On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> On 17/06/12 20:15, drago01 wrote:
>>
>> By that logic we could just stop development today.
>
>
> Yes, and there are places where we should.
No.
>That is to stop reinventing the wheel.
This would just result into stagnation while the compet
Le dimanche 17 juin 2012 à 21:54 -0600, Kevin Fenzi a écrit :
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
> Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
> > I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
> > the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers would indeed solve
> > part of the problem you poi
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:32AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> > You're asserting that dbus-daemon etc cannot be restarted, but without
> > saying why.
>
> Because designing an asynchronous messaging bus that can be resta
e, so come and contribute!
This is a reminder of the upcoming QA meeting. Please add any topic
suggestions to the meeting wiki page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20120618
The current proposed agenda is included below.
== Proposed Agenda Topics ==
1. Previous meeting follow-up
2
On 06/18/2012 01:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:32AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> You're asserting that dbus-daemon etc cannot be restarted, but without
>>> saying why.
>>
>> Because des
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:31:46PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> >>> They are using PBKDF2 with SHA-256, default 500 rounds up to 100,000
> >>> rounds. The database is locally encrypted. Of
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:07:08PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 01:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:32AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>
> >>> You're asserting that dbus-dae
On 06/18/2012 02:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> What we shouldn't do is break things further by making almost all
> updates require a reboot.
What do you want to do? Either we should fix all the possible issues
with restarting things on demand or we can accept this simpler solution
but preten
On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 15:12 +0200, valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote:
> OK, but why isn't this easy fix via new policy done, why is it sitting
> in bugzilla for over two years?
I really don't know. I don't maintain the cups-pk-helper package.
Tim.
*/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digital
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-IO-Socket-SSL:
27796a16df658aa3b3d2defd0fe3ac61 IO-Socket-SSL-1.76.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/m
On 18.06.2012 12:10, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:07:08PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/18/2012 01:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:32AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Chris Murphy wrote:
> Grubby does not work fine with GRUB 2, it creates sloppy menu lists that
> eventually break the advanced menu entries, as well as totally departing
> from any user customization of /etc/default/grub.
… vs. grub2-mkconfig, which totally departs from any user customization in
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>>
>> > I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
>> > the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers would
Ben Rosser wrote:
> It seems to me that we should make the boot menu more consistent somehow.
> I feel like the simplest solution is just to run grub2-mkconfig at every
> kernel update, and stop using grubby for this.
If we do this, can we PLEASE drop the braindead Fedora patch which changes
"GNU
On 18 June 2012 10:50, Alek Paunov wrote:
> As I understand the proposal, the necessary workaround only affects the
> desktop instances and specifically Gnome ones - I am under the impression
> that my servers will continue to be updated by the normal way.
Exactly. This will not touch either RHN
On 18 June 2012 10:10, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I believe there is or was an effort to replace dbus by something
> AMQP-based. However I can't find that right now.
The async-message bus isn't the only problem. You *have* to restart a
process before it will be running a new library version. Th
On 18/06/12 09:30, drago01 wrote:
This would just result into stagnation while the competition invents
much better wheels and leave us behind.
Abstracting for the sake of discussion from the particular case of grub2
could you at least imagine new program which would be worse than the
program
I like the idea like debian does update-grub2 it looks like grub2-mkconfig
its the same thing probably we can switch or remove grubby and just use
grub2-mkconfig its a little bit confusing had both
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ben Rosser wrote:
> > It seems to me that we
Richard Hughes writes:
> The async-message bus isn't the only problem. You *have* to restart a
> process before it will be running a new library version. That mean
> testing (and probably patching) every single application and daemon in
> our stack
Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which canno
On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
> systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already.
Try booting a few VMs and then doing "systemctl restart
libvirtd.daemon" -- libvirtd restarts okay (hopefully) but all the
clients are d
Le lundi 18 juin 2012 à 06:09 -0400, Gerald Henriksen a écrit :
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
> >No. Let Red Hat tell the truth. Let Red Hat design a better
> >UEFI motherboard.
>
> So now the target has moved from Red Hat buying some hardware with
> secure boot disable
Quoting Jef Spaleta (2012-06-15 22:00:31)
> So yeah... revelation is back to being entirely noarch python again.
> Is bouncing a package from arch to noarch as an update going to cause
> problems?
Last time I've done this, I had to add "Obsoletes: XX < current_VR"
I assume this hasn't changed in
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:47:34AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> >On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson
> >wrote:
> > I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're suggesting here. It's
> > not possible to simply replace a system's firmware with another
> > implementation. You could cha
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:22:16PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> > Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
> > systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already.
>
> Try booting a few VMs and then doing "systemctl restart
> libv
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:42 AM, tim.laurid...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > Linux is about choices
>
> No it isn't:
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
>
> (I do disagree with Kevin though).
> --
On 18.06.2012 14:22, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already.
Try booting a few VMs and then doing "systemctl restart
libvirtd.daemon" -- libvirtd restarts
On 06/18/2012 12:53 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:52:48PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
So why does the "SecureBoot" private key require a so much higher
cost of administration?
Fedora's keys are currently only relevant on hardware where users have
voluntarialy installe
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:57:12PM +0300, Alek Paunov wrote:
> However, I never tried to update qemu-system with live VMs.
The update will work, but the VMs will still be running the old code.
You can actually solve that problem using VM migration: live migrate
the VM from the old qemu to the new
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:47:34AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> >On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson
>> >wrote:
>> > I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're suggesting here. It's
>> > not possible to simply replace a s
On 06/18/2012 01:17 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
The game is now just about over. What if one day, Microsoft
makes it even harder to install Fedora without a Microsoft
controlled
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
> > UEFI implementations, so I'm not sure what you're asking for.
>
> No need for a shim. Not having
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:54:08AM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> There's every indication that were we to so choose, Microsoft would happily
> sign our binaries and allow us to boot on Secure Boot constrained ARM
> machines at no additional cost. We believe that without the guarantee that
> you can
On 06/17/2012 06:06 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 17 June 2012 10:53, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
So this is a problem that needs to be solved, but does it require a
reboot? Not really ... it's possible to list all processes using
zlib, convert that back into a list of packages, then instruct tho
commit 244467456f18d644024095d19ffe03dc82aede1e
Author: Jitka Plesnikova
Date: Mon Jun 18 13:58:26 2012 +0200
Specify all dependencies
perl-Data-Structure-Util.spec | 17 ++---
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-Data-Structure-Util.spec b
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 01:17 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Bob Young, a master of propaganda^Hsales, had a wond
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:>
> It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
> above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an ARM key. I did
> not present an argument in my comment.
"What if, as has already happened with ARM, Microsoft
commit 89807bf61ec98140f9060862e4ab074923c5e6fa
Author: Jitka Plesnikova
Date: Mon Jun 18 14:28:46 2012 +0200
Specify all dependencies
perl-HTML-Template.spec | 16 +++-
1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-HTML-Template.spec b/perl-HTML-Te
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
>> > UEFI implementations, so I'm not sur
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:>
>> It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
>> above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an ARM key. I did
>> not present an argument in my com
On 06/18/2012 01:09 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Richard Hughes writes:
It takes me 4 seconds to POST, boot the kernel, get into
system-update.service, and then reboot. Using a new rpm version,
applying several dozen test updates takes another 20
On 06/18/2012 09:26 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
UE
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:26:23AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > You're still not making it clear what you want. Hardware without secure
> > boot? Hardware with secure boot but a different default policy? Hardware
> > with free firmware th
On 06/18/2012 01:22 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsen wrote:
Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already.
Try booting a few VMs and then doing "systemctl restart
libvirtd.daemon" -- libvirtd resta
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:26:23AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > You're still not making it clear what you want. Hardware without secure
>> > boot? Hardware with secure boot but
Am 18.06.2012 01:09, schrieb drago01:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Benny Amorsen
> wrote:
>> Richard Hughes writes:
>>
>>> It takes me 4 seconds to POST, boot the kernel, get into
>>> system-update.service, and then reboot. Using a new rpm version,
>>> applying several dozen test update
Am 18.06.2012 09:30, schrieb drago01:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
>> On 17/06/12 20:15, drago01 wrote:
>>>
>>> By that logic we could just stop development today.
>>
>>
>> Yes, and there are places where we should.
>
> No.
yes
>> That is to stop reinventing the whee
Am 18.06.2012 15:30, schrieb Seth Johnson:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:>
>>> It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
>>> above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an AR
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:27AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Like I said before, the existing UEFI implementations on the existing
> > hardware will support "Disable Secure Boot or use your own chain of
> > trust". If you're asking for
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:27AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > Like I said before, the existing UEFI implementations on the existing
>> > hardware will support "Disable Secure
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:04:38AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Ok so what you mean is "I want a UEFI implementation that doesn't
> > require a Microsoft signature to boot"? The options there are currently
> > (1) have a Fedora specific k
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:04:38AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> > Ok so what you mean is "I want a UEFI implementation that doesn't
>> > require a Microsoft signature to boot"? T
On 06/18/2012 05:08 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> that is not the point because every admin is dong this all the time
>
> the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
> dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
> fully up and running until saturday someti
On 18 June 2012 00:38, Reindl Harald wrote:
> the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
> dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
> fully up and running until saturday sometimes at evening where
> you rebootet the machine and now EIGHT years later
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
>
> I want Red Hat, Fedora, and the free software community to come to
> terms with what they must do in the context create
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> if this is what you call "development" then YES we should
> stop development now until we have ideas for real
> improvements instead wasting time by making steps backward
Language like this isn't helpful. Might I suggest that if you're
goin
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett
>> wrote:
>> > So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
>>
>> I want Red Hat, Fedora, and the free software commun
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 00:38, Reindl Harald wrote:
the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
fully up and running until saturday sometimes at evening where
you reboo
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:35:40 +0200
Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 18.06.2012 15:30, schrieb Seth Johnson:
> >
> > I stand corrected. Jay's point is that Microsoft will be in a
> > position to change policy, on either platform. That could happen
> > once it is in a position to do so.
>
> EXACTLY thi
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I'm not willing to change the kernel spec file for this.
>
> The kernel calls 'new-kernel-pkg', which today is provided by grubby.
> Despite the similar name, grubby actually works with more than just
> grub and grub2. It also supports bootlo
On 18 June 2012 15:32, Seth Vidal wrote:
> As dbus is required for various things like networkmanager - does this mean
> that if a server happens to be using nm for network setup that in order to
> apply a security patch to dbus, for example, that the server will require a
> reboot?
Well, if we t
Am 18.06.2012 16:20, schrieb Richard Hughes:
> On 18 June 2012 00:38, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
>> dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
>> fully up and running until saturday sometimes at evening where
>
Am 18.06.2012 16:27, schrieb Jared K. Smith:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> if this is what you call "development" then YES we should
>> stop development now until we have ideas for real
>> improvements instead wasting time by making steps backward
>
> Language like
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
The game is now just about over. What if one day, Microsoft
makes it even harder to install Fedora without a Microsoft
controlled key? What if, as has already happened with ARM,
Micro
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:35:40 +0200
>
> We really can't know whats going to happen down the road, we can only
> act on it as we know it.
LOL -- by all the signs we have available to know it.
Seth
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapro
On 06/18/2012 11:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Microsoft has not refused to grant Fedora a key for ARM.
This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
policy is to keep Fedora, and any other OSes, except for
Microsoft OSes,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
> incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
> policy is to keep Fedora, and any other OSes, except for
> Microsoft OSes, off all Microsoft Certified ARM de
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:56:54AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
> We just need hardware we can install Fedora on, as once we did,
> without asking Microsoft for permission.
System76 have committed to providing hardware without pre-enabled sec
On 06/18/2012 11:14 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
System76 have committed to providing hardware without pre-enabled secure boot.
Matthew, I am delighted to hear this.
Note that this contradicts the claim, made more than once in
this thread, that such an arrangement is, in practice, impossible.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>>
>> > I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
>
> I want Red Hat, Fedora, and the free software community to come to
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 11:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
>>> Microsoft has not refused to grant Fedora a key for ARM.
>>
>> This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
>> incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
>> policy is
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
> incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
> policy is to keep Fedora, and any other OSes, except for
On 06/18/2012 11:54 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
If I understand correctly, Fedora has now formally allowed
Microsoft to lock Fedora out of many coming ARM devices.
Well, no. At this point it's still just a proposal.
--
Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://a
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> But here are two headers of my argument: If we do not defend the
> ground on which free software lives and grows, we will shortly
> have no free software. Part of the ground is that we need ask no
> permission of Microsoft, nor any
On Sun, 17.06.12 10:53, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 03:06:10PM +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:57:30 +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote
> >
> > > One of the most inportant advance of Linux over Windows is the
> > > fact, th
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Andre Robatino
wrote:
> Ben Rosser gmail.com> writes:
>
>> It seems to me that we should make the boot menu more consistent somehow. I
> feel like the simplest solution is just to run grub2-mkconfig at every kernel
> update, and stop using grubby for this. Then ev
On 18/06/12 15:56, Ben Rosser wrote:
ould seem like a better idea to me.
Hmm, okay.
In that case, would it be possible (or at least, a better idea) to
modify *grubby* to call grub2-mkconfig when the bootloader is grub2?
Then we'd still have all the other abstractions for other bootloaders
but ne
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> I mean, have you ever tried to upgrade firefox while running firefox? If
> you did, you know how awfully wrong that goes... [1]
I run Mozilla's nightly builds and receive updates every day. They
disrupt nothing because Mozilla has buil
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 11:14 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:56:54AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> > >
> > > We just need hardware we can install Fedora on, as once we did,
> > > without asking Microsoft for permiss
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 11:54 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> Just one word before I break off, if I can ;), engagement for today:
>
> If I understand correctly, Fedora has now formally allowed
> Microsoft to lock Fedora out of many coming ARM devices.
The use of the term 'allowed' implies that we
Am 18.06.2012 18:09, schrieb Lennart Poettering:
> I mean, have you ever tried to upgrade firefox while running firefox? If
> you did, you know how awfully wrong that goes... [1]
>
> So, you have three problems: a) you cannot safely determine what to
> restart. b) you cannot restart many compone
On 18 June 2012 17:36, Reindl Harald wrote:
> and now you come the road and thell us firefox can not be
> updated while it is running? strange that i apply FF updates
> since years in my daily workload and after all are finished the
> browser get's restarted or even at the next day if the update
>
On Wed, 13.06.12 15:00, Petr Pisar (ppi...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On 2012-06-13, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> >
> >== https://bugzilla.redhat.com/815790 ==
> > clear_console: New helper program to clear the *console*,
> > including the _scrollback buffer_.
> >
> > DESCRIPTION
> >
> > clear_console
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:14:11 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:56:54AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>> >
>> > We just need hardware we can install Fedora on, as once we did,
>> > without asking Microsoft for permission.
>>
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> A couple of concerned Red Hat / Fedora developers - Peter and Matthew -
> have stated that they are unhappy that the certification requirements
> for Windows ARM client devices don't state that the user should be able
> to disable Secure
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:54:20 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>>
>> > This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
>> > incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Mic
Hi all,
I have a doubt regarding the '.so's' in devel packages... From my
understanding they go in devel packages to allow the installation of
several packages with different versioning
Who defined this? Is this part of some standards (ex: LSB, etc) ?
Is there some written documentation abou
Audacious 3.3-alpha1 will be landing in Rawhide.
Compared with previous releases in F-17 (and older) it is
API/ABI-incompatible once again. I've had a look at what will be necessary
to patch dependencies and will take care of patching and rebuilding in the
Fedora package collection as necessary.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:23:53 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>
>> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> >
>> >> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>> >
On 06/18/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sorry for the self-reply, but just in case it's not brutally clear yet,
I wanted to explicitly state this:
[snip]
Bravo!
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedorap
On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Grubby does not work fine with GRUB 2, it creates sloppy menu lists that
>> eventually break the advanced menu entries, as well as totally departing
>> from any user customization of /etc/default/grub.
>
> … vs. grub2-mkco
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:23:16 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> I have a doubt regarding the '.so's' in devel packages... From my
> understanding they go in devel packages to allow the installation of
> several packages with different versioning
> Who defined this? Is this part of
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:18:35 -0700, you wrote:
>On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Much good stuff deleted.
>Fedora can deplore the situation; Fedora can state its support for
>computing devices which allow the user the freedom to install
>alternative operating system soft
On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
> I will say: A political campaign
> that rebukes Microsoft.
For what? Come up with three example picket sign messages for your campaign,
and *briefly* elaborate on each one using less than 60 words each.
> A stand that does not accommodate Micr
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
> but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an incorrect
> premise. That premise is to assum
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 14:42 -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> In this connection, the claim is that if we actually purchase
> something (and do not contract the transaction otherwise), then as our
> property we can do with it as we see fit. The notion that there's
> another kind of transaction where n
On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 2) Government. If a large enough set of national governments required
> that secure boot be disabled by default then we could assume that
> arbitrary hardware would work out of the box. It's unclear to me which
> laws you think the vendors
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 18:23 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> I have a doubt regarding the '.so's' in devel packages... From my
> understanding they go in devel packages to allow the installation of
> several packages with different versioning
Not really, no. They go in -devel pac
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 06/18/2012 09:24 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> I run Mozilla's nightly builds and receive updates every day. They
>> disrupt nothing because Mozilla has built infrastructure to make that
>> possible. Firefox must be restarted for the updat
Greetings.
We have some users who are owners or initialcc on Fedora packages, but
have no bugzilla account that matches up with the email they have
listed in the Fedora account system.
See:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/861
for more details.
If anyone knows any way to contact the f
1 - 100 of 126 matches
Mail list logo
