-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 11:07 AM, Phil Knirsch wrote:
> Hi everyone.
>
> A quick update from my side regarding the Base Design WG:
>
> - My proposed committee was approved by FESCO last Wednesday. One
> negative vote came from Stephen Gallagher that he would
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> As an application developer, I'd sure be happy if I didn't have to wait
> 6 months for my app to show up in the distribution I use, and for that
> application to be usable on all compatible distributions.
That's a problem with the distribution's update policies, not with th
Change in ownership over the last 168 hours
===
6 packages were orphaned
jcharts [devel] was orphaned by lotharlutz
A java based charts library
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/jcharts
gettext-commons [devel,
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 10:58 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 12:18:16PM +0100, Florian Müllner wrote:
> > > GNOME decided to break it all the time (can't even get extensions work
> > > from one gnome-shell version to the next one and no gracefully disabling
> > > is still func
When my application runs on all Fedora distributions without changes? No.
I wasn't talking about core apps that are tightly integrated to the desktop,
just of the time it took for somebody to package up "office-runner" from
my 1.0 release to it being in the distribution.
- Original Message ---
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Florian Müllner wrote:
>> ... or users having to update their *entire* system to
>> unstable/experimental versions if they want to try the lastest
>> Firefox/Libreoffice/Eclipse
>
> Then either upstream or the Fedora packager should just build
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> The issue for RTC is that we could be using a royalty free codec, such as
> VP8 instead. Accepting the binary makes it more likely that h.264 will be
> made mandatory to implement, which means any company not wanting to
> implement VP8 can a
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 11:28:21AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> The issue for RTC is that we could be using a royalty free codec,
> such as VP8 instead. Accepting the binary makes it more likely that
> h.264 will be made mandatory to implement, which means any company
> not wanting to implement
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 19:00 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > As an application developer, I'd sure be happy if I didn't have to wait
> > 6 months for my app to show up in the distribution I use, and for that
> > application to be usable on all compatible distributions.
>
> Th
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:28 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 15:46:07 +0100,
>Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> >
> >While I agree that we shouldn't silently install non-free software (and
> >I'm sure Mozilla doesn't want to either), saying that they are
> >effectively non-free is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 12:39 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> You assume that sandboxed apps means we get all the negatives and
>> none of the benefits. That is unwarranted. We can adopt the
>> good parts and improve upon it based on the les
On 04.11.2013 19:25, Florian Müllner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Florian Müllner wrote:
>>> ... or users having to update their *entire* system to
>>> unstable/experimental versions if they want to try the lastest
>>> Firefox/Libreoffice/Eclipse
>>
>> Then eithe
In November of 2009, in time for Fedora 13, we solved a packaging issue in
the main python package that allowed us to remove a split in our
python-setuptools package. Instead of needing a separate
python-setuptools-devel subpackage for easy_install the python-setuptools
package could now contain a
Hi
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz
>> This sounds like a good use case for virtualization. You test your
> unstable apps in your test environment with other unstable software and
> don't need to destroy your workstation. If I were using Kate (to follow
> your example) for m
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 19:35:28 +0100,
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
How is the code from RPMFusion any better? And if getting it through
RPMFusion is acceptable, why is it suddenly unacceptable to do it trough
other means? I don't care about the quality of the code, I just care
that my video is decod
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 12:56 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:39:54PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > The reason we are so strongly opposed to app stores is that we are fairly
> > convinced that the mere fact of having them available WILL:
> > * reduce the number of applicat
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 13:32:45 -0500,
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Inclusion in the respository may be a goal for packages that are
already FOSS, but no one decides on a FOSS license just to be part of
Fedora.
I believe there have been some licenses changed to remove non-commercial
or field
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> Google gave up on that battle, Mozilla gave up on that battle, and
> somehow you expect that the Fedora community can somehow turn the tides?
> There are better ways to push for improvements in this effort (like the
> Daala codec).
Google mos
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 18:31 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> > We still have a problem with MP3, but it does solve a fundamental
> > problem.
>
> We had the same type of solution (just with a different binary producer,
> Fluendo) offered for MP3. We rejected it, due to both poli
Am 04.11.2013 19:25, schrieb Florian Müllner:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Florian Müllner wrote:
>>> ... or users having to update their *entire* system to
>>> unstable/experimental versions if they want to try the lastest
>>> Firefox/Libreoffice/Eclipse
>>
>> Then e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 01:54 PM, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 12:56 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:39:54PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> The reason we are so strongly opposed to app stores is that we
>>> are fairly co
Am 04.11.2013 19:32, schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
e, we probably would end up reducing the number of applications
> available in the standard yum repos. I'm not as convinced as you are
> that this is a bad thing. Right now, there's really no distinction
> between what constitutes the operating syst
Hi
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Then either upstream or the Fedora packager should just build the unstable
> version against the stable Fedora in a PPA. See e.g. kde-unstable for KDE
> betas. We just need to get that COPR stuff (the Fedora PPAs) done so that
> settin
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 10:20:44 -0800,
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Another thing to worry about is how the binary is licensed. Accepting that
license (even in places where software patents don't apply) could
potentially cause issues. I have
Am 04.11.2013 19:33, schrieb Alberto Ruiz:
> It is outrageous that it's 2013 and I still have to upgrade my whole
> system just to get the latest LibreOffice version to name an example.
no it is the reason why who have tousands of packages which are working
togehter and get security updates for a
Am 04.11.2013 19:35, schrieb Alberto Ruiz:
> On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 11:28 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 15:46:07 +0100,
>>Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>>>
>>> While I agree that we shouldn't silently install non-free software (and
>>> I'm sure Mozilla doesn't want to either)
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 19:30:12 +0100,
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
In the meantime we have to be practical, if Mozilla+Google have failed
to push for VP8 and accepted that for now H264 is the way to go, I am
afraid that the reality is that by making it hard to get H264 decoding
in Fedora for users t
On 11/03/2013 03:43 PM, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-11-03 at 14:42 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> That really didn't have anything to do with the merits of Objective C, or
>> even of the desktop, but only with marketing. If Objective C were that
>> great, we'd all be
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 04.11.2013 19:33, schrieb Alberto Ruiz:
>> It is outrageous that it's 2013 and I still have to upgrade my whole
>> system just to get the latest LibreOffice version to name an example.
>
> no it is the reason why who have tousands of pack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 02:01 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 04.11.2013 19:32, schrieb Stephen Gallagher: e, we probably
> would end up reducing the number of applications
>> available in the standard yum repos. I'm not as convinced as you
>> are that this
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> And, by the way, we've been supporting this kind of model with pip
>> and gem already, so I really don't get why all the fuss when
>> suddenly we want to do it with the desktop applications.
>>
>
> Please don't use pip and gem as "positiv
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I was thinking more of the non-commercial use restrictions you might end up
> agreeing to when you accept the license of the binary. In the places where
> software patents didn't apply, you'd probably either use x264 or build
> openh264 fro
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 02:15 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
>>> And, by the way, we've been supporting this kind of model with
>>> pip and gem already, so I really don't get why all the fuss
>>> when suddenly
drago01 wrote:
> You'd be trying to use the lowest common denominator which means you have
> to wait years until all distros you care about ship the newer library.
And how is this Fedora's problem? We don't take years to ship new libraries.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:05 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 04.11.2013 19:33, schrieb Alberto Ruiz:
>> It is outrageous that it's 2013 and I still have to upgrade my whole
>> system just to get the latest LibreOffice version to name an example.
>
> no it is the reason why who have tousands of pack
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 02:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>> You'd be trying to use the lowest common denominator which means
>> you have to wait years until all distros you care about ship the
>> newer library.
>
> And how is this Fedora's problem
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>> You'd be trying to use the lowest common denominator which means you have
>> to wait years until all distros you care about ship the newer library.
>
> And how is this Fedora's problem? We don't take years to ship new librarie
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 10:20:44 -0800,
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
If it is the case that fedora will not utilize this option (or another
to obtain h264 support) and you care about avoiding an outcome where
Fedora is unable to claim conformance with the spec, then someone
probably ought to commen
Am 04.11.2013 20:12, schrieb drago01:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:05 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 04.11.2013 19:33, schrieb Alberto Ruiz:
>>> It is outrageous that it's 2013 and I still have to upgrade my whole
>>> system just to get the latest LibreOffice version to name an example.
>>
>> n
Am 04.11.2013 20:26, schrieb drago01:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> drago01 wrote:
>>> You'd be trying to use the lowest common denominator which means you have
>>> to wait years until all distros you care about ship the newer library.
>>
>> And how is this Fedora's pr
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I have asked on the advisory-board list about getting an official Fedora
> position on OpenH264 before the vote occurs. I don't want to be making
> claims about Fedora on my own on how far Fedora will or won't go in
> supporting OpenH264. (
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 04.11.2013 20:26, schrieb drago01:
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> drago01 wrote:
You'd be trying to use the lowest common denominator which means you have
to wait years until all distros you care a
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> ok - two exceptions - VMware Workstation and ZendStudio
> both are running since years on Fedora systems @home as
> well @work on 4 different workstations
So even your specific case would be helped in such a system. Maybe for
you this are "t
Am 04.11.2013 20:43, schrieb Josh Boyer:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> and why do different distributions exist?
>> guess what: because they have different goals and userbases
>>
>> otherwise we could join all distributions in a big one with
>> doing all but nothing g
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 04.11.2013 20:43, schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> and why do different distributions exist?
>>> guess what: because they have different goals and userbases
>>>
>>> otherwise we could join
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 04.11.2013 20:43, schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> and why do different distributions exist?
>>> guess what: because they have different goals and userbases
>>>
>>> otherwise we could join
Am 04.11.2013 20:47, schrieb drago01:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:31 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> ok - two exceptions - VMware Workstation and ZendStudio
>> both are running since years on Fedora systems @home as
>> well @work on 4 different workstations
>
> So even your specific case would be he
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> that's all true but you can be pretty sure if a "app-store" with
>>> bundeled applications exists *nobody* would package and maintain
>>> th
Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> that's all true but you can be pretty sure if a "app-store" with
>> bundeled applications exists *nobody* would package and maintain
>> them as RPM -> everybody would point with his finger to the app
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> As per other technical/political details, Cisco is not Fluendo,
Indeed. Cisco will actually be WORSE to work with. Fluendo is a company
focusing on GNU/Linux and GStreamer. Cisco is primarily a hardware vendor.
The binaries they provide for their VPNs are notorious for bein
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> If it is the case that fedora will not utilize this option (or another
> to obtain h264 support) and you care about avoiding an outcome where
> Fedora is unable to claim conformance with the spec, then someone
> probably ought to comment about this to the working group.
"S
Florian Müllner wrote:
> This does not work if the unstable package depends on an unstable
> version of a dependency shared with the stable system, e.g. if kate
> depends on an experimental Qt version, your current choice is to not
> test it or have all of KDE use an unstable version of Qt.
Well,
My apologies for the last minute agenda. We'll be holding our initial
WG meeting today at 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode. We'll
cover the various items below. I will try and keep the meeting under
1 hour.
== Logistics ==
- communication channels
- mailing list(s) - env-and-stacks
A new setuptools upstream release (1.2) was made last week that adds support for
subversion 1.7 and 1.8. Subversion 1.7 shipped in Fedora 19 so the
subversion support in setuptools is currently broken in both F19 and F20.
Unless there's objections I'm definitely going to update setuptools in F20.
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> When my application runs on all Fedora distributions without changes? No.
> I wasn't talking about core apps that are tightly integrated to the
> desktop, just of the time it took for somebody to package up
> "office-runner" from my 1.0 release to it being in the distributio
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 03:43:03PM -0500, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
> My apologies for the last minute agenda. We'll be holding our initial
> WG meeting today at 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting on Freenode. We'll
> cover the various items below. I will try and keep the meeting under
> 1 hour.
>
Tha
On 04.11.2013 20:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 11/04/2013 02:01 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>> Am 04.11.2013 19:32, schrieb Stephen Gallagher: e, we probably
>> would end up reducing the number of applications
>>> available in the standard yum repos. I'm not as convinced as you
>>> are that
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> Then you can have a policy that is more suitable to apps with a
> different cadence than the system-wide (rpm/deb/...) repository, in fact
> you may not need a cadence at all.
Such applications should just be shipped as updates to the released
distribution.
Kevin Ko
- Original Message -
> From: "Toshio Kuratomi"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Cc: env-and-sta...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Monday, November 4, 2013 3:48:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Agenda for today's Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2013-11-05)
>
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2013
drago01 wrote:
> Like it or not people already do use alternative distribution models
> for those use cases (try to download firefox from the homepage for
> instance).
> Given people tools to do it properly hurts because of __ ?
… because it will actually get fewer applications packaged properly (
On 04.11.2013 21:03, drago01 wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 9:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>
>> Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald
>>> wrote:
that's all true but you can be pretty sure if a "app-store" with
bundeled applications
Josh Boyer wrote:
> That isn't a great attitude to carry forward. I'd rather try and find
> a good balance between the two so we don't relegate Fedora to less
> than it could be.
"good balance"? Buzzword alert!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing li
Matthew Miller wrote:
> The world has changed here. Whatever power we had to apply this kind of
> pressure is shrinking. In the world of "fork us on github!", "getting into
> a distro" really isn't that important to people anymore regardless of what
> we do.
Huh? How is github relevant to an end u
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 03:51:26PM -0500, Sam Kottler wrote:
> >
> > What's PRD stand for?
>
> Product requirements document [1]
>
> -Sam
>
> 1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_PRD#About_this_Document
>
Ah... We might be a bit different in this WG as we aren't one of the product
working g
- Original Message -
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > When my application runs on all Fedora distributions without changes? No.
> > I wasn't talking about core apps that are tightly integrated to the
> > desktop, just of the time it took for somebody to package up
> > "office-runner" from my 1
- Original Message -
> I don't get your example but I agree with Reindl Harald - Linux
> Distribution is a set of software that works as one coherent
> environment. Let it be 10, 100 or 1000 different packages but
> they're chosen, compiled and adjusted to work together. This is t
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 18:43:32 +1000
Nick Coghlan wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 11/01/2013 05:23 PM, Tim Flink wrote:
> > I'm fine with either direction for now. My hesitation on getting
> > started with 1) is that having a beaker installation is still an
> > ev
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> Indeed, this is a relief to the distro community, suddenly you don't
> have the burden of maintaining all these apps in your system image,
> avoiding any potential problems on upgrades.
At that point, we have rendered ourselves obsolete. Packaging the
applications and ensuri
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 13:29 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> I have asked on the advisory-board list about getting an official
> Fedora
> position on OpenH264 before the vote occurs. I don't want to be
> making
> claims about Fedora on my own on how far Fedora will or won't go in
> supporting Ope
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 03:49 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz wrote:
> On 04.11.2013 20:15, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> On 11/04/2013 02:01 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Am 04.11.2013 19:32, schrieb Stephen Gallagher: e, we probably
>>> would end up reducing th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 04:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> The world has changed here. Whatever power we had to apply this
>> kind of pressure is shrinking. In the world of "fork us on
>> github!", "getting into a distro" really isn't that
> And the application developer suddenly gains back control on how and
> when his app gets delivered to users.
And this is supposed to be a good thing? Looking at much much crap
distro packagers had to fix in the past I really can't think of it as
that.
You then basically need all that container
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/04/2013 03:53 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>> That isn't a great attitude to carry forward. I'd rather try and
>> find a good balance between the two so we don't relegate Fedora
>> to less than it could be.
>
> "good balance"? Bu
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 15:21:56 -0600,
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 13:29 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I have asked on the advisory-board list about getting an official
Fedora
position on OpenH264 before the vote occurs. I don't want to be
making
claims about Fedora on my
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 19:35, Alberto Ruiz a écrit :
> Again, the people who have been fighting for open source media Xiph.org
> and the Mozilla organization have already acknowledge that while this
> situation is not ideal, is an improvement over the current situation,
> I'd say we should trust
- Original Message -
> > And the application developer suddenly gains back control on how and
> > when his app gets delivered to users.
>
> And this is supposed to be a good thing? Looking at much much crap
> distro packagers had to fix in the past I really can't think of it as
> that.
>
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 03:29:02PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> That's not what it says. That just says we won't package the binary.
> What isn't answered is limitations on the process for Firefox
> downloading it in Fedora. I really doubt firefox will be totally
> prevented from downloading the
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Sure, we probably would end up reducing the number of applications
> available in the standard yum repos. I'm not as convinced as you are
> that this is a bad thing. Right now, there's really no distinction
> between what constitutes the operating system and what constitu
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:40 PM, Lars Seipel wrote:
> And other packages wanting to play video or do WebRTC would start to do
> the same thing? I really can't see that happening. If at all, it
> probably would be a Firefox-only exception which I, personally, would
> strongly opppose.
No. Mozilla w
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 18:56, Matthew Miller a écrit :
> The world has changed here. Whatever power we had to apply this kind of
> pressure is shrinking. In the world of "fork us on github!", "getting into
> a
> distro" really isn't that important to people anymore regardless of what
> we
> do.
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 15:29 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> That's not what it says. That just says we won't package the binary. What
> isn't answered is limitations on the process for Firefox downloading it
> in Fedora. I really doubt firefox will be totally prevented from downloading
> the bin
I wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
>> That isn't a great attitude to carry forward. I'd rather try and find
>> a good balance between the two so we don't relegate Fedora to less
>> than it could be.
>
> "good balance"? Buzzword alert!
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Oops, that is actually
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 20:15, Josh Boyer a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 2:01 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> wrote:
>>> And, by the way, we've been supporting this kind of model with pip
>>> and gem already, so I really don't get why all the fuss when
>>> suddenly we want to do it with the desktop ap
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Did you read this link? It talks about exactly what you are doing:
> asserting that the world must either be "distro-package only" or
> "absolute chaos". Josh's perspective is that the problem is far more
> nuanced, which you appear to be ignoring while pushing your false
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 19:48, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
> Hi
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Mateusz Marzantowicz
>
>>> This sounds like a good use case for virtualization. You test your
>
>> unstable apps in your test environment with other unstable software and
>> don't need to destroy your
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 12:46:17PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2013, at 9:40 AM, Jeffrey Bastian wrote:
> > I have a system that corrupts the backup GPT on every reboot.
>
> Certain RAID implementations write metadata at the end of the disk and
> step on the backup GPT in this manner.
Hi
Where i can find old kernels from fc19 updates?
Last 5-6 kernels are totally unstable and unusable.
For example, when i boot machines with many ethernet devices I got random
number ethX. Once eth0 is eth0, after reboot eth0 is eth1. After again boot
eth1 is eth1 and so on. After 1-2 hours mac
Bastien Nocera wrote:
[> Lars Seipel wrote:]
>> You then basically need all that container stuff just so you can be a
>> little less scared at some application developer's broken attempts to
>> "enhance your user experience" by installing suid-root helpers or stuff
>> like that.
>
> Which they wo
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> [> Lars Seipel wrote:]
>>> You then basically need all that container stuff just so you can be a
>>> little less scared at some application developer's broken attempts to
>>> "enhance your user experience" by installi
Am 04.11.2013 22:18, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> Alberto Ruiz wrote:
>> Indeed, this is a relief to the distro community, suddenly you don't
>> have the burden of maintaining all these apps in your system image,
>> avoiding any potential problems on upgrades.
>
> At that point, we have rendered ourse
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:14 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>>
>> [> Lars Seipel wrote:]
You then basically need all that container stuff just so you can be a
little less scared at some application developer's broken at
Am 04.11.2013 22:25, schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
> On 11/04/2013 04:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Huh? How is github relevant to an end user at all? They do not care
>> if the source code of their software comes from github, SourceForge
>> or some lone developer's HDD. They get it all from a distr
On 11/04/2013 02:10 PM, Łukasz Trąbiński wrote:
> Hi
>
> Where i can find old kernels from fc19 updates?
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct:
mån 2013-11-04 klockan 14:58 -0500 skrev Josh Boyer:
> For a large number of upstream projects, they don't care at all about
> being in a distro. They just focus on their project and someone else
> integrates it into the distro. Containerized apps are just another
> way to do that.
No, it is an
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> That's really not true any more in a world built on top of Ruby,
> Django, Node.js...
>
> In most cases, the people using these technologies don't use the
> distribution packages at all. They instead use 'rubgyem-install',
> 'easy_install/pip' and 'npm install'. The only
Le lundi 04 novembre 2013 à 21:02 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>
> Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
> > On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald
> > wrote:
> >> that's all true but you can be pretty sure if a "app-store" with
> >> bundeled applications exists *nobody* would package a
Josh Boyer wrote:
> The addition of a new piece of functionality does not immediately
> taint or modify the core of what Fedora is. Maybe instead of just
> steadfastly asserting there should be no Change, you could work _with_
> people as they try to include Change to address specific needs that
>
Am 04.11.2013 23:50, schrieb Michael Scherer:
> Le lundi 04 novembre 2013 à 21:02 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>>
>> Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
>>> On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald
>>> wrote:
that's all true but you can be pretty sure if a "app-store" with
bun
Le lundi 04 novembre 2013 à 23:16 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>
> Am 04.11.2013 22:25, schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
> > On 11/04/2013 04:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> Huh? How is github relevant to an end user at all? They do not care
> >> if the source code of their software comes from github,
Am 05.11.2013 00:06, schrieb Michael Scherer:
> Le lundi 04 novembre 2013 à 23:16 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit :
>>
>> Am 04.11.2013 22:25, schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
>>> On 11/04/2013 04:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Huh? How is github relevant to an end user at all? They do not care
if the
101 - 200 of 218 matches
Mail list logo
