Can I be added to the list of maintainers that need help very badly from the
beginning?
I maintain a number of packages that are very low in the Java stack and would
force the whole Java stack to be removed if they are removed but noone wants to
maintain them.
That's how I gained them! If such a
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-XML-DifferenceMarkup:
d753b39fec3c8da3917c35c40d101fef XML-DifferenceMarkup-1.04.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.fedor
commit 4c02cd7b6579f6519b70046a899cc672b47be04f
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Tue Nov 22 09:53:34 2011 +0100
Import
.gitignore |1 +
perl-XML-DifferenceMarkup.spec | 53
sources|1 +
3 files changed,
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:09:36 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
>
>
> Am 21.11.2011 23:50, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
> > On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:58:50 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >> nothing is more frustrating for users as ignored bugreports reintroduced
> >> from
> >> release to relase
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:00:33 +0100, MT (Miloslav) wrote:
> > Nothing is in place to detect inactive maintainers automatically.
>
> We don't really need absolute automation - if a package is not
> actively maintained but nobody notices, does it really matter?[1]
Yes. Users notice, but they report
On 11/22/2011 04:51 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
>> inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
>
> It is indeed intended as such.
I would recommend you stop this thr
Excerpts from "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"'s message of Tue Nov 22 00:28:32 +0100
2011:
> On 11/21/2011 11:21 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >> I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
> >> inactive maintainers and unm
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 02:33:34PM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
> # ldd /usr/bin/msntest | wc -l
> 20
> # ldd /usr/lib64/libmsn.so.0.3.0 | wc -l
> 9
Please, be careful. ldd(1) prints recursively all dependencies.
$ ldd /usr/bin/msntest | wc -l
20
$ readelf
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 14:36 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Can someone please push the update that I made (with permission) to
> shared-mime-info? I'm getting "jcm does not have commit access" when I
> try to make the F16 update. This fix is required to actually be able to
> play many MP3
Hey all, I'm looking for help testing a project I've been working on
over the last few months. Snap [1] is a cross-platform system snapshot
and restoration utility which uses the underlying package management
system to take snapshots of packages installed as well as files modified
outside of th
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Use of uninitialized value in string eq at .. FormFu/Constraint.pm
line 107
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755903
Summary: Use of uninitialized va
On 11/22/2011 08:51 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> Can I be added to the list of maintainers that need help very badly from the
> beginning?
If such an list existed I dont see why that should be a problem.
> I maintain a number of packages that are very low in the Java stack and would
> force
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: perl-Archive-Tar-1.82 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755906
Summary: perl-Archive-Tar-1.82 is available
Product: Fedora
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: perl-Net-HTTP-6.02 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755907
Summary: perl-Net-HTTP-6.02 is available
Product: Fedora
Excerpts from Jonathan Underwood's message of Mon Nov 21 22:43:48 +0100 2011:
> Hi,
>
> I have just started looking at packaging Yorick[1][2], an interpreted
> programming language for scientific simulations. It seems that this is
> BSD licensed and so would be suitable for packaging in Fedora.
>
>
On 11/22/2011 09:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 11/22/2011 04:51 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
>>> inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
>> It is indeed inten
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755907
Petr Pisar changed:
What|Removed |Added
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755906
Petr Šabata changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
commit a75812327163a91391cdec4d9fe55297155fbb6c
Author: Petr Písař
Date: Tue Nov 22 13:00:23 2011 +0100
6.02 bump
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Net-HTTP.spec |8 ++--
sources|2 +-
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/.gitignore b/.
Comments inline.
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 1:36:53 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
>
> On 11/22/2011 08:51 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > Can I
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:57:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
>
> On 11/22/2011 09:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 11/22/2011 04:51 AM, "J
On 11/22/2011 10:18 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> Excerpts from "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"'s message of Tue Nov 22 00:28:32 +0100
> 2011:
>> On 11/21/2011 11:21 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on imp
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755903
Iain Arnell changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
On 11/22/2011 12:37 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> You don't improve distribution, when you start bullying contributors. Bunch
> of people were already annoyed with your proposal.
Please provide explanation further how I was bullying contributors.
Thanks
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fe
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 1:57:24 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
>
> On 11/22/2011 09:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 11/22/2011 04:51 AM, "Jó
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 2:42:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
>
> On 11/22/2011 12:37 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> > You don't improve distri
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755907
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System 2011-11-22
07:45:30 EST ---
perl-Net-HTTP-6.02-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Archive-Tar:
60493433f434811b2e610ab754529388 Archive-Tar-1.82.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.fedoraproject.org/mailm
commit a59f4d2efd0972bd798f0cca753e90451f04fd7a
Author: Petr Šabata
Date: Tue Nov 22 13:47:54 2011 +0100
1.82 bump
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Archive-Tar.spec | 29 ++---
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 10:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> red_alert (sandro mathys): critpath packages should have detailed test plans
Hm. The list of (implicitly labeled) critpath packages seems to have
proliferated recently: a few days ago I submitted an update for
sane-backends and then foun
On 11/22/2011 12:35 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> Comments inline.
>
> - Original Message -
>>
> We seem to disagree here. I value every maintainer even one that steps in
> once in a year. And yes I value him more than someone that would open 10
> bugreports without instructions how
On 11/22/2011 12:49 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> Hmm, haven't this started with if you're not ready to reply to every
> bugreport we will ban you because we don't want your contribution?
If you are referring to
"
Well if people want more controversial proposal of sign of live that's
relativ
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 11:46 +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
>
> Yes, typical problem is (usually) completely broken .pc (pkg-config)
> file. My experience is that developers don't have a clue about
> 'Requires.private' pkg-config field and they add all libraries to
> 'Requires' or 'Libs', so then binaries
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 3:34:50 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
>
> On 11/22/2011 12:49 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > Hmm, haven't this star
Bruno Wolff III writes:
> It looks like there was a soname bump in boost yesterday. Boost affects
> enough stuff, that there really should have been a heads up message posted to
> the devel list about this.
Yes, Denis Arnaud has kindly prepared a new release, but forgot to give
a yell. That sai
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755906
Petr Šabata changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
On 11/22/2011 01:48 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> The problem here is that in my eyes there are no inactive contributors and
> there shouldn't be anything preventing people from contributing (even if it's
> one update per year).
> While I agree that projects tha
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:46 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 21.11.2011 21:32, schrieb Till Maas:
> > Hi,
> >
> > a recent kernel update[0] broke Fedora's ability to be a VirtualBox
> > host, because asm/amd_iommu.h was removed. The removal of the file was
> > noticed during testing, but it see
On 11/21/2011 09:32 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> a recent kernel update[0] broke Fedora's ability to be a VirtualBox
> host, because asm/amd_iommu.h was removed.
This is a part of the in-kernel API, not the kernel<->userspace
interface. The internal API can change at any time.
External kernel modules
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 3:57:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
>
> On 11/22/2011 01:48 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> >
> > - Original Mes
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> Hm. The list of (implicitly labeled) critpath packages seems to have
> proliferated recently
Why not impose a self-restriction on the number of critpath packages?
Make a rule like "The ratio of proventesters to critpath packages must
be x
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 04:59:54PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> The updates policy is meant to protect users of Fedora within reason.
> Compiling, writing, and using third party software on Fedora is a valid use
> of Fedora whether or not that software exists within Fedora. This update
> may b
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-11-21)
===
Meeting started by mjg59 at 18:00:31 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-11-21/fesco.2011-11-21-18.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
Toshio Kuratomi writes:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:16:01AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I was rather surprised to find a routine "yum update" on my F14 system
>> suddenly wanting to pull in a lot of mysql stuff that I'd not had
>> installed at the moment.
> Are you able to upgrade to a later Fedor
On 11/22/2011 09:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I do agree with the complainers in the BZ that this was something
> inappropriate to do in F14, but what's done is done. Even if you undid
> it, anyone who's done "yum update" recently on an F14 box will have all
> those unnecessary deps installed.
Not n
Am 22.11.2011 01:59, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
> The updates policy is meant to protect users of Fedora within reason.
> Compiling, writing, and using third party software on Fedora is a valid use
> of Fedora whether or not that software exists within Fedora. This update
> may be acceptable becau
Ken Dreyer (ktdre...@ktdreyer.com) said:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > Hm. The list of (implicitly labeled) critpath packages seems to have
> > proliferated recently
>
> Why not impose a self-restriction on the number of critpath packages?
> Make a rule like "The
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 07:42 -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> > Hm. The list of (implicitly labeled) critpath packages seems to have
> > proliferated recently
>
> Why not impose a self-restriction on the number of critpath packages?
> Make a rule
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 03:08:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 04:59:54PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> > The updates policy is meant to protect users of Fedora within reason.
> > Compiling, writing, and using third party software on Fedora is a valid use
> > of Fed
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:12:42AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 03:08:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > We don't support out of tree kernel modules at all, so they're not
> > considered when making the determination about whether an update is
> > appropriate for a
Dne 21.11.2011 21:56, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" napsal(a):
> Given that I'm migrating bunch of legacy init script to native systemd
> ones and I have come many packages that seem that maintainer(s) have
> deserted them but for some bizarre reason we still continue to package
> and keep rolling them b
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752698
Karel Klíč changed:
What|Removed |Added
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:32:56PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle, to
> publish a list of packages which were not touched by it maintainer in
> previous release. For all these packages, new co-maintainer could
> stepped up and they
Once upon a time, Vít Ondruch said:
> It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle, to
> publish a list of packages which were not touched by it maintainer in
> previous release. For all these packages, new co-maintainer could
> stepped up and they would be granted the co-
Dne 22.11.2011 17:44, Chris Adams napsal(a):
> Once upon a time, Vít Ondruch said:
>> It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle, to
>> publish a list of packages which were not touched by it maintainer in
>> previous release. For all these packages, new co-maintainer could
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 04:23:28PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:12:42AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 03:08:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > We don't support out of tree kernel modules at all, so they're not
> > > considered when ma
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:38:23 +,
"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
>
> I think the only way to achieve something like this for maintainership
> we need to drop the ownership module so either nobody owns a
> package/component in the project or relevant SIG owns the package.
We can alr
2011/11/22 Matthew Garrett :
> The kernel ABI is the syscall interface, /sys and /proc. There is no
> stable module ABI between kernels - even with a small security update,
> the symbol versioning may change in such a way that the module ABI will
> change. Given that any interpretation of the stabl
2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III :
> One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
> packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
> still come in by packaging a new package. I think we really want most of
> the new packagers coming in as co-maintainer
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:13AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> According to the updates policy the
> maintainer needs to consider that their change will cause problems for third
> party kernel module packagers and end users that are compiling their own
> kernel modules.
We *know* we're goi
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:13AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 04:23:28PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The kernel ABI is the syscall interface, /sys and /proc. There is no
> > stable module ABI between kernels - even with a small security update,
> > the symbol ve
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:05:37 -0600,
Richard Shaw wrote:
> To bring it to a more personal level, I have no idea if I've done or
> proven myself enough to become a sponsor or not. If I am deficient in
> an area, there's currently no formal feedback mechanism for me to know
> in what areas I ne
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:00:43PM +0100, 80 wrote:
> The failure is due to Fedora *non-upstream* versionning scheme,
> VirtualBox has *already* fixes the API/ABI issue upstream relying on
> the kernel version (since 3.2 RC). It has nothing to do with the
> kernel non-stable ABI policy (which is
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=752698
Emmanuel Seyman changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
On 11/22/2011 12:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:00:43PM +0100, 80 wrote:
>
>> The failure is due to Fedora *non-upstream* versionning scheme,
>> VirtualBox has *already* fixes the API/ABI issue upstream relying on
>> the kernel version (since 3.2 RC). It has nothing to
On 11/22/2011 04:51 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:38:23 +,
>"\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote:
>> I think the only way to achieve something like this for maintainership
>> we need to drop the ownership module so either nobody owns a
>> package/component in the pro
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Use of uninitialized value $root in exists at
.../Role/NestedHashUtils.pm line 121.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756108
Summary: Use of uninitia
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:32:56 +0100, VO (Vít) wrote:
> I remember
> at leas one example from history when I was not able to reach the
> maintainer and at the end he was quite angry that I was so daring to
> call him unresponsive, even though I wanted just to help him. Also,
> there are other pa
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:05:37AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> 2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III :
> > One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
> > packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
> > still come in by packaging a new package. I think
Genes MailLists wrote:
For those having trouble - one pragmatic way is just to download the
f16 3.1.x source rpm and rebuild it on F15 - VB will now work fine.
You don't need to do that. Just use my attached patch.
(Only use the patch on F15 systems with F15 kernels.)
--- /usr/share/virtual
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Just use my attached patch.
It helps if I attach the correct patch.
--- /usr/share/virtualbox/src/vboxhost/vboxpci/linux/VBoxPci-linux.c.orig 2011-08-09 01:30:24.0 -0500
+++ /usr/share/virtualbox/src/vboxhost/vboxpci/linux/VBoxPci-linux.c 2011-11-22 11:50:24.
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
make every contributor an "proven packager"?
Would it be viable to move to something like language SIG based
ownership of packages?
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:37 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
> 2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III:
> > One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
> > packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
> > still come in by packaging a new package. I think we re
> "VO" == Vít Ondruch writes:
VO> It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle,
VO> to publish a list of packages which were not touched by it
VO> maintainer in previous release.
I certainly hope you realize that there are very many packages in the
distribution that sim
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:08:14PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:13AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > According to the updates policy the
> > maintainer needs to consider that their change will cause problems for
> third
> > party kernel module packagers and end use
2011/11/22 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
> package ownership model?
>
> Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
> make every contributor an "proven packager"?
Allowing any packager to commit to most pack
On 22/11/11 17:53, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Uh, come on, ... package submitters waiting on the NEEDSPONSOR list
> could _really_ work a little bit more actively on persuading potential
> sponsors of their packaging skills. Instead, some wait silently for
> months without doing any package review
On 11/22/2011 09:51 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> -#if LINUX_VERSION_CODE < KERNEL_VERSION(3, 1, 0)
It may have be helpful for the faked 2.6.4x kernels to still present a
3ish LINUX_VERSION_CODE. AFAIK, faking the number is for the benefit of
userspace, not any kernel module. Perhaps it's not
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:12:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:13AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 04:23:28PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > The kernel ABI is the syscall interface, /sys and /proc. There is no
> > > stable module AB
On 11/22/2011 05:59 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> 2011/11/22 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
>> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
>> package ownership model?
>>
>> Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
>> make every contributor an "proven pack
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:55:59AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> So, yes, it may be fully expected that issuing an update will break out of
> tree modules but that doesn't stop it from being one factor to *consider*.
Consideration implies that the following thought process will occur
"This
As much as we have disagreed on the previous topic we might have similar
thoughts here :).
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:51:31 PM
> Subject: Dropping the ownership model
>
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:08:14PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:13AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> > According to the updates policy the
>> > maintainer needs to consider that their change will cause probl
> "TH" == Tom Hughes writes:
TH> As somebody who is in exactly that situation all I can say is that
TH> if doing informal reviews is an essential prerequisite to getting
TH> sponsored then the wiki could be a lot clearer. Currently it reads
TH> more like it's just one thing that may help.
It
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> I wouldn't want to get rid of the ownership model altogether, I think
> there should be a specific person responsible for handling bug
> reports/RFEs. When a group is responsible to handle something not
> really pleasant to do, often no single member of that group feels
> p
2011/11/22 Dave Jones :
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:55:59AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Consideration implies that the following thought process will occur
>
> "This update will break out of tree modules, perhaps we shouldn't push it."
>
> That isn't going to happen.
To me, this sounds like k
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:37 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
>
>> 2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III:
>> > One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
>> > packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new pack
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:08:18AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:12:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I don't know how much clearer I can make this. The update policy applies
> > to the supported ABI of the package. For instance, if I have an
> > application that
On 11/22/2011 05:27 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> First of all why do I need to come up with a concrete proposal to FESCO
> why dont they come up with something to try to improve the distribution.
>
> Does that governing body only exist to say yay or nay to others proposals?
FESCo exists
On 11/22/2011 06:51 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
> package ownership model?
ownership <=> responsibility
> Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
> make every contributor an "proven packager"
On 11/22/2011 11:55 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt
> wrote:
>>
>> And still there have been self-nominations before.
>> You could look up FESCo tickets of past nominations.
>
> I never thought about that, perhaps it should be added to the contributo
Am 22.11.2011 18:00, schrieb 80:
> The failure is due to Fedora *non-upstream* versionning scheme,
> VirtualBox has *already* fixes the API/ABI issue upstream relying on
> the kernel version (since 3.2 RC). It has nothing to do with the
> kernel non-stable ABI policy (which is notorious).
> The
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:57:24AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> First of all why do I need to come up with a concrete proposal to FESCO
> why dont they come up with something to try to improve the distribution.
Because demanding that other people do work generally doesn't result in
t
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:51:31 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
> package ownership model?
>
> Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence
> would make every contributor an "proven packager"?
I'm not sur
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 07:24:20PM +0100, Thomas Moschny wrote:
> 2011/11/22 Dave Jones :
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:55:59AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Consideration implies that the following thought process will occur
> >
> > "This update will break out of tree modules, perhaps we
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:28:06PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:08:18AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:12:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > I don't know how much clearer I can make this. The update policy applies
> > > to the suppor
>
> As much as we have disagreed on the previous topic we might have similar
> thoughts here :).
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:51:31 PM
>> Subject: Dropping the owner
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:16:30 +
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Hum not so sure that will effectively work at least the cleanup
> process needs have take place before we start the next development
> cycle atleast no later then GA so basically the "performance" review
> of the maintainer would
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:40:52 +0100
Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> > This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
> > can seem to agree on what an appropriate "sign of life" would be, no
> > has made a serious FESCo pr
>> "TH" == Tom Hughes writes:
>
> TH> As somebody who is in exactly that situation all I can say is that
> TH> if doing informal reviews is an essential prerequisite to getting
> TH> sponsored then the wiki could be a lot clearer. Currently it reads
> TH> more like it's just one thing that ma
1 - 100 of 169 matches
Mail list logo
