> I have to second someone taking over rrdtool. I handed it off to
> Chris
> a while back, but have still done far more work on it since then than
> he has, and I've not seen him touch an rrdtool bz in ages. :(
>
> (And no, I don't want maintainership back.)
I am ready to take it (I already own i
Hi,
On 11/11/2010 08:54 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> I just tried to install F14 on a new server with a 7.6 TB RAID (five
> Hitachi 2 TB drives on a 3ware 9750). I was pleased to see that the
> disk partitioning interface in Anaconda recognized the array and didn't
> have a problem with the size, repo
Compose started at Fri Nov 12 08:15:04 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
apcupsd-3.14.8-3.fc15.x86_64 requires libnetsnmp.so.20()(64bit)
balsa-2.4.7-2.fc14.x86_64 requires libnotify.so.1()(64bit)
beagle-0.3.9-19.fc14.
On 08/27/2010 09:03 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> tanukiwrapper
I will take this one.
--
Miroslav Suchy
Red Hat Satellite Engineering
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Heyyas. I actually gave boot.fedoraproject.org a testrun and i
realized that by default a repository called "installation" is
selected with a static repo url. instead i have actually figured that
selecting the usual standard fedora repositories work aswell and they
point to the mirrorlist instead.
I've searched with yum, through bugzilla, and using koji. I can't find it.
Is GNU Parallel not in Fedora?
http://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/
I can't find a review request.
nd
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Greetings.
Fedora 14 was a pretty relaxing and stable release. I'm thinking that
Fedora 15 may be much more exciting. ;)
Things I know of so far:
* systemd
* gnome3 / gnome-shell default
* removing a bunch of suid stuff in favor of capabilities
* xfce 4.8 (with any luck).
Things that are o
python-nltk ownership is passed from 'salimma' to 'cheeselee'.
Cheers.
Robin 'cheese' Lee
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> * btrfs (Is this ready to be default? :) If so, would that warrant a
> change in our lvm by default setup?
I don't think we are quite ready for this yet. I do have "btrfs
strategy" on my todo list, though. I'm hoping we can start talking at
FUDCon about what we want btrfs to do for us, poss
On 11/12/2010 11:46 AM, Chris Lumens wrote:
>> * btrfs (Is this ready to be default? :) If so, would that warrant a
>>change in our lvm by default setup?
> I don't think we are quite ready for this yet. I do have "btrfs
> strategy" on my todo list, though. I'm hoping we can start talking at
>
> We have been spending a lot of time and thought trying to scheme
> about how to accelerate btrfs. At this point, it is actually fairly
> stable but still missing key things (most notably a fsck that can
> fix the file system!).
>
> Last week at plumbers, we did get a large chunk of the btrfs
> d
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 12:03 PM, wrote:
>> We have been spending a lot of time and thought trying to scheme
>> about how to accelerate btrfs. At this point, it is actually fairly
>> stable but still missing key things (most notably a fsck that can
>> fix the file system!).
>>
>> Last week at plu
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:35:54 -0700,
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Fedora 14 was a pretty relaxing and stable release. I'm thinking that
Maybe for some people. Having spin stuff break before the alpha and final
releases, was neither dull nor relaxing. The beta was OK for me, but deal
> Agreed, my plan was to take away the option for F15 (I sent the
> anaconda patch already right?) and leave it as an optional thing for
> at least 2 releases until we even begin to discuss setting it as
> default.
Yep, it's been in for quite a while now:
commit 8f4340dc86f515cd2f6571c06b790ab420
On 11/12/2010 05:03 PM, clum...@redhat.com wrote:
>> We have been spending a lot of time and thought trying to scheme
>> about how to accelerate btrfs. At this point, it is actually fairly
>> stable but still missing key things (most notably a fsck that can
>> fix the file system!).
>>
>> Last week
On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
> implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
> problems with one release. This does not justify the conclusion that the
> policies shoul
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * grub2 (no one is driving for this that I know of, but has some
> advantages over our grub1 if someone is willing to run with it, although
> it may be a lot of work to get it to where we need it).
I understood grub2 is much worse for serial console sup
- "Kevin Fenzi" wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Fedora 14 was a pretty relaxing and stable release. I'm thinking that
> Fedora 15 may be much more exciting. ;)
>
> Things I know of so far:
>
> * systemd
> * gnome3 / gnome-shell default
> * removing a bunch of suid stuff in favor of capabilitie
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Fedora 14 was a pretty relaxing and stable release. I'm thinking that
> Fedora 15 may be much more exciting. ;)
>
> Things I know of so far:
>
> * systemd
> * gnome3 / gnome-shell default
> * removing a bunch of suid stuff in fav
nodata wrote:
> I've searched with yum, through bugzilla, and using koji. I can't find it.
>
> Is GNU Parallel not in Fedora?
> http://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/
>
> I can't find a review request.
>
> nd
Isn't it part of moreutils?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
ht
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 20:03 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
> > implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
> > problems with one release.
Till Maas writes:
> On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
>> implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
>> problems with one release. This does not justify the conclusion th
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Till Maas writes:
> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this conclusion. We
> >> implemented the policies for three releases. There are significant
> >> probl
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:32 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> It's absolutely crystal clear to me that we don't have enough tester
> manpower to make the current policy workable; it's past time to stop
> denying that. I'd suggest narrowing the policy to a small number of
> critical packages, for which the
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 11:19:22 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 20:03 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 10:09:17AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > > I disagree. The evidence you cite does not support this
> > > conclusion. We implemented the policies for
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:54 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> Adam why should security updates wait at all ?
> Do you fear some packager will flag as security updates that are not ?
> Surely we can deal with such maintainer if that happens...
I don't have a hugely strong opinion either way, but the stat
On 12/11/10 20:18, Neal Becker wrote:
> nodata wrote:
>
>> I've searched with yum, through bugzilla, and using koji. I can't find it.
>>
>> Is GNU Parallel not in Fedora?
>>http://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/
>>
>> I can't find a review request.
>>
>> nd
>
> Isn't it part of moreutils?
>
AHA
On 2010-11-12 09:02:40 PM, nodata wrote:
> On 12/11/10 20:18, Neal Becker wrote:
> > nodata wrote:
> >
> >> I've searched with yum, through bugzilla, and using koji. I can't find it.
> >>
> >> Is GNU Parallel not in Fedora?
> >>http://www.gnu.org/software/parallel/
> >>
> >> I can't find a revi
- "Robyn Bergeron" wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > Greetings.
> >
> > Fedora 14 was a pretty relaxing and stable release. I'm thinking
> that
> > Fedora 15 may be much more exciting. ;)
> >
> > Things I know of so far:
> >
> > * systemd
> > * gnome3 / gnome-s
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 12:02:03 -0800
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 14:54 -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > Adam why should security updates wait at all ?
> > Do you fear some packager will flag as security updates that are
> > not ? Surely we can deal with such maintainer if that hap
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:54:28 -0500
Simo Sorce wrote:
> Adam why should security updates wait at all ?
> Do you fear some packager will flag as security updates that are not ?
> Surely we can deal with such maintainer if that happens...
No. The issue is that in the past sometimes security updates
On 11/12/2010 12:09 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Another criteria I have for making it default is I want grub support,
> specifically grub2. So until grub2 is in Fedora and we have btrfs
> patches upstream in grub2 I have no intention of making it the default
> in Fedora. Thanks,
Grub2 has been in F
On 11/12/2010 02:55 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 11/12/2010 12:09 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> Another criteria I have for making it default is I want grub support,
>> specifically grub2. So until grub2 is in Fedora and we have btrfs
>> patches upstream in grub2 I have no intention of making i
On 11/12/2010 03:58 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 11/12/2010 02:55 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On 11/12/2010 12:09 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> Another criteria I have for making it default is I want grub support,
>>> specifically grub2. So until grub2 is in Fedora and we have btrfs
>>> patches
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway
wrote:
> On 11/12/2010 03:58 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 11/12/2010 02:55 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2010 12:09 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
Another criteria I have for making it default is I want grub support,
specificall
On 11/12/2010 11:35 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * grub2 (no one is driving for this that I know of, but has some
>advantages over our grub1 if someone is willing to run with it, although
>it may be a lot of work to get it to where we need it).
I'll be glad to point people in the right direct
I'm orphaning 4 Spring-related packages, due do shrinking free time and
inadequate hardware. Spring is a 3D real-time strategy game.
The packages are :
- spring
- spring-installer
- spring-maps-default
- springlobby
Anyone interested ?
Aurélien
--
http://aurelien.bompard.org Jabber :
Kevin Fenzi writes:
* gnome3 / gnome-shell default
And what about systems with hardware that does not support accelerated 3D?
* Will NM finally be able to do bridging?
I'd like to know this too.
pgpHpXPxqULIu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraprojec
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 18:07 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi writes:
>
> > * gnome3 / gnome-shell default
>
> And what about systems with hardware that does not support accelerated 3D?
There'll be a fallback to metacity. (Or, perhaps, you could run Shell on
LLVM...that's just me conje
On 11/12/2010 02:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Till Maas writes:
>>
>
> It's absolutely crystal clear to me that we don't have enough tester
> manpower to make the current policy workable; it's past time to stop
> denying that. I'd suggest narrowing the policy to a small number of
> critical packages
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
> any luck).
Well, I've been doing this since F13, but not having to deal with it in
n...@minimal installs as well would be nice :) .
> * Some kind of packaged wayland to play with, even if it doesn't do
On Fri, 12 Nov 2010, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
> any luck).
>
Current HEAD of smolt doesn't require it, expecting to release to rawhide
soon.
-Mike
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedora
On Fri, 12.11.10 12:09, Josef Bacik (jo...@toxicpanda.com) wrote:
> Another criteria I have for making it default is I want grub support,
> specifically grub2. So until grub2 is in Fedora and we have btrfs
> patches upstream in grub2 I have no intention of making it the default
> in Fedora. Than
Hi,
2010/11/13 Lennart Poettering :
> On Fri, 12.11.10 12:09, Josef Bacik (jo...@toxicpanda.com) wrote:
>
>> Another criteria I have for making it default is I want grub support,
>> specifically grub2. So until grub2 is in Fedora and we have btrfs
>> patches upstream in grub2 I have no intention
> Some folks at LPC suggested we should switch from grub to syslinux
> rather than grub2. Meego uses syslinux. I have little clue how both
> compare, but maybe it's worth considering syslinux given that we already
> use it for the cd booting and maybe we should consolidate our options
> and use sy
"Clyde E. Kunkel" writes:
> On 11/12/2010 02:32 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It's absolutely crystal clear to me that we don't have enough tester
>> manpower to make the current policy workable; it's past time to stop
>> denying that. I'd suggest narrowing the policy to a small number of
>> critical pa
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 23:14 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 2. I screwed up and introduced a packaging bug, for instance bad
> dependencies or inability to "yum update". That's been known to happen
> too. But I have a lot more faith in autoqa being able to catch that
> kind of problem in a timely fashi
47 matches
Mail list logo
