rawhide
> > (devel) branch. This version changes libgdbm soname, so all packages
> > using gdbm _must be rebuilt_.
> >
>
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:30:05 -0600, Matthew wrote:
>> Probably because
>> I need multilib and have never experienced multilib-related problems (or
>> if I have, they were so trivial as to be thoroughly forgettable).
>
> Just out of interest, does enabling a separate 32-bit
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
> > Also thanks for packaging that immediately -- what about installing it
> > by default? It's a tiny package and we really do want our users to
> > provide feedback.
>
> I do not mind, if it is installed by default, but I am not sure,
> whether this is a
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 11:56 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 11:40 AM, Ivana Hutarova Varekova wrote:
> > from my point of view, the vast majority of users uses man to show the
> > wanted man-page content (the reason to add the dependency).
>
> Agreed.
>
> Actually, I am having proble
> There are nearly no facts, so everyone is just
> guessing and many people are just ignoring objections.
That is true, indeed.
But do we really need detailed statistics to make a good decision?
All of us have an experience with Fedora over the last years. And I
*guess* ( :-) ) most or even a
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 17:20 +0100, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 March 2010 17:14:41 Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I tried to install this new Goddard thing on my laptop and it seems to be
> > b0rken https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=572243
> >
> > Any chance to ge
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:30 -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
>
>> Now, there's a reasonable argument that says that Fedora users without
>> FAS accounts didn't vote for FESCo, so it's still legitimate to ask
>> *those* users what they think. The impos
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:30 -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
>
>> Now, there's a reasonable argument that says that Fedora users without
>> FAS accounts didn't vote for FESCo, so it's still legitimate to ask
>> *those* users what they think. The impos
I realize this doesn't address the concern about not pushing broken
updates to begin with. However, if yum and/or rpm could do a
downgrade from locally cached delta, it would make reverting the
change that broke the system much easier. This obviously won't
work if it's rpm that breaks, but that is
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 10:48 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:30 -0500, Chris Ball wrote:
>>
>>> Now, there's a reasonable argument that says that Fedora users without
>>> FAS accounts didn't vote for FESCo, so it's
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:44 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 17:20 +0100, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 March 2010 17:14:41 Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I tried to install this new Goddard thing on my laptop and it seems to be
> > > b0rken https://b
I can install F13 in text mode later and send some more informations
about these issues with both drivers.
Regards,
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
IBM supports the TCG DRTM standard efforts. After the approval of the TCG
DRTM standard, IBM is planning to develop and provide DRTM UEFI support in
its System X product line.
--
George Wilson
IBM Linux Technology Center
Security Development
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
h
On 03/10/2010 02:16 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 06:55 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
>> meeting.
>>
>> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do to correct it?
>>
>
> Follow basic IRC etiquette for mee
On 03/10/2010 02:53 PM, George C. Wilson wrote:
> IBM supports the TCG DRTM standard efforts. After the approval of the TCG
> DRTM standard, IBM is planning to develop and provide DRTM UEFI support in
> its System X product line.
That's all well and good, but is there a reason you sent this to th
> Actually what I do, Roland, it that I grab binutils daily tarball
> and rebuild it as Source0 of Rawhide's SRPM (really ugly...) so I
> always use the latest one, see '-r' option. Drawback in the script
> is that it always rebuilds binutils even if you have today's
> binutils RPMs somewhere, tha
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/10/2010 02:16 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 03/10/2010 06:55 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree, there was obviously a divisive and destructive aspect to that
>>> meeting.
>>>
>>> Jonathan, Do you have any thoughts on what we can do
Compose started at Wed Mar 10 09:15:11 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
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires lib
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Robyn Bergeron
wrote:
>> That looks to be about 400 people need to randomly selected and
>> complete the survey (for +/- 5%). to get down to 1% you would need to
>> get 6500 people.
>
> I don't think that the near-impossibility of having a statistically
> sound s
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
>>> Also thanks for packaging that immediately -- what about installing it
>>> by default? It's a tiny package and we really do want our users to
>>> provide feedback.
>>
>> I do not mind, if it is installed by default, but I am not su
On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:18 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 17:13 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > > Some basics I'd propose as a starting point for defining acceptance
> > > criteria include:
> > >
> > > 1. repoclosure/conflicts - no package update can introduce broken
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:18 +, Paul Howarth wrote:
> On 09/03/10 20:43, James Laska wrote:
> > Some basics I'd propose as a starting point for defining acceptance
> > criteria include:
> >
> > 1. repoclosure/conflicts - no package update can introduce broken
> > deps or conflicts
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 11:13 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 15:43:04 -0500,
> James Laska wrote:
> >
> > 1. repoclosure/conflicts - no package update can introduce broken
> > deps or conflicts. I'd recommend we apply this to both
> > 'updates-testin
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 23:21 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > Before being added to updates, the package must receive a net karma of
> > +3 in Bodhi.
>
> [...]
>
> > It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates shoul
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:11 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions
> about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground
> here.
Being qualified to do something does not mean that one always does it
perfectly. Almost ever
Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
for this or getting ready, or already using it? And If we bought a new
hd, via sata in my case within past year or newer computer in past year,
are we using t
On 2010/03/10 15:22 (GMT-0600) Mike Chambers composed:
> Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
> just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
> for this or getting ready, or already using it?
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2361156,0
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:22:13PM -0600, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
> just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
> for this or getting ready, or already using it? And If we bought a new
> hd, via sata in
Subject: subtree search fails to find items under a db containing
special characters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199923
Files:
ldap/servers/plugins/syntaxes/validate.c
ldap/servers/slapd/back-ldbm/ldbm_add.c
ldap/servers/slapd/dn.c
Fix Description:
dn.c: Based upon RFC 4514,
On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 13:21 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:11 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote:
>
> > Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions
> > about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground
> > here.
>
> Being qualified to d
On Mar 10, 2010, at 12:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> This sounds like it's similar to what we saw with the vboxvideo driver,
> right? When that failed it didn't fall back to vesa, either...
Quite possibly... The issue was that it knew the driver it was looking for and
attempted to load it, t
Mike Chambers wrote:
> Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
> just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
> for this or getting ready, or already using it? And If we bought a new
> hd, via sata in my case within past year or newer computer
On 03/10/2010 04:22 PM, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
> just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
> for this or getting ready, or already using it? And If we bought a new
> hd, via sata in my case within pas
On 03/10/2010 04:30 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2010/03/10 15:22 (GMT-0600) Mike Chambers composed:
>
>
>> Hadn't seen this discussed yet (not really a big hardware geek), and
>> just saw an article about this today. Are we (linux as a whole) ready
>> for this or getting ready, or already usin
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Gilboa Davara wrote:
>> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
>> profile packages: You're well on your way.
>
> I usually stay away from mega-threads, but well put!
>
> I doubt that even major bug fixes in any of my (small) p
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
