On 2012-02-09, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-02-09 at 16:52 +, Petr Pisar wrote:
>> It's long time since PCRE (Perl-Compatible Regular Expression) library
>> has changed API or ABI. Version 8.30 is different. Besides UTF-16
>> support, the incompatible changes are described by upstream w
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> [...]
> To draw an arbitrary example from recent past: Ask yourself - What was the
> shape of systemd in F15/F16? Has the situation been fixed in F17?
Just for the record I didn't have *any* systemd related problem in F15
and neither have o
Hi,
I'm orphaning eruby package.
If anyone else wants to take it over, please.
Cheers,
---
Akira TAGOH
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 02/10/2012 04:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/09/2012 11:06 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Ralf Corsepius
wrote:
IMO, Fedora has obvious problems with its
- work-flow (Too immature SW migrates/sneaks through from Alpha/Beta to
Final)
If you feel this is the
Am 10.02.2012 08:36, schrieb Ondrej Vasik:
> On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 05:45 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 02/09/2012 11:06 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
- management, whom seems to be driven by a "must have at any price, no
point
of return ever" policy.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure who you're
Hey,
I just seem to run into an error that a package builds just fine in f16
(unpackaged file is another thing) but it won't build on f17 and f18. Is
there an incompatibility of the source code with newer Qt versions or is it
just a temporary koji hickup?
f16 build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/
On 02/10/2012 11:19 AM, Johannes Lips wrote:
Hey,
I just seem to run into an error that a package builds just fine in f16
(unpackaged file is another thing) but it won't build on f17 and f18. Is
there an incompatibility of the source code with newer Qt versions or is
it just a temporary koji hic
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:11:06AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Yes, I'm arguing that the "feature" is undesirable by design and should not
> have been approved, not for Fedora 17, not for Fedora 18, not even for
> Fedora 31337.
It has been approved, other distributions are following. It is very
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Test-Fatal:
d120fa7df76d287080b7e47134159144 Test-Fatal-0.009.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/mailma
commit 1c9b99ed9ff14fa1e9f2adf57cad2c2d513fbe95
Author: Paul Howarth
Date: Fri Feb 10 10:32:41 2012 +
Update to 0.009
- New upstream release 0.009:
- Advise against using isnt(exception{...},undef)
perl-Test-Fatal.spec | 10 +++---
sources |2 +-
Summary of changes:
1c9b99e... Update to 0.009 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
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/mai
Hmm weird that the previous version went through the mass rebuild without
problems. So I am going to check upstream.
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:28 AM, Brendan Jones
wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 11:19 AM, Johannes Lips wrote:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> I just seem to run into an error that a package builds just fi
On 02/10/2012 10:06 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 02/10/2012 04:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In this spirit, I eg. would propose to table usrmove for F17 and to
concentrate on systemd integration and anaconda/grub2 improvements,
both topics, I perceived as the "hall of shame of F16".
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Wrt. F17: usrmove - Independently from the fact that I consider it to be an
> "idotic foolishness", ask yourself if it is a shape to be part of F17? IMO,
> it's foreseeable it will not be ready, because there are too many unknows
> attached
None of your arguments explain the lack of communication. FESCo give you
go even so late in development cycle, because you are well known in
Fedora project. We believe that you can make it, because you told us at
the start it's tested, it's working. If you said earlier changes in
anaconda, rpm
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:28:59AM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
> It has been approved, other distributions are following. It is very
> clear you do not want this. But at the same time, it is happening in
> Fedora and elsewhere (noticed openSUSE, will propose for Mageia 3).
For openSUSE we're curren
On 02/10/2012 12:11 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:28:59AM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote:
It has been approved, other distributions are following. It is very
clear you do not want this. But at the same time, it is happening in
Fedora and elsewhere (noticed openSUSE, will pro
On 10/02/12 12:11, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> (We're mostly doing it because to provide some kind of Fedora
> compatibility for 3rd parties.)
What? You don't think, there are other/better reasons to do this?
Harald and Kay described better/other reasons on their feature-page.
I think this is real
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 10:21 +0100, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> Am 10.02.2012 08:36, schrieb Ondrej Vasik:
> > Given the fact that there is NO ultimate gain from the usrmove feature
> > (ok, I understand all the arguments for the usrmove, but I don't see
> > them that bright at the moment as Harald and fa
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>> I really don't know why the REAL ACTIONS on this feature were started
>> that late in F17 release cycle - several months after branching.
>
> Because politics took so long.
Which part exactly?
* Half of July 2011! The feature page was crea
Am 10.02.2012 09:55, schrieb drago01:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> [...]
>> To draw an arbitrary example from recent past: Ask yourself - What was the
>> shape of systemd in F15/F16? Has the situation been fixed in F17?
>
> Just for the record I didn't have *any*
Am 10.02.2012 10:06, schrieb "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
> The state of overall migration to systemd is depended on each package
> maintainer(s)
> and at current rate that wont be finished until F20+.
so fedora has STOPPED to be a distribution
it is a bundle of packages which hopefully work toge
Am 10.02.2012 12:36, schrieb Ondrej Vasik:
> Anyway, that's more for beer-meeting discussion next week ;).
A very good proposal :-)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 12:29 +0100, Matthias Runge wrote:
> On 10/02/12 12:11, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> > (We're mostly doing it because to provide some kind of Fedora
> > compatibility for 3rd parties.)
>
> What? You don't think, there are other/better reasons to do this?
> Harald and Kay descr
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:03:11AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > It dlopen's the package so there is no automatic dependency. To make
> > up for this it requires pcre-devel, but in the light of this soname
> > change that might be a bug.
>
> It is against the guidelin
Am 10.02.2012 12:38, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
>>> I really don't know why the REAL ACTIONS on this feature were started
>>> that late in F17 release cycle - several months after branching.
>>
>> Because politics took so long.
>
> Which part e
On 10/02/12 12:45, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> I hope that this is just sarcasm. Many of the reasons were refuted to
> not be real. Of course there are still some positive reasons remaining
> but they are very weak in comparison to the break of expectations of
> existing users and developers of 3rd party s
Summary of changes:
be51602... Update to 0.05 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
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/mail
Am 10.02.2012 12:46, schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:03:11AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> It dlopen's the package so there is no automatic dependency. To make
>>> up for this it requires pcre-devel, but in the light of this soname
>>> chang
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 10.02.2012 10:06, schrieb "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
>> The state of overall migration to systemd is depended on each package
>> maintainer(s)
>> and at current rate that wont be finished until F20+.
>
> so fedora has STOPPED to be a d
Am 10.02.2012 12:55, schrieb Matthias Runge:
> On 10/02/12 12:45, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> I hope that this is just sarcasm. Many of the reasons were refuted to
>> not be real. Of course there are still some positive reasons remaining
>> but they are very weak in comparison to the break of expectations
The lightweight tag 'perl-Module-Implementation-0.05-1.el6' was created
pointing to:
be51602... Update to 0.05
--
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/mailman/listinfo/
The lightweight tag 'perl-Module-Implementation-0.05-1.fc16' was created
pointing to:
be51602... Update to 0.05
--
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/mailman/listinfo
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Let me put it this way: I am having difficulties in recalling any
> Fedora release which worked for me out of the box ...
>
> In earlier releases there for example were pulseaudio and SELinux, in
> current releases it's primarily systemd
What kind of problems in the out of
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 6:42 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 10.02.2012 10:06, schrieb "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
>> The state of overall migration to systemd is depended on each package
>> maintainer(s)
>> and at current rate that wont be finished until F20+.
>
> so fedora has STOPPED to be a di
Am 10.02.2012 12:59, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Reindl Harald
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 10.02.2012 10:06, schrieb "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
>>> The state of overall migration to systemd is depended on each package
>>> maintainer(s)
>>> and at current rate that wont b
On 10/02/12 13:01, Reindl Harald wrote:
> what missed here is the main point:
>
> there is no single bleding wound to do it NOW under pressure
> nobody would have been died if F17 would have bean left in peace
> and the "feature" would been introduced in F18 or even F19 because
> it brings no sing
On 2012-02-10, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> that devel-packages require other devel-packages is OK
> but that you need ANY devel-package on machines having
> not installed any compiler/packaging-software not
>
You can have a tool which creates binding to native shared objects at
run-time. Then header
On 10/02/12 12:13, Matthias Runge wrote:
My point was: If everybody does it, why don't we do it? Comparable to:
1000 flies can not be mistaken, shit must be great.
They're sowing Mushrooms.
Which people fry, boil, smoke. ;)
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy, friend of fedoraproject
UTF_8 Encoded
--
On 02/10/2012 10:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/10/2012 10:06 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 02/10/2012 04:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In this spirit, I eg. would propose to table usrmove for F17 and to
concentrate on systemd integration and anaconda/grub2 improvements,
both topic
On 02/10/2012 11:59 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 10.02.2012 10:06, schrieb "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
The state of overall migration to systemd is depended on each package
maintainer(s)
and at current rate that wont be finished until F20+.
Am 10.02.2012 13:07, schrieb Josh Boyer:
> That is the definition of a product. Fedora has never been a product.
> Fedora is a community driven distribution and as such has no central
> or overriding authority to tell people that volunteer their time to go do
> some specific thing they don't fee
You couldn't force voluntary contributors to anything as you could for
example not be forced to contribute to the fedora project as well. So how
should this work?
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:01 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 10.02.2012 13:07, schrieb Josh Boyer:
> > That is the definition of a
On 02/10/2012 05:28 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:11:06AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Yes, I'm arguing that the "feature" is undesirable by design and should not
have been approved, not for Fedora 17, not for Fedora 18, not even for
Fedora 31337.
It has been approved, other
On 02/10/2012 07:07 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> That is the definition of a product. Fedora has never been a product.
> Fedora is a community driven distribution and as such has no central
> or overriding authority to tell people that volunteer their time to go do
> some specific thing they don't fee
how does package-guidelines work?
if someone wants to contribute to anything he has
to accept that there are rules, and yes everywhere
in life are rules
a community works only as long as all members are working
in the same direction, if many members are not willing
to do needed changes because of
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:58:32AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> The feature process is currently being revised, and at least some of
> these issues have been brought up at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fixing_features . What would be
> especially useful is to find ways to improve the feature
On 02/10/2012 01:34 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 02/10/2012 10:49 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 02/10/2012 10:06 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 02/10/2012 04:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In this spirit, I eg. would propose to table usrmove for F17 and to
concentrate on systemd
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Scott Schmit wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:58:32AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> The feature process is currently being revised, and at least some of
>> these issues have been brought up at
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fixing_features . What would be
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> (i) May I suggest new features require a review and comment period
> with Fesco having the final say.
>
> Features that are 'core' - should require substantial review and
> broader community engagement before being accepted.
Good point,
On 02/10/2012 01:17 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Ok, then my advice to you is: Stop shifiting around responsibilities
and start to work. Team up with others and start working on migrating
the remaining not-converted services.
Excuse me?
I've been working on this for 3 release cycles now and sp
On 02/10/2012 01:17 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
ATM, systemd integration is a semi-cooked, hardly usable mess, which
still has to prove its sustainability. Not more and not less.
How about you actually start providing example of what you actually feel
is semi cooked yata yata that you keep refer
2012/2/10 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> On 02/10/2012 01:17 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Ok, then my advice to you is: Stop shifiting around responsibilities and
>> start to work. Team up with others and start working on migrating the
>> remaining not-converted services.
>
>
> Excuse me?
>
>
Johann,
Aren't you provenpackager? If not this looks like the best thing to do so you
push these changes yourself and considering that systemd is the initd system
noone should complain as this was already approved. I bet not every packager
that hasn't responded is unresponsive and have done oth
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 08:07:11AM -0500, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 05:28 AM, Olav Vitters wrote:
> >On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:11:06AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >>Yes, I'm arguing that the "feature" is undesirable by design and should not
> >>have been approved, not for Fedora 17, not
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> [..]
>
>
> POSSIBLE SOLUTION:
>
> each second release does not introduzce those big changes and
> only optimize existing things and bringing only new versions
> of packages require a "simple" mass rebuild for
Am 10.02.2012 15:09, schrieb drago01:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>
>> POSSIBLE SOLUTION:
>>
>> each second release does not introduzce those big changes and
>> only optimize existing things and bringing only new versions
>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 02/10/2012 07:07 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> That is the definition of a product. Fedora has never been a product.
>> Fedora is a community driven distribution and as such has no central
>> or overriding authority to tell people that vol
Am 10.02.2012 15:20, schrieb Josh Boyer:
> Maybe if you're staring at the meat grinder all day the last thing you want to
> do is go home and eat sausage, but I do think it's important to judge a
> release
> on it's GA quality. Immediately discounting it during the Alpha and Beta
> phases is bo
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 10.02.2012 15:20, schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> Maybe if you're staring at the meat grinder all day the last thing you want
>> to
>> do is go home and eat sausage, but I do think it's important to judge a
>> release
>> on it's GA quality.
Am 10.02.2012 15:31, schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> this did NOT happen with systemd or how do you explain
>> that we have to wait for F20 or even F25 until the
>> feature is finsihed?
>
> Maybe those maintainers are too busy replying to your rhetoric. I don't know.
> I think I'll go back to not emaili
On 02/10/2012 01:46 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Johann,
Aren't you provenpackager? If not this looks like the best thing to do so you
push these changes yourself and considering that systemd is the initd system
noone should complain as this was already approved. I bet not every packager
tha
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:13:13PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> POSSIBLE SOLUTION:
>
> each second release does not introduzce those big changes and
> only optimize existing things and bringing only new versions
> of packages require a "simple" mass rebuild for so-changes
>
> you can call it F17
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Actually ocaml-pcre-devel is the one which requires pcre-devel. I
> don't think this is against any guidelines, or if it is, it shouldn't
> be.
No, that makes sense. Your message wasn't clear about that.
>> Instead, the software MUST be patched to dlopen the fully ver
Fedora packages maintainers
It is Software String Freeze on 14th February next week Tuesday.
From this point, Fedora translators for over 40 languages exert every
possible effort to complete software translation 100%.
So please make sure that your package's latest translatable file is
pushed/uploa
Am 10.02.2012 16:06, schrieb Peter Hutterer:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:13:13PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> POSSIBLE SOLUTION:
>>
>> each second release does not introduzce those big changes and
>> only optimize existing things and bringing only new versions
>> of packages require a "simple"
- Original Message -
> From: "Reindl Harald"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:43:07 AM
> Subject: Re: /usrmove? -> about the future
>
>
>
> Am 10.02.2012 16:06, schrieb Peter Hutterer:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:13:13PM +0100, Reindl Harald
On 02/09/2012 11:45 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Let me put it this way: I am having difficulties in recalling any Fedora
release which worked for me out of the box ...
...
That said, IMO, on the technical side, Fedora urgently needs a "calming
down/lean back/settlement phase", say 2 consecutive
Am 10.02.2012 16:49, schrieb Steve Gordon:
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Reindl Harald"
>>> So the likely effect is that these features will be called ready
>>> whenever
>>> they need to be (according to the process) with the rest simply
>>> called
>>> "optimizing".
>>
>> if people do
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 16:57:18 +0100,
Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> so if the releases would be more well thought i would have
> time to write such things, but then there would be no need for it
Consider running for FESCO this spring and emphasize your views on features in
your campaign.
While I
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Image-ExifTool:
33c9c7b9a0153390374910e9da652487 Image-ExifTool-8.77.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
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:24:43PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > Actually ocaml-pcre-devel is the one which requires pcre-devel. I
> > don't think this is against any guidelines, or if it is, it shouldn't
> > be.
>
> No, that makes sense. Your message wasn't clear abo
commit 137c17ce309d14793a2102887a480df936f74f91
Author: Tom Callaway
Date: Fri Feb 10 11:27:05 2012 -0500
update to 8.77
perl-Image-ExifTool.spec |5 -
sources |2 +-
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Image-ExifTool.spec b/
commit 362797cfac2eac8d9049b87f2ac0cc8608aa1f55
Author: Tom Callaway
Date: Fri Feb 10 11:27:21 2012 -0500
update to 8.77
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Image-ExifTool.spec |5 -
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff
I've seen this repeatedly, with often very serious consequences (complete
failure of update from f15->f16 for example).
Between packages installed via pip, and packages installed via yum, some
packages seem to switch between
e.g.,
numpy-1.6.1-py2.7.egg-info
being installed as a file and the sa
2012/2/10 Neal Becker :
> I've seen this repeatedly, with often very serious consequences (complete
> failure of update from f15->f16 for example).
>
> Between packages installed via pip, and packages installed via yum, some
> packages seem to switch between
>
> e.g.,
> numpy-1.6.1-py2.7.egg-info
>
On 2/10/12 11:32 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
I've seen this repeatedly, with often very serious consequences (complete
failure of update from f15->f16 for example).
Between packages installed via pip, and packages installed via yum, some
packages seem to switch between
e.g.,
numpy-1.6.1-py2.7.egg-in
80 wrote:
> 2012/2/10 Neal Becker :
>> I've seen this repeatedly, with often very serious consequences (complete
>> failure of update from f15->f16 for example).
>>
>> Between packages installed via pip, and packages installed via yum, some
>> packages seem to switch between
>>
>> e.g.,
>> numpy-1
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:58:32AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > Wrt. F17: usrmove - Independently from the fact that I consider it to be an
> > "idotic foolishness", ask yourself if it is a shape to be part of F17? IMO,
> > it's foreseea
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 02:20:25PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Scott Schmit wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:58:32AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> >> The feature process is currently being revised, and at least some of
> >> these issues have been brought u
On 02/10/2012 01:05 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Let me put it this way: I am having difficulties in recalling any
Fedora release which worked for me out of the box ...
In earlier releases there for example were pulseaudio and SELinux, in
current releases it's primarily syste
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:58:32AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> At the moment the feature was again brought up to FESCo two weeks ago,
>> the commits were already in the repository, so reverting the feature
>> would have had a pretty big
On 02/10/2012 05:53 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> [... issues after upgrades ...]
We fix them when we know about them.
c) Systemd doesn't seem to preserve existing activated services upon
update (I recall having to manually activate cron and rsyslog).
Not preserving the enablement state of serv
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 13:13 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > I quite agree this is (becoming?) a problem - but can you suggest a
> > workable solution?
>
> calm down new features because you see now what happended
On a point of fact: what _is_ it that you are suggesting happened
exactly?
Everyon
2012/2/10 Neal Becker :
>
> Really? This is the only answer? Can't we tweek rpm/yum to accomodate this?
> Does anyone understand what is causing it? Why would pip install the egg-info
> differently than rpm?
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraprojec
Am 10.02.2012 18:05, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 13:13 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Everyone on this list is well aware of the fact that you consider
> systemd a terrible failure because not every package in Fedora yet has
> systemd-native init scripts, but by the same token
Has there been a compose against F17, that would therefore create the
images dir and boot.iso and everything so can install against it?
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"Best little town on Earth!"
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/lis
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> F15 was the first Linux i saw where "reboot" did not
> work until you typed "kill 1" while praying!
Can you point me to a bug report from you or anyone else that has been
confirmed by at least one other person?
I personally didn't experienc
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 17:53 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> c) Systemd doesn't seem to preserve existing activated services upon
> update (I recall having to manually activate cron and rsyslog).
This is documented in the common bugs:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F16_bugs#Upgrade_from_pr
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 18:21 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 10.02.2012 18:05, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> > On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 13:13 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > Everyone on this list is well aware of the fact that you consider
> > systemd a terrible failure because not every package in Fe
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:57:18PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 10.02.2012 16:49, schrieb Steve Gordon:
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Reindl Harald"
> >>> So the likely effect is that these features will be called ready
> >>> whenever
> >>> they need to be (according to th
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 08:28 -0900, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> > F15 was the first Linux i saw where "reboot" did not
> > work until you typed "kill 1" while praying!
>
> Can you point me to a bug report from you or anyone else that has been
> conf
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 08:28:28 -0900,
Jef Spaleta wrote:
>
> I personally didn't experience that with the F15 systems I had. But
> maybe I got lucked and dodged a bullet.
It seems pretty common that updating systemd causes problems with the next
shutdown. I don't know why and it is a pain to
On 02/10/2012 06:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
It seems pretty common that updating systemd causes problems with the next
shutdown. I don't know why and it is a pain to reproduce since it doesn't
happen again on the next reboot.
Did you see the problem with updates within a stable Fedora releas
Am 10.02.2012 18:28, schrieb Jef Spaleta:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> F15 was the first Linux i saw where "reboot" did not
>> work until you typed "kill 1" while praying!
>
> Can you point me to a bug report from you or anyone else that has been
> confirmed by at
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> In any case, badmouthing systemd for an upgrade bug where it actually
> works fine *when you're really running F15* doesn't seem right. I
> wouldn't have had this problem if it'd installed off the Live CD or done
> a fresh install.
Shrug, I
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:38:20AM -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> 80 wrote:
>
> > 2012/2/10 Neal Becker :
> >> I've seen this repeatedly, with often very serious consequences (complete
> >> failure of update from f15->f16 for example).
> >>
> >> Between packages installed via pip, and packages instal
Am 10.02.2012 18:32, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 18:21 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 10.02.2012 18:05, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>>> On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 13:13 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> Everyone on this list is well aware of the fact that you consider
>>> systemd
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> no i can not because it is a one-shot thing to do "yum distro-sync" and so i
> had no time for a bugrport while other more important things like mysqld were
> horrible broken
Let me strongly suggest, that unfiled problems will never get fixe
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
>> In any case, badmouthing systemd for an upgrade bug where it actually
>> works fine *when you're really running F15* doesn't seem right. I
>> wouldn't have had this problem if it'd inst
1 - 100 of 186 matches
Mail list logo
