On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 2:52 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Hicham Haouari wrote:
>
>> I want to add two packages to comps in F-13 and devel:
>> - ueagle-atm4-firmware to hardware-support group as default
>> - linux-atm to dial-up group as default
>
> The justification(s) for this... are?
Out of the box
On 03/13/2010 03:24 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>>
>> So now users who don't contribute are leeches? Wow. Just wow. Without
>> users, contributors wouldn't have much of a motivation to contribute.
>>
> Yes.
>
> Interesting how you define users as people that give
On 03/13/2010 12:38 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> Being bored to copy latest %changelog entry from spec-file to
> "Details" field every time, I started wondering - why not to add the
> following functionality to Bodhi:
>
> * Automatically add latest %changelog entry to each Bodhi updat
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 21:48 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> Why, do you think, should just a single user change to Fedora, away
> from Ubuntu or any other Distro? Because we're blue?
If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is because Fedora shoves
out updates at a higher pace into stable r
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> the same just in RPM? Some "slow-it-down-people" do really think that
>> a half baken X-server 1.7beta will make users of other distros go away
>> because they use just 1.6, or our release kernel is 2.6.31.3 and
>> others have 2.6.31.1 trough
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 08:08, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> * remove already processed updates from drop down box - sometimes it's
> really long. And/or sort it desceding (newly build packages on top).
Yeah, you're right. Could you please file a ticket so we don't forget it?
--
Mathieu Brido
How to enable btrfs in Fedora 12? I tried typing icantbelieveitsnotbtr
as boot option but still in anaconda installed I get no option to
choose btrfs in for partitions. Searching fedora wiki for btrfs shows
it only in Fedora 11 release notes... is btrfs even supported in
Fedora 12?
Who can I enabl
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Valent Turkovic
wrote:
> How to enable btrfs in Fedora 12? I tried typing icantbelieveitsnotbtr
> as boot option but still in anaconda installed I get no option to
> choose btrfs in for partitions. Searching fedora wiki for btrfs shows
> it only in Fedora 11 relea
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 21:48 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
>> Why, do you think, should just a single user change to Fedora, away
>> from Ubuntu or any other Distro? Because we're blue?
>
> If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is bec
Kalev Lember wrote:
> On 03/13/2010 03:57 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
>> Still trying to sort out coordination of our 2 packages by 2 different
>> maintainers that must be kept in sync. Surprise, one was automatically
>> pushed to stable due to karma.
>>
>> Can that feature be selectively disabled?
>
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:41:26 -0400, Neal wrote:
> Kalev Lember wrote:
>
> > An alternative, and in my opinion better approach is to group those two
> > builds into one update in Bodhi. This way you can keep karma automatism,
> > but they will get pushed to stable together.
> >
>
> How do I do t
Hi Rex,
- ueagle-atm4-firmware, is a firmware for ADSL USB Modems used by a lot of
countries in Europe and Africa; adding it to the livecd and installation dvd
will make installation easier for those people.
- linux-atm is used in conjunction with that firmware to establish an
internet connection
Thank you for the answers.
--
With best regards,
Nikolay Ulyanitsky
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Am Sonntag, den 14.03.2010, 15:26 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 09:41:26 -0400, Neal wrote:
>
> > Kalev Lember wrote:
> >
> > > An alternative, and in my opinion better approach is to group those two
> > > builds into one update in Bodhi. This way you can keep karma automa
Compose started at Sun Mar 14 09:15:08 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires libboost_serialization-mt.so.5
edje-0.9.9.050-6.fc12.i68
Terry Barnaby wrote:
> Last night I was helping some school kids with a powerpoint presentation
> they had written. They had, not un-reasoanbly, used FontWork titles.
> Under F12 with OpenOffice 3.1 it took 3 minutes to load the 10 slide file
> and about 1 minute between slides. Editing was basical
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> 1) Anyone, who wants "adventurous updates" is not representing me.
> I'm willing to fix bugs -- and I want to retain the freedom to publish
> bug-fix updates, which make the software work -- but I don't like to
> jump into cold water after a final release and return it to
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
> implement the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll
> did not represent a significant user sample?
Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora as
it is no
On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
>> Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
>> implement the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll
>> did not represent a significant user sample?
>>
> Not a very credible on
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
> rawhide?
"My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT disruptive. They're minor
feature releases which are backwards co
On 03/14/2010 10:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
>> rawhide?
>>
> "My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT dis
Jon Masters wrote:
> If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is because Fedora shoves
> out updates at a higher pace into stable releases, then something is
> severely wrong.
Why? It's exactly what's happening out there in the real world you chose to
ignore, yet I don't see anything wrong
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> If Fedora is only usable for contributors and
> contributors only,
It's called focus (where have I heard that?). Some people(1) want
*contributors* to be focus is all.
-- Rex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/14/2010 10:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
>>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
>>> rawhide?
>>>
>> "My" changes, or reall
On 14/03/10 16:29, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Terry Barnaby wrote:
>> Last night I was helping some school kids with a powerpoint presentation
>> they had written. They had, not un-reasoanbly, used FontWork titles.
>> Under F12 with OpenOffice 3.1 it took 3 minutes to load the 10 slide file
>> and about
On 03/14/2010 11:10 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
>> If Fedora is only usable for contributors and
>> contributors only,
>>
> It's called focus (where have I heard that?). Some people(1) want
> *contributors* to be focus is all.
>
How many contributors are interes
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > On 03/14/2010 10:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >>
> >>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
> >>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes
Terry Barnaby wrote:
> Yes, I guess this paragraph of my email, is a bit of topic, but I think
> still related. It is saying that even Fedora "releases" appear to have too
> little testing prior to release. The move to have less tested updates as
> well is moving even more in this direction in my e
Frank Murphy wrote:
> Then why not change the way Fedora is presented in the release notes.
> (said in half jest yesterday, by myself)
> That to keep Fedora fully updated
> "A highspeed internet connection is recommended"
I've been recommending that all this time, I've been ignored. (In fact I
th
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora
>> as it is now!
>
> Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users clearly
> are not.
Yet they haven't left over it. So why would tha
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Kevin, I am only going to respond once because it is clear you don't
> really read, you just shoot from your hip and you have not a single
> iota of compromise.
Personal attacks…
> You just inferred a whole lot into my post. I never said anything
> about KDE in this
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
> what we want to encourage?
Contributors are what makes Fedora grow and advance as a project. Users are
only benefitting from our (the contributors') work as a side effect.
Kevin Kofler
--
Simo Sorce wrote:
> Same here, and it is a pity, up to F-10 the number of updates was just
> fine, recently it has exploded to unsustainable levels for a *stable*
> release.
Huh? I didn't collect any stats on that, but I haven't noticed any
difference in that area between F-10 (or F-9) and now.
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 19:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
> > what we want to encourage?
>
> Contributors are what makes Fedora grow and advance as a project. Users are
> only benefitting from our (t
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 19:07, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora
>>> as it is now!
>>
>> Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users clearly
Jon Masters wrote:
> I don't need to conduct extensive surveys to understand that no user is
> desperate to have the number of updates that are going out these days.
Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please don't
generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. "no" is
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> You cut off the portion where I already explained why such a policy is
> inherently self defeating at large.
OK, fair enough, you made that case sure. It's just that I don't agree with
that generalization much (or generalizations in general, heh).
I'm hopeful that th
Mike McGrath wrote:
> My last KDE update was disruptive as I mentioned earlier, in addition
> though now my taskbar is freezing even after blowing my .kde dir away.
> BZ on it's way soon as I can get some logs to send with it.
If you don't see the problem(s) with the conclusions you're trying to
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-MooseX-Getopt/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv25808
Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-MooseX-Getopt.spec sources
Added Files:
auto.ini
Log Message:
* Sun Mar 14 2010 Chris Weyl 0.27-1
- update by Fedora::App
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> > My last KDE update was disruptive as I mentioned earlier, in addition
> > though now my taskbar is freezing even after blowing my .kde dir away.
> > BZ on it's way soon as I can get some logs to send with it.
>
> If you don't see t
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 18:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
> > If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is because Fedora shoves
> > out updates at a higher pace into stable releases, then something is
> > severely wrong.
>
> Why? It's exactly what's happening out there in
Jon Masters wrote:
> If you would confine your concerns to KDE, which it sounds is all you
> are really worried about, then let's give KDE a giant exemption for KDE
> updates if the rest of the distribution could benefit from less churn.
It's not just about KDE. It's also about the kernel, about a
Hi,
For GNOME 3 to more reliably do application tracking, we will be
associating through startup-notification. Some background here:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xdg/2010-February/011321.html
However for startup notification to work, for compatibility reasons,
the upstream .desktop fil
On 03/15/2010 12:19 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
>
>> You cut off the portion where I already explained why such a policy is
>> inherently self defeating at large.
>>
> OK, fair enough, you made that case sure. It's just that I don't agree with
> that generalization
Can someone update pygame for me? I don't have time and several people
have been complaining.
TIA
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:42:51 +0100, Kevin wrote:
> What we "adventurous updates" folks
> really want is non-disruptive non-conservative updates. No need to be
> conservative as long as you don't break anything.
It's not that updates "don't break anything". The less conservative, the
higher the
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-MooseX-Traits-Pluggable/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv2736
Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-MooseX-Traits-Pluggable.spec sources
Log Message:
* Sun Mar 14 2010 Chris Weyl 0.09-1
- update by Fedora::App::Maintainer
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:37:24 -0400, Colin wrote:
> However for startup notification to work, for compatibility reasons,
> the upstream .desktop file must have StartupNotify=true. It's come to
> my attention that a lot of .desktop files are missing this, even
> though they use GTK+.
Hmmm, I'm ce
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-MooseX-Types-Common/F-13
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv4273
Modified Files:
perl-MooseX-Types-Common.spec sources
Log Message:
* Sun Mar 14 2010 Chris Weyl 0.001002-1
- update by Fedora::App::MaintainerTools 0.006
- PE
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 20:21 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jon Masters wrote:
> > If you would confine your concerns to KDE, which it sounds is all you
> > are really worried about, then let's give KDE a giant exemption for KDE
> > updates if the rest of the distribution could benefit from less churn
> You can't ... you need to use another installation method than the
> live media to use any other fs than ext4.
>
> The live media installation basically copies the the ext4 image to
> disk and re-sizes it.
>
> Using the install DVD or a netinstall image you can use any supported
> fs (including b
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:46:42 +0100
Valent Turkovic wrote:
> > You can't ... you need to use another installation method than the
> > live media to use any other fs than ext4.
> >
> > The live media installation basically copies the the ext4 image to
> > disk and re-sizes it.
> >
> > Using the ins
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:09:16PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> As has been noted by several people, the current voting method has
> some short comings on what should be voted -1, 0, or +1. In order to
> help clarify what to vote, and when here are some guidelines that
> should be useful.
On Sunday 14 March 2010, Colin Walters wrote:
> If you maintain a desktop app, please check for StartupNotify=true,
> and if your app uses GTK+ or Qt, then please submit a patch *upstream*
> to add it, and at your option apply that patch in Fedora.
If an app uses GTK+ or Qt, does that alone alway
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 07:22:16PM +, Branched Report wrote:
> 1:libguestfs-1.0.84-2.fc13.i686 requires /lib/libntfs-3g.so.74.0.0
> 1:libguestfs-1.0.84-2.fc13.i686 requires /lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0.2303.0
> 1:libguestfs-1.0.84-2.fc13.i686 requires
> /lib/libgcc_s-4.4.3-201002
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:04:54 +
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> This can be fixed right now by pushing either of these two updates:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libguestfs-1.0.85-2.fc13.3
> (6 days old)
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libguestfs-1.0.85-2.fc13.4
> (2
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 04:12:47PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:04:54 +
> "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
> > This can be fixed right now by pushing either of these two updates:
> >
> > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libguestfs-1.0.85-2.fc13.3
> > (6 days old)
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:24:03 +
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> Mmmm, maybe I am slightly losing the plot here and confusing it with
> EPEL. I've pushed the latest one to stable anyway (I tested it myself
> on an F-13 system and it Worked For Me).
I admit things are confusing with all the upda
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:37:24 -0400, Colin wrote:
>
> Currently can only find:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Desktop_files
>
> | Installed .desktop files MUST follow the desktop-entry-spec , paying
> | particular attention to validating correct usage
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Right, not a spokesman for FESCo, but still a community representative,
> elected by parts of the community. Whether you fight solely for yourself
> or whether you believe you act on behalf of the community, isn't obvious.
Well, it's really both:
* I am personally in favo
On 3/14/2010 10:50 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>
>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
>> rawhide?
>>
> "My" changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT di
Am Sonntag, den 14.03.2010, 19:33 +0100 schrieb Mathieu Bridon:
> Some others arrive and say hi, their first update (the 300MB one you
> get when installing 2 months after release) breaks something, they
> leave (some will not even finish downloading such a huge amount and
> leave).
>
> Finally, e
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 07:07:53PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora
> >> as it is now!
> >
> > Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? So
Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 3/14/2010 10:50 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
>>
>>> So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
>>> stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
>>> rawhide?
>>>
>> "My" changes, or rea
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:07:53 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> > On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using
> >> Fedora as it is now!
> >
> > Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some us
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Victor Vasilyev
wrote:
>
> FYI When the StartupNotify=true was specified in the desktop file of the
> NetBeans I've seen bugs in launching of the NetBeans' child processes
> (e.g FireFox [3]) due to the DESKTOP_STARTUP_ID environment variable. It
> was fixed in the
Simo Sorce wrote:
> Because the situation worsened dramatically recently.
Where's the evidence for that? I haven't noticed anything like that at all!
You (and others defending the same or a similar viewpoint) are quick to
point out the lack of statistical rigor in Adam Williamson's poll, but whe
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 09:09:16PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> As has been noted by several people, the current voting method has
>> some short comings on what should be voted -1, 0, or +1. In order to
>> help clarify what to v
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
> > implement
> > the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll did not
> > represent a
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>> > Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
>> > implement
>> > the changes as well? Especially given the chance that th
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>>> > Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
>>> > implement
>>
On 03/15/2010 01:40 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:07:53 +0100
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using
Fedora as it is now!
>>>
>>> Can we drop th
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 09:14:06PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> >> > Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
> >>
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 19:33:30 +0100,
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>
> Once every months, I install Fedora on some users system (recurring
> release party the first saturday of each months) using the liveCD so I
> can teach them how to do it themselves. After the install is finished,
> we don't have
On 3/14/2010 8:14 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
>
>> On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
>>>
Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
imp
Start End Name
Tue 09-Mar Tue 23-Mar Alpha Testing
Tue 16-Mar Tue 16-Mar Software: Start Rebuild all translated packages
Tue 16-Mar Tue 23-Mar Software: Rebuild all translated packages
Wed 17-Mar Thu 18-Mar Create Beta Test Compose (TC)
Thu 18-Mar Wed 24-Mar Test Beta 'Test
76 matches
Mail list logo
