On 11/15/2010 02:41 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
LVM's a fantasically useful tool in a wide range of cases, but I don't
think that in the*typical* laptop/desktop install any of that
functionality ever gets used.
That's the essence of what's being discussed here
laptop/desktop/workstation instal
> > 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 i
Compose started at Mon Nov 15 08:15:09 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 Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:53:03AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 02:41 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >LVM's a fantasically useful tool in a wide range of cases, but I don't
> >think that in the*typical* laptop/desktop install any of that
> >functionality ever gets used.
>
>
On 2010-11-11, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> Do we really want to keep mingetty around?
>
[...]
>
> You apparently see value in keeping two almost identical getty
> implementations around. Can you elaborate why? Is there any feature
> missing in agetty that mingetty has?
>
Till someone uses minget
On 11/14/2010 12:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> 1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NoDefaultLVM
Info on this page is completely obsolete!
> | * Certain filesystem features (ext3 barriers) are unavailable when run
> | on top of LVM.
No longer true, barriers (resp. flush) are fully
On 11/15/2010 11:29 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This is a silly straw-man. No one[1] formats external HDs with
> anything other than MS-DOS FAT. Fedora changing the default for the
> main hard disk will not make any difference to this case of your
> contrarian user giving away LVM-formatted U
On 2010-11-13, Ian Weller wrote:
>
> I haven't had the time to even look at these packages and keep them up
> to date, so I'm orphaning them. Please take them if they are important
> to you :)
>
[...]
> ezstream
I'll take this one.
-- Petr
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
ht
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:29:06AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This is a silly straw-man. No one[1] formats external HDs with
> anything other than MS-DOS FAT. Fedora changing the default for the
> main hard disk will not make any difference to this case of your
> contrarian user giving a
On 15/11/10 13:54, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>
> there are very good reasons to use anything but DOS-FAT. For example
> F10 and F12 automount said filesystems with drastically different options
> by default (filename downcasing), using any other FS avoids this trap
> and many other issues.
>
> Richa
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:53:03AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> That's the essence of what's being discussed here
> laptop/desktop/workstation installs default to ext4 and experienced
> users/sysadmins those that generally know what lvm is with all it's bells
> and whistles and want t
On 11/15/2010 02:03 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 15/11/10 13:54, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>
>> there are very good reasons to use anything but DOS-FAT. For example
>> F10 and F12 automount said filesystems with drastically different options
>> by default (filename downcasing), using any other FS av
On 11/15/2010 02:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:53:03AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> > That's the essence of what's being discussed here
>> > laptop/desktop/workstation installs default to ext4 and experienced
>> > users/sysadmins those that generally know
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:55:42 +, Pierre Carrier wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 21:23, Michel Alexandre Salim
> wrote:
>> Rebuilding the same package without any change fixes the issue. Anyone
>> has any idea what's going on here?
>
> No idea, but you might be on the way to an hexadecimal do
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 09:35 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
> any luck).
Only 30 packages left requiring it, according to repoquery. smolt's
probably the most interesting one to fix, if anyone's looking for a
project.
> * Some
On Monday, November 15, 2010 04:06:40 pm Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 00:55:42 +, Pierre Carrier wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 21:23, Michel Alexandre Salim
> >
> > wrote:
> >> Rebuilding the same package without any change fixes the issue. Anyone
> >> has any idea
On 11/15/2010 10:11 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 09:35 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
>> any luck).
>
> Only 30 packages left requiring it, according to repoquery. smolt's
> probably the most interesting o
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Test-POE-Server-TCP:
a60c73067efb0b4a1a8297ab6ff84c4f Test-POE-Server-TCP-1.14.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorap
commit 4b0d4692ac90e8cd9107623ec0b1061a10d51c8f
Author: Yanko Kaneti
Date: Mon Nov 15 17:38:10 2010 +0200
Latest upstream release - 1.14
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Test-POE-Server-TCP.spec |8 +---
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 7 inser
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 09:35:54AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
> any luck).
Not without a pile of X changes, which themselves are blocking on
upstream kernel changes that I've submitted but which haven't been
merged.
--
M
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-POE-Server-TCP-1.14-1.fc15' was created pointing
to:
4b0d469... Latest upstream release - 1.14
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/ma
On 11/15/10 8:39 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> I assume that OS-X has not trouble with mounting various LinuxFS given
> that it is a *nix breed.
Being unix-ish doesn't really help, you need an actual filesystem driver
for the OS. There is an ext2/ext3 driver for osx (based on the bsd driv
On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 10:15:20AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 01:14:18AM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > LVM actually slows down boot considerably. Not primarily because its
> > code was slow or anything, but simply because it isn't really written in
> > the way
On Sun, 14 Nov 2010 16:59:17 +0330
Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
> As I've mentioned, this update is a simple rebuild and the current
> package in stable repositories is simply unusable as it crashes
> immediately. So, please push it to stable ASAP.
ok. I think I have tagged it so it should go out
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 05:16:43 -0500 (EST)
Jaroslav Skarvada wrote:
> Please could any FESCo member approve the takeover of rrdtool
> (according to nonresponsive package maintainers policy)? Or should I
> open ticket for this?
I'll approve it and orphan rrdtool.
Were you going to take the EPEL b
Hello,
Should the automated pre-F-14 gcc bug #634757 related rebuilds have been
included in F-14? It seems that at least the ccache build did not make it.
The build, 3.1-1.fc14.1, is in koji, but there's no entry for it in Bodhi, and
F-14 has 3.1-1.fc14.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/b
>
> I'll approve it and orphan rrdtool.
>
> Were you going to take the EPEL branches as well?
>
Thanks, taken all
Jaroslav
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:11:52AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > * Some kind of packaged wayland to play with, even if it doesn't do
> > much?
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652746
> Which _really_ won't do much at the moment, since we can't build any of
> the demo clients yet. I
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 03:03:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > Strongly no to this. We need to have fewer choices during the installation
> > and more flexibility later. LVM provides this.
>
> So we agree on disagreeing.
>
> Let's go the middle path here what about we default to ext
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 02:03:03PM +, Frank Murphy wrote:
> On 15/11/10 13:54, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>
> >
> > there are very good reasons to use anything but DOS-FAT. For example
> > F10 and F12 automount said filesystems with drastically different options
> > by default (filename downcasin
On 11/15/2010 05:30 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 03:03:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>> Strongly no to this. We need to have fewer choices during the installation
>>> and more flexibility later. LVM provides this.
>> So we agree on disagreeing.
>>
>> Let's go th
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 13:02 +0100, Milan Broz wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 12:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> >> 1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NoDefaultLVM
>
> Info on this page is completely obsolete!
Yes. Note the prominent line reading:
* Last updated: December 17, 2008
The info
Dne 12.11.2010 17:35, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> Any other exciting work in progress that might land in F15 that people
> are actively working on?
ABRT with retrace server support, and a retrace server instance up and
running. It will improve the quality of backtraces.
http://fedoraproject.org/wik
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:43:39PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
> Dne 12.11.2010 17:35, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> > Any other exciting work in progress that might land in F15 that people
> > are actively working on?
>
> ABRT with retrace server support, and a retrace server instance up and
> running.
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 07:14:53PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 05:30 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 03:03:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >>> Strongly no to this. We need to have fewer choices during the installation
> >>> and more flexi
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:43:39PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
> ABRT with retrace server support, and a retrace server instance up and
> running. It will improve the quality of backtraces.
Further, what's the licensing situation here? If I have an application
that (at runtime) is a mixture of GPL
Dne 15.11.2010 22:13, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:43:39PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
>> ABRT with retrace server support, and a retrace server instance up and
>> running. It will improve the quality of backtraces.
>
> How does the user verify that there are no passwords or
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:43:39PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
>> Dne 12.11.2010 17:35, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
>> > Any other exciting work in progress that might land in F15 that people
>> > are actively working on?
>>
>> ABRT with retrace se
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:01 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:43:39PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
>>> Dne 12.11.2010 17:35, Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
>>> > Any other exciting work in progress that might land in F15 that pe
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 05:01:30PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > How does the user verify that there are no passwords or other personal
> > information in the core dump?
>
> I don't think it really works to ask the user to do that in pra
Dne 15.11.2010 22:31, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:43:39PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
>> ABRT with retrace server support, and a retrace server instance up and
>> running. It will improve the quality of backtraces.
>
> Further, what's the licensing situation here? If I have
Matthew Garrett píše v Po 15. 11. 2010 v 22:04 +:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 05:01:30PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Garrett
> > wrote:
> > > How does the user verify that there are no passwords or other personal
> > > information in the core dump?
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:07:11PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Don't we need the entirety of debuginfo in order to be able to include
> parameter and local variable values in the backtrace?
The entirity of it needs to be available, but that's not the same as
requiring the user install it on l
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:28:33PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
> Dne 15.11.2010 22:31, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> > Further, what's the licensing situation here? If I have an application
> > that (at runtime) is a mixture of GPLed and GPL-incompatible code, does
> > sending this coredump to a remote
Dne 15.11.2010 23:04, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 05:01:30PM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Leaving the retracing at the user's end of things means that the user at
> least has a choice in the matter - I'm unlikely
On 11/15/2010 09:27 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Nobody has yet proven that LVM is a problem
Well if you don't consider what Lennart mentioned [1] as a con against
usage of lvm by default what pros do you see for having lvm by default
for the novice end user?
JBG
1. http://lists.fedoraproje
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:15:38PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Well if you don't consider what Lennart mentioned [1] as a con against
> usage of lvm by default what pros do you see for having lvm by default
> for the novice end user?
When the novice end user realizes that they made s
Jared Smith made an announcement in his blog [1] about some upcoming
personnel changes in Fedora. I wanted to make a specific announcement
to the Fedora lists as well.
Through the end of 2010 and a little bit beyond, I will be working along
side Robyn Bergeron to transition my official Fedora
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:23:37AM -0500, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On 11/15/2010 10:11 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 09:35 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> >> * Can we finally remove hal? (xfce4.8 shouldn't need it anymore with
> >> any luck).
> >
> > Only 30 packages lef
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 06:26:27PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:15:38PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > Well if you don't consider what Lennart mentioned [1] as a con against
> > usage of lvm by default what pros do you see for having lvm by default
> > for
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 10:49:24PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:28:33PM +0100, Karel Klic wrote:
> > Dne 15.11.2010 22:31, Matthew Garrett napsal(a):
> > > Further, what's the licensing situation here? If I have an application
> > > that (at runtime) is a mixture of GP
51 matches
Mail list logo
