On 12/03/10 03:42, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
>> There's a difference between not supporting third-party software (is
>> that actually documented somewhere or another Kevin Kofler rule?) and
>> intentionally breaking it.
>
> There's no policy saying we support it, ergo by default, we
On 03/12/2010 01:12 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 12.3.2010 02:24, Rahul Sundaram napsal(a):
>
>> I disagree. Imagining that we are living in a island where no software
>> exists outside the repository is just delusional and the assumption that
>> everyone has the bandwidth to deal with all that
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 20:12, Chris Adams wrote:
> Why not handle those cases similar to how GNOME and Firefox (and IIRC
> OpenOffice.org?) have been handled in the past, where a test/RC release
> was in Fedora leading up to the Fedora release, and the "final" upstream
> release is pushed as an u
Adam Williamson writes:
> The point is: this update *does* work. The error message is non-fatal.
> The software works. So what they claim is correct. What you claim is
> also correct.
If the user/group saslauth is not needed by cyrus-sasl, why has it been
added in the first place?
Andreas.
--
On 03/11/2010 11:36 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
>> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> If a user has built an application against a library, it's not
>>> especially reasonable to then break that application by bumping a soname
>>> in a stable release.
>>
>> If the applicat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/11/2010 11:54 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Alexander Kahl wrote:
>> Please define "massive" if you're keeping exactly what's needed to keep
>> everything running and prune anything else by using a sophisticated,
>> tunable garbage collection mechani
I would like to transfer ownership of the gajim package to Michal
Schmidt (michich). I am a bit wary of PackageDB transferring not
letting me select the new owner. Could someone please take care of it
or advise what I need to do about this?
I do not want to remain as a co-maintainer.
Thanks,
Deba
On 03/12/2010 09:58 AM, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
>
>> The point is: this update *does* work.
A package which installs with errors does NOT work properly
>> The error message is non-fatal.
>> The software works. So what they claim is correct. What you claim is
>> also correc
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 06:52 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>>> If you don't even agree with a basic principle that breaking ABI should be
>>> avoided in updates, we don't really have much left to discuss.
>>>
>> I don't see this
On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
> similar distro isn't for them.
>
I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
working out a method that satisfies more users. Breaking ABI stability
gr
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
>> similar distro isn't for them.
>>
>
> I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
> working o
On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
-snipped--
If I can be indulged.
>
> it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
> stubborn
It's not the endusers fault,
they have bad infracture.
and use Fedora
Because that is what they want.
(and even worse try to change it)
On 08/14/2009 10:20 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> It's been pretty common since forever for various scriptlets to redirect
> output of stderr/stdout to /dev/null, so I think it'd be a bit of an
> ugly mess if there was a mandatory packaging rule you couldn't use at
> least /dev/
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> -snipped--
>
> If I can be indulged.
>
>> it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
>> stubborn
>
> It's not the endusers fault,
> they have bad infracture.
Oh, so it's our
On 12/03/10 11:56, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
>> On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> -snipped--
>>
>> If I can be indulged.
>>
>>> it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
>>> stubborn
>>
>> It's not the endusers
On 12/03/10 12:04, Frank Murphy wrote:
--snipped--
> That is not, you are not intitled to voice your concerns,
s /That is not to say, you are not intitled to voice your concerns,
>
---snipped-
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded, Fedora 12, 13, Rawhide: x86_64
--
devel mailing li
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 12/03/10 11:56, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
>>> On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>> -snipped--
>>>
>>> If I can be indulged.
>>>
it's because i can't believe that dial-up-lan
On 03/12/2010 05:03 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
> I wasn't answering the ABI stability part. But the people-in-dial-up-land
> part.
>
It is interconnected in my argument and doesn't make sense to debate in
parts. If you avoid breaking ABI stability, you can avoid unnecessary
churn and one of
On 03/12/10 00:45, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-) You
> should be using some repository and that repository is responsible for
> rebuilding the package.
I tend to agree with what you have been writing but this seems
On 12/03/10 12:12, Thomas Janssen wrote:
--sniped--
>>>
>>> Oh, so it's our fault?
>>
>> It's just life, in all it's forms.
>
> Exactly. And if i live in an area where i cant have everything, i
> can't choose everything.
Bringing it back to dialup.
Fedora liveCD 500-700mb
CentOS DVD 3.5GB app.
Fed
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 05:03 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>> I wasn't answering the ABI stability part. But the people-in-dial-up-land
>> part.
>>
>
> It is interconnected in my argument and doesn't make sense to debate in
> parts. If you avoid bre
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 12/03/10 12:12, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> --sniped--
Oh, so it's our fault?
>>>
>>> It's just life, in all it's forms.
>>
>> Exactly. And if i live in an area where i cant have everything, i
>> can't choose everything.
>
> Bringing
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> You'd be looking at a typical peak of around 5 months between upstream
> release and Fedora release, with an average of more like 2-3 months,
> which is a lot different from the 6 months that keeps being repeated as
> the waiting time for some
Kevin Kofler writes:
> If the application is in Fedora as all applications eventually ought to be,
> we will take care of rebuilding it. Otherwise, whoever built it (some third-
> party repository or the user him/herself) is responsible for rebuilding it.
> This has always worked fine, I don't
On Thursday 11 March 2010 09:59:46 pm Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:56:05 -0500
>
> Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> > (And if the answer is "backport the security fixes to 1.8.1" then I'm
> > afraid I don't really have the skills nor have the time to spend on
> > such massive effort).
- "Jesse Keating" wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 12:21 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > Paul: Jesse Keating provided a draft policy for what updates should
> be
> > done. Board will take this into consideration, if necessary, in
> > another round of discussions (not this meeting).
>
> https://
On Thursday 11 March 2010 07:36:34 pm Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 12:21 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > Paul: Jesse Keating provided a draft policy for what updates should be
> > done. Board will take this into consideration, if necessary, in
> > another round of discussions (not th
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:23:58PM +, Andy Green wrote:
> However I agree this isn't a real issue, the packages with the homegrown
> apps should choke the yum update because they see the lib versions they
> depend on would go away, so nothing breaks.
Only if they're using the packaging syst
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:23:58PM +, Andy Green wrote:
>
>> However I agree this isn't a real issue, the packages with the homegrown
>> apps should choke the yum update because they see the lib versions they
>> depend on would go away, so nothin
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:39:30AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > If the software is not maintained within Fedora, there's no notification
> > of soname bumps.
>
> There is, soname bumps are supposed to be announced on this public list.
A list that is targetted at develop
- "Ian Lance Taylor" wrote:
> Hi, Tom Tromey pointed me at your message
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-March/133039.html
Hi Ian.
> I was curious what you are timing when you compare ld and gold. Is
> that the total time that it takes to build the package, or just the
So is anyone going to submit a review of desktopcouch? I've been
messing with it for a personal project so I figured I'll at least get
the review done and get it into the repos. Long-term I'd appreciate
some co-maintainers...
--
Jeff Ollie
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
ht
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
> update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
I don't see why we should cripple our distribution just to support
communication technologies from the 80s or 90s. It's 2010 now, those
technolo
On 03/12/2010 09:47 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> So is anyone going to submit a review of desktopcouch? I've been
> messing with it for a personal project so I figured I'll at least get
> the review done and get it into the repos. Long-term I'd appreciate
> some co-maintainers...
I'll need it for
On 03/12/2010 08:24 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
>> update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
>>
> I don't see why we should cripple our distribution just to support
> communication
Frank Murphy wrote:
> Should we ask the community, to change our community focus:
>
> "Fedora is a community of people, who come from well developed
> lifestyles. Have access to high-speed internet, do not download,
> or feel you belong unless this is satisfied.
I've been advocating for adding "b
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> It is interconnected in my argument and doesn't make sense to debate in
> parts. If you avoid breaking ABI stability, you can avoid unnecessary
> churn and one of the benefits ( think resource cost - infrastructure,
> mirrors etc) of that is users with low bandwidth system
Terry Barnaby wrote:
> I really strongly disagree that ABI interfaces of the mainly used
> shared libraries could be allowed to change in a "stable" release.
> We develop internal applications that are packaged and go out to a few
> users. We use Fedora primarily as an OS to run applications we nee
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> users do do things like download stuff and run ./configure; make; make
> install
Why would we even try to support that? Packaging exists for a reason.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listin
On 03/12/2010 03:54 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 08:24 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>>> I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
>>> update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
>>>
>> I don't see why we should cripple our
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Fedora CURRENTLY does NOT provide
> any ABI guarantees. There ARE ALREADY updates which change the ABI (you
> recognize them as they are normally grouped with rebuilds of other stuff for
> the bumped ABI). The people who want to change th
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:13:17PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > users do do things like download stuff and run ./configure; make; make
> > install
>
> Why would we even try to support that?
Because we don't package every piece of software in the world?
--
Matthew Garre
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> So is anyone going to submit a review of desktopcouch? I've been
> messing with it for a personal project so I figured I'll at least get
> the review done and get it into the repos. Long-term I'd appreciate
> some co-maintainers...
Is that
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> A list that is targetted at developers of Fedora. If people aren't
> maintaining software within Fedora, there's no obvious reason for them
> to be subscribed to it.
There is: finding out about soname bumps. :-)
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fed
Andy Green wrote:
> On 03/12/10 00:45, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>
>> If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-) You
>> should be using some repository and that repository is responsible for
>> rebuilding the package.
>
> I tend to agree with what you ha
On 03/12/2010 10:19 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>> So is anyone going to submit a review of desktopcouch? I've been
>> messing with it for a personal project so I figured I'll at least get
>> the review done and get it into the repos. Long-te
Benny Amorsen wrote:
> Just please make sure the policy is announced so that we can act
> sensibly. Especially if the policy is "Gnome libraries won't require
> rebuilds during a release, whereas KDE libraries might".
The current policy (or lack of a formal policy, if you prefer) boils down
to: "
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway
wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 09:47 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>> So is anyone going to submit a review of desktopcouch? I've been
>> messing with it for a personal project so I figured I'll at least get
>> the review done and get it into the repos. Lo
Andrew Haley wrote:
> It's a disaster if you're relying on a third-party compiled program
> for your Internet connectivity. Imagine it: one morning you update,
> then the connection breaks, then you can't get to the Internet to find
> out how to get things working again.
And why would we want to
On 03/12/2010 03:14 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> It's a disaster if you're relying on a third-party compiled program
>> for your Internet connectivity. Imagine it: one morning you update,
>> then the connection breaks, then you can't get to the Internet to find
>> out how to ge
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:13:17PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > users do do things like download stuff and run ./configure; make; make
>> > install
>>
>> Why would we even try to support that?
>
> Because we don't package every piece of softw
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> I don't see why we should cripple our distribution just to support
> communication technologies from the 80s or 90s. It's 2010 now, those
> technologies are over 10 years out of date!
>
> If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen is
Andrew Haley wrote:
> Because we don't despise our users. I don't, anyway.
If we don't despise our users, we shouldn't let them use crap like third-
party connectivity software which isn't even packaged properly. :-)
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
>> update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
>
> I don't see why we should cripple our distribution just to support
> communication technologies from the 80s or 90s.
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> Stop shouting already. Those abi-changing updates are there because YOU
> keep pushing them, making the lives of our users hard without any good
> justification other than 'my way or the highway'. It is increasingly
> becoming clear that no reasonable compromise is possible
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 08:48 +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
>
> When was F13 released? Oh, it wasn't, so it is just glorified Rawhide
> still? And you complain about it being broken (especially in its
> updates-*testing*)?
>
>
F-13 Branched is /not/ a glorified Rawhide. It's attitudes like that
whi
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 14:56 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> How does this proposal go with upgrades? I think stable updates + upgrades
> are
> tight together. Are we going to be more conservative in new releases too?
> Extend "stable" release life time? LTS?
Fedora needs to be free to innovate
On 03/12/2010 10:47 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> I really think this is not the approach, unless Fedora is just for rich people
> in (theoretically) rich countries. I doubt that's what we want.
Or we could just make Fedora print money. ;)
~spot
P.S. Please don't try this.
--
devel mailing list
d
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 12:25 +0200, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> I would like to transfer ownership of the gajim package to Michal
> Schmidt (michich). I am a bit wary of PackageDB transferring not
> letting me select the new owner. Could someone please take care of it
> or advise what I need to do about t
Compose started at Fri Mar 12 08:15:12 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
calibre-0.6.42-1.fc13.i686 requires libMagickCore.so.2
calibre-0.6.42-1.fc13.i686 requires libMagickWand.so.2
drawtiming-0.7.1-1.fc13.i686 require
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 09:58 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> If the user/group saslauth is not needed by cyrus-sasl, why has it
> been
> added in the first place?
>
>
Packaging bug or some leftover, but it appears the user/group isn't used
for anything. So the package functions, but there are sti
On 03/12/2010 08:46 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> This is extremely poor attitude Kevin and reeks of arrogance. Talking
>> down on users and contributors who don't have the privilege of high
>> bandwidth connections isn't what I expected from you. Nothing left to say.
>>
> Fedora had never
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 10:49 +0530, Zubin Mithra wrote:
> My name is Zubin Mithra and I am aspiring to get into GSoC on behalf
> of Fedora. I wish to work on making a library for better iptables
> management. Details can be viewed in the proposal which I have
> attached along with the email.
>
> I
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 07:55:55AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 12:25 +0200, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> > I would like to transfer ownership of the gajim package to Michal
> > Schmidt (michich). I am a bit wary of PackageDB transferring not
> > letting me select the new owner. Cou
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 07:58 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 09:58 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > If the user/group saslauth is not needed by cyrus-sasl, why has it
> > been
> > added in the first place?
> >
> >
>
> Packaging bug or some leftover, but it appears the user/gr
Hello,
Le 12/03/2010 17:26, Till Maas a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 07:55:55AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 12:25 +0200, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>>
>>> I would like to transfer ownership of the gajim package to Michal
>>> Schmidt (michich). I am a bit wary of Pa
Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
>> If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen
>> is that the infrastructure needs to improve, not that the whole
>> world adapts to stone-age infrastructure. Bandwidth is required
>> for many more applications than ju
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> I created testing repo [1] with two updated core modules
> and updates repo with perl(core) packages.
> I've tested this scenario:
> 1/ perl package with perl-Module-Build-0.3500-110.fc13 and
> perl-version-0.77-110.fc13
> 2/ update from
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Data-Dumper-Concise/F-13
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv6094
Modified Files:
perl-Data-Dumper-Concise.spec sources
Log Message:
* Mon Mar 08 2010 Chris Weyl 1.200-1
- update by Fedora::App::MaintainerTools 0.004
- updat
On 03/11/2010 05:47 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:52:06PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>
>>> That might be harsh for some soname updates.
>>
>> If a user has built an application against a library, it's not
>> especially reasonable to then break th
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-MooseX-MethodAttributes/F-13
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv7018
Modified Files:
perl-MooseX-MethodAttributes.spec sources
Log Message:
* Mon Mar 08 2010 Chris Weyl 0.20-1
- update by Fedora::App::MaintainerTools 0.004
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Data-Dumper-Concise/F-12
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv7168
Modified Files:
perl-Data-Dumper-Concise.spec sources
Log Message:
* Mon Mar 08 2010 Chris Weyl 1.200-1
- update by Fedora::App::MaintainerTools 0.004
- updat
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:24:15PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 08:24 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >
> > If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen is that
> > the
> > infrastructure needs to improve, not that the whole world adapts
On 03/12/2010 10:12 PM, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:24:15PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/2010 08:24 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>
>>> If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen is that
>>> the
>>> inf
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Catalyst-Plugin-SubRequest/F-13
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv9085
Modified Files:
perl-Catalyst-Plugin-SubRequest.spec sources
Log Message:
* Sun Feb 21 2010 Chris Weyl 0.16-1
- update by Fedora::App::MaintainerTools
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:58:58AM +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
>
> > The point is: this update *does* work. The error message is non-fatal.
> > The software works. So what they claim is correct. What you claim is
> > also correct.
>
> If the user/group saslauth is not
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Catalyst-Plugin-ConfigLoader/F-13
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv9348
Modified Files:
perl-Catalyst-Plugin-ConfigLoader.spec
Log Message:
* Tue Feb 23 2010 Chris Weyl 0.27-3
- update by Fedora::App::MaintainerTools 0.00
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Catalyst-Plugin-SubRequest/F-12
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv9612
Modified Files:
perl-Catalyst-Plugin-SubRequest.spec sources
Log Message:
* Sun Feb 21 2010 Chris Weyl 0.16-1
- update by Fedora::App::MaintainerTools
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:32 PM, John J. McDonough wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
>>> If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen
>>> is that the infrastructure needs to improve, not that the whole
>>> world adapts to stone-age infrastru
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Catalyst-Action-RenderView/F-13
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv9876
Modified Files:
perl-Catalyst-Action-RenderView.spec sources
Log Message:
* Sun Feb 21 2010 Chris Weyl 0.14-1
- update by Fedora::App::MaintainerTools
On 03/12/10 14:01, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:23:58PM +, Andy Green wrote:
>
>> However I agree this isn't a real issue, the packages with the homegrown
>> apps should choke the yum update because they see the lib versions they
>> depend on would go
On 03/12/10 15:11, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> Andy Green wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/10 00:45, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>>
>>> If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-) You
>>> should be using some repository and that repository is responsible
Hello Kevin,
On Friday, March 12, 2010, 10:41:53 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Because we don't despise our users. I don't, anyway.
> If we don't despise our users, we shouldn't let them use crap like third-
> party connectivity software which isn't even packaged properly. :-
Friday, March 12, 2010, 10:52:35 AM, spot you wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 10:47 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> I really think this is not the approach, unless Fedora is just for rich
>> people
>> in (theoretically) rich countries. I doubt that's what we want.
> Or we could just make Fedora print money.
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 17:19:45 +
Andy Green wrote:
> On 03/12/10 15:11, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> > Andy Green wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/12/10 00:45, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> >>
> >>> If you are the user, then you should not be compiling
> >>> software. :-) Yo
On 03/12/2010 12:56 PM, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> Friday, March 12, 2010, 10:52:35 AM, spot you wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/2010 10:47 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
>>> I really think this is not the approach, unless Fedora is just for rich
>>> people
>>> in (theoretically) rich countries. I doubt that's what
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:05:28AM +, Terry Barnaby wrote:
> On 12/03/10 03:42, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Chris Adams wrote:
> >> There's a difference between not supporting third-party software (is
> >> that actually documented somewhere or another Kevin Kofler rule?) and
> >> intentionally brea
On 03/11/2010 07:18 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Once 4.n+1.0 is out, 4.n.x is no longer updated, there are no further bugfix
> releases, any bugs in it will stay unfixed. And there are also nice new
> features in the new version.
So this all boils down to you, the package maintainer, being unwill
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:53:49AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > >> 2. one group wants us to aim exclusively for the bleeding edge open
> > >> source developer market.
> 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
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:48:23AM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 12.3.2010 02:26, Mike Chambers napsal(a):
> > On F13, upgrade gnome-panel to version in updates-testing and you'll get
>
> When was F13 released? Oh, it wasn't, so it is just glorified Rawhide
> still? And you complain about it bei
Greetings,
The first scheduled [1] Fedora 13 Beta blocker bug review was held
earlier today. In addition to evaluating the current list of F13Beta
bugs [2], we also reviewed the F13Blocker list [3] for bugs that fit the
Beta release criteria [4].
Thanks to all who helped move the meeting along.
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 01:19:07PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> A) Fedora requires backports for problems that break ABI. Note that this
> also means that Fedora may need to have people who create non-upstreamable
> patches to software since some upstream fixes may require ABI changes and
> we
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:42:18 -0500
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:48:23AM +0100, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> > Dne 12.3.2010 02:26, Mike Chambers napsal(a):
> > > On F13, upgrade gnome-panel to version in updates-testing and
> > > you'll get
> >
> > When was F13 released? Oh, it was
On 03/12/10 18:06, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>>> In this context, if you're writing homegrown apps, you're a
>>> "developer", not a "user", so the above sentence obviously does not
>>> apply. Instead, my original point does (you'll be compiling your
>>> own software very often any
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:56:07AM +1000, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> As in, on average what are the costs of leaving a bug in vs. the cost of
> updating to a new release. I noticed that there's a number of bugs that only
> affect a subset of users that (often) can work around the issue. So the cost
>
Hello Matthew,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 1:47:18 PM, you wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 01:19:07PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> A) Fedora requires backports for problems that break ABI. Note that this
>> also means that Fedora may need to have people who create non-upstreamable
>> patches t
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 02:18:23PM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> Hello Matthew,
> > Other distributions manage this without too much trouble, so I don't see
> > it being a problem to adopt this policy.
> 1 word: Resources - person power, time, funding, equipment, etc.
>
> Fedora is a free softwa
I noticed that we were missing from this page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicating_and_getting_help#Contributors_Mailing_Lists
so I've gone ahead and added a link to this list to it.
Hopefully this will make us more visible after the mailing list
reorganization.
Dave
__
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 12:26 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 12/03/10 12:12, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> --sniped--
> >>>
> >>> Oh, so it's our fault?
> >>
> >> It's just life, in all it's forms.
> >
> > Exactly. And if i live in an area where i cant have everything, i
> > can't choose everything.
>
>
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I think you're hitting the nail on the head with this question. However,
> I'm afraid that the answer depends on the class of user. Some users want to
> have their old bugs fixed ASAP and are willing to tolerate some regressions
> as long as those
1 - 100 of 192 matches
Mail list logo
