Am 06.11.2013 21:37, schrieb Josh Boyer:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> FWIW the ship has probably sailed now, but I really don't think it'd be
>> much of a problem to have 3.12 in F20 at release time. It's what I've
>> been running on my F20 box here for the last se
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:30:37 -0800,
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>>
>> FWIW the ship has probably sailed now, but I really don't think it'd be
>> much of a problem to have 3.12 in F20 at release time. It's what I've
>> been running on
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 15:42:56 -0500,
Josh Boyer wrote:
Are you running any ARM machines? My understanding is that our F20
kernel has patches that enable important ARM stuff that isn't in
rawhide (3.12) because it was conflicting with the churn. So that
would need to be added and tested,
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:30:37 -0800,
>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW the ship has probably sailed now, but I really don't think it'd be
>>> much of a problem to have 3.12
>> Are you running any ARM machines? My understanding is that our F20
>> kernel has patches that enable important ARM stuff that isn't in
>> rawhide (3.12) because it was conflicting with the churn. So that
>> would need to be added and tested, given ARM is primary on F20.
>
>
> Not with 3.12. Th
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:26:48PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> places - _the_ distribution, _the_ app store, _the_ amazon.com. And
> the difficulty of getting a set of bits to amazon.com / an app store /
> a RPM is very similar.
If one will immediately solve it for multiple distributions, then
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>>> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:30:37 -0800,
>>> Adam Williamson wrote:
FWIW the ship has probably sailed now, but
>>> Are you running any ARM machines? My understanding is that our F20
>>> kernel has patches that enable important ARM stuff that isn't in
>>> rawhide (3.12) because it was conflicting with the churn. So that
>>> would need to be added and tested, given ARM is primary on F20.
>>
>> The main issu
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 15:37 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 08:00 -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> >> We have a slight issue with the 3.12 kernel timing in that it is too
> >> late to push it into Fedora 20, but too far aw
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 15:42 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:30:37 -0800,
> > Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> FWIW the ship has probably sailed now, but I really don't think it'd be
> >> much of a problem to h
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 15:37 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 08:00 -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
>> >> We have a slight issue with the 3.12 kernel timing in that
Thanks to those that were able to join us for the status meeting today, for
those unable the minutes are posted below:
Minutes:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2013-11-06/fedora-meeting-1.2013-11-06-21.01.html
Minutes (text):
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1
2013/11/6 Olav Vitters
> If one will immediately solve it for multiple distributions, then the
> gain is immensely higher. An IMO, it is not about RPM vs another
> packaging format. To get into Fedora, you need an account, reviews, etc.
> It is a pretty long process.
>
Has this "sanboxed-bundled
On 11/03/2013 08:23 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Michael Scherer wrote:
However, since you didn't explained at all what are the issues you are
facing with the new approach, and since you have only explained how you
are doing on your 20 servers ( which is totally unrelated to the
question of desktops,
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
> We don't have a way of telling which updates REQUIRE reboot(*)--but solving
> this problem by rebooting always is not right, in my opinion.
This information is already available in bodhi. It's probably not
very accurate, but it is there
Am 06.11.2013 23:03, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Przemek Klosowski
> wrote:
>> We don't have a way of telling which updates REQUIRE reboot(*)--but solving
>> this problem by rebooting always is not right, in my opinion.
>
> This information is already available in
On 11/06/2013 05:08 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 06.11.2013 23:03, schrieb Miloslav Trmač:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:56 PM, Przemek Klosowski
wrote:
We don't have a way of telling which updates REQUIRE reboot(*)--but solving
this problem by rebooting always is not right, in my opinion.
This in
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:55:30PM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
> Has this "sanboxed-bundled-from-upstream" proposal been discussed with
> other distributions? If the final result is that the "Universal Linux
> Package" only works in Fedora we are not gaining anything.
A lot of this is being base
On Wed, 6 Nov 2013 19:43:25 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > What is the recommended procedure to test new .appdata.xml files?
>
> Install them to /usr/share/appdata/ -- i've not tested this with
> Fedora 20, but I know it works if you're using the rawhide package.
Yes, with Rawhide it works and
NOTE: The 32- and 64-bit Security Spins are over their respective size
targets.
As per the Fedora 20 schedule [1], Fedora 20 Beta Release Candidate 5
(RC5) is now available for testing. Content information, including
changes, can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5787#comment:29
Christian Schaller wrote:
> So it is item 3 that the PRD is addressing. An example here would be
> Google Chrome. Google provides a yum repo for Google Chrome for Fedora and
> Google stands behind Chrome legally, so if they also do the work of
> putting in an appdata file there we should figure out
Josh Boyer wrote:
> I don't think we need to force the same policy across all 3 products.
> I DO think we need to discuss adjusting the policy with the people
> that set the current policy though. That would be FESCo and the
> Board. I'm going to guess they have reasons for not allowing third
> p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hi all,
Beta RC5 images have been uploaded to EC2 and are available at
ami-8b4219e2 : us-east-1 image for i386
ami-2f421946 : us-east-1 image for x86_64
additionally if your looking to the AMI's they have been added to files
in the release tree
htt
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
> Application sandboxing/bundling is not mutually exclusive with a
> coherent system and with keeping control, it's just not an RPM as we
> know it. What we need to acknowledge is that delivering integral parts
> of the operating system and delivering third party apps are
> fund
Olav Vitters wrote:
> The definition given by Frank Murphy is totally different and doesn't
> align with above. Above also doesn't relate to developers.
These align a lot with what I wrote though. :-)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/power_user
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_user
Kevin K
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Can we go one level up - should even Fedora be a name of a product? With
> Server/Workstation/Cloud and other as variants? Or can we treat Fedora as
> a project covering all different products using different names?
Please no…
> KDE guys tried this rebranding a long time
Olav Vitters wrote:
> AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
> is based upon systemd.
That means it will exclude the most popular distribution out there.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/ma
Josh Boyer wrote:
> Isn't that very "let's try it and see what happens!" approach exactly
> what we're doing with Fedora.next?
I also have strong doubts that what you call "Fedora.next" is going to be of
any benefit to us. The existing system with the Spins and SIGs just worked,
what's the point
Josh Boyer wrote:
> What you say makes some sense. It also makes me very tired thinking
> about the threads coming when the details start getting presented by
> the WGs :). I guess that's what we've signed up for though.
Well yes, each time you try to force a change through which actually makes
Michael scherer wrote:
> PPA are populars, so does OBS. They are not perfect, but they work good
> enough for people ( and it seems good enough for us to replicate, despites
> PPAs being a time bomb, breaking Ubuntu upgrade in various way ).
Well, these ARE the way if you really need to ship somet
Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 01:13 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Simo Sorce wrote:
>> > * and *ideally* I mean SELinux sanbdboxed with specific APIs that must
>> > be used to interact with the rest of the system, so that the
>> > application doesn't have free reign over users files.
>
Olav Vitters wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:00:16AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> > Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on
>> > the various bundling techniques that were explored and the API/ABI
>> > guarantees we want to offer? I'll stop
Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> I'm no longer using it so I'm going to retire it. Feel free to take it
> over.
If you want other people to take your package over, you need to orphan it,
NOT retire it! Retiring is for when you think a package needs to go away for
good.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel ma
Adam Williamson wrote:
> It's not a clear calculation _at all_, and it's a pure counterfactual,
> so more or less impossible to determine with any certainty. An equally
> possible result is that fewer parties _relatively speaking_ have a
> strong interest in aiding distro packaging but more parties
Hi
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> I don't believe in that at all. I think that the Free Software community is
> happy with the system as it stands now
>
Well you should speak for yourself instead of assuming that a large
community has only one view.. I think there is r
On Nov 6, 2013, at 1:37 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 08:00 -0600, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
>>> We have a slight issue with the 3.12 kernel timing in that it is too
>>> late to push it into Fedora 20, but too far away from
On Nov 6, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> I don't believe in that at all. I think that the Free Software community is
> happy with the system as it stands now;
In my estimation, there's a better statistical chance you know what makes a
frog happy, than what the free software community
On Tue, 5 Nov 2013 18:38:38 +
wrote:
> Quoting Rahul Sundaram (2013-11-05 17:46:55)
> > Hi
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 11:45 AM, Manuel Faux wrote:
> >
> > > Is it correct that the NetBeans IDE is currently not packed for
> > > Fedora? I checked the "netbeans" package, which was
101 - 138 of 138 matches
Mail list logo
