Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:37:07PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > On 01/22/2014 03:47 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: > >On 22 January 2014 12:09, Richard Hughes wrote: > >>>That's a long way from what I'd like to see, but it's going up at about 1% > >>>per > >>>month, which is encouraging.

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 22 January 2014 21:44, Matthew Miller wrote: >> Richard already wrote a plugin :) >> https://github.com/GNOME/gnome-software/blob/e80d751ae0768a8969ff52e1cfc29a692a79bda0/src/plugins/gs-plugin-fedora-tagger.c > Clearly, an excellent idea, then. :) Yes, it's all wired up and working in Fedora r

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 23 January 2014 08:07, David Tardon wrote: > You seem to be operating under a delusion that, if someone's package is > forcibly dropped, (s)he will automatically seek comaintainership of > another package "to fill the vacuum". That is not very likely. What is > likely, however, is that (s)he wi

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Hi, On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:09:25PM +, Richard Hughes wrote: > Hi, > > As the subject suggests, Fedora 22 will require applications to have a > long description to be shown in the software center. We're introducing > this change so that we can show a powerful application full of > high-qua

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 23 January 2014 08:34, David Tardon wrote: > I have noticed that there are applications on the list that have > NoDisplay=true in their desktop file, e.g., libreoffice-startcenter. I've just downloaded libreoffice-4.2.0.2-2.fc21 and it has: [Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Terminal=false NoDisplay

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 01/23/2014 08:07 AM, David Tardon wrote: On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:37:07PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 01/22/2014 03:47 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 22 January 2014 12:09, Richard Hughes wrote: That's a long way from what I'd like to see, but it's going up at about 1% per mo

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Am 23.01.2014 10:23, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > "A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release > in half a decade" Which poses security risk and bugs not being dealt > and bad end user experience if our end user base chooses to install it have you ever considered software a

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 23 January 2014 10:12, Reindl Harald wrote: > have you ever considered software as done and no known bugs? Okay, I'll bite. > ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/apps/sound/mp3-utils/mp3info/ > upstream may dead, upstream my be alive but nothing to do > the software does what it is expected to do

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Am 23.01.2014 12:13, schrieb Richard Hughes: > On 23 January 2014 10:12, Reindl Harald wrote: >> have you ever considered software as done and no known bugs? > > Okay, I'll bite. > >> ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/apps/sound/mp3-utils/mp3info/ >> upstream may dead, upstream my be alive but no

[389-devel] Running lib389 tests

Hi Thierry + @all, I'd like to play with the new lib389 and try to split DirSrv in two layers: - the "old approach" DSAdmin for TCP communication - DirSrv implementing your interface essentially I would put class DirSrv(DSAdmin): # ...new stuff go here ... class DSAdmin(SimpleLDAPObject):

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:23:49AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > On 01/23/2014 08:07 AM, David Tardon wrote: > >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:37:07PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >>On 01/22/2014 03:47 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: > >>>On 22 January 2014 12:09, Richard Hughes wrot

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Hi, On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:51:53AM +, Richard Hughes wrote: > On 23 January 2014 08:34, David Tardon wrote: > > I have noticed that there are applications on the list that have > > NoDisplay=true in their desktop file, e.g., libreoffice-startcenter. > > I've just downloaded libreoffice-4

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Richard Hughes wrote: > As the subject suggests, Fedora 22 will require applications to have a > long description to be shown in the software center. What constitutes an 'application' in this sense? Does 'gcc' count for instance? How about 'find'? David -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fed

Re: LibRaw soname bump

It doesn't build anyway. I've found that the latest release, 0.9.4, does, but I see you've discovered that as well. :) -J On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Christopher Meng wrote: > Jon please don't rebuild oyranos, I'm working on this now. > > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraprojec

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 23 January 2014 12:37, David Howells wrote: > What constitutes an 'application' in this sense? Does 'gcc' count for > instance? How about 'find'? No. In the AppStream and AppData definitions, a program is an application if "it has a .desktop file that is visible in the menu". i.e. not NoDisp

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 01/23/2014 12:09 PM, David Tardon wrote: No, I think your reasoning is faulty and your attempts to see everything in just black and white is fundamentally flawed. Anyway, that_was not_ the point of my mail. What I wanted to point out is that forced removal of packages_is not_ going to guaran

Re: LibRaw soname bump

It built very well(I did it this afternoon), you can check it out from Koji. Hmm...Only some tiny issues need to be solved. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Am 23.01.2014 14:06, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > On 01/23/2014 12:09 PM, David Tardon wrote: >> No, I think your reasoning is faulty and your attempts to see everything >> in just black and white is fundamentally flawed. Anyway, that_was not_ >> the point of my mail. What I wanted to point out

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:23:49AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > "A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release in > half a decade" > Which poses security risk and bugs not being dealt and bad end user > experience if our end user base chooses to install it. > ( because if

Re: Unannounced soname bump: libdbi?

Hi, that was my mistake. Now both libdbi and libdbi-drivers are in new version in rawhide. -- Jan Pacner On 01/21/2014 09:53 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote: > Hi, > > Looks like yet another unannounced soname bump has occurred in > Rawhide, this time libdbi. If there was an announcement, I haven't > no

[perl-Lucy: 9/28] - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Mass_Rebuild

commit 588c2846f5dd6cc34ee19c4f5d48c16a77bfab6e Author: Jesse Keating Date: Sun Jul 26 08:52:26 2009 + - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Mass_Rebuild perl-KinoSearch.spec |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-KinoSear

[perl-Lucy: 10/28] Fix typo that causes a failure to update the common directory. (releng #2781)

commit a3b0855529b189fa3fce927e44b26d51317b5083 Author: Bill Nottingham Date: Wed Nov 25 23:30:57 2009 + Fix typo that causes a failure to update the common directory. (releng #2781) Makefile |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/Makefile

[perl-Lucy: 8/28] - Upstream applied our PowerPC patch

commit 2ad1e209c36e91a10656f7df9ced468e330bdb0a Author: Lubomir Rintel Date: Mon Apr 13 16:17:04 2009 + - Upstream applied our PowerPC patch .cvsignore |2 +- perl-KinoSearch.spec |7 --- sources |2 +- 3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletio

[perl-Lucy: 13/28] dist-git conversion

commit 2fe799fe2f02ad50608729f96dcb12df0301a34f Author: Fedora Release Engineering Date: Thu Jul 29 07:06:02 2010 + dist-git conversion .cvsignore => .gitignore |0 Makefile | 21 - import.log |1 - 3 files changed, 0 inserti

[perl-Lucy: 17/28] add BR

commit eff1b259ab55eb1b6970f90613ae13d9d71f2733 Author: Marcela Mašláňová Date: Tue Dec 21 10:28:51 2010 +0100 add BR perl-KinoSearch.spec |4 +++- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-KinoSearch.spec b/perl-KinoSearch.spec index 3287f1f..d0bdcdd 1006

[perl-Lucy: 15/28] Filter useless provide

commit 7e278932d2872263ac7a25f122b4533ee6491e87 Author: Lubomir Rintel Date: Sun Dec 12 16:11:03 2010 +0100 Filter useless provide perl-KinoSearch.spec |2 ++ 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-KinoSearch.spec b/perl-KinoSearch.spec index f6c8f12..b

[perl-Lucy: 22/28] Perl 5.16 rebuild

commit be9ced862029eaa246aab0beaedbda820859d2a2 Author: Petr Písař Date: Wed Jun 20 22:55:14 2012 +0200 Perl 5.16 rebuild perl-KinoSearch.spec |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-KinoSearch.spec b/perl-KinoSearch.spec index d8b7049..9419d6e

[perl-Lucy: 23/28] - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass_Rebuild

commit 0c79fffcb9e01e3989f5b4364ef9602276f8f09a Author: Dennis Gilmore Date: Fri Jul 20 11:26:26 2012 -0500 - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass_Rebuild perl-KinoSearch.spec |5 - 1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/perl-KinoSea

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Am 23.01.2014 16:49, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > > On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: >> So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate >> repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default > > That wont reduce the bugs reported against i

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default That wont reduce the bugs reported against it... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https:/

[Bug 1057063] perl-Test-Moose-More-0.023 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057063 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version|

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 03:49:17PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate > >repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default > That wont reduce the bugs reported against it... That's not necessarily bad.

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 01/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > >So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate > >repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default >That wont reduce the bugs reported against it... That's not necessarily bad. And by categorizing thos

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > On 01/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> > >So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate > >repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default >>> >That wo

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 23 January 2014 15:55, Reindl Harald wrote: > consider packages for removal because upstream does not jump around > and release at least once per year a new version is hmmm... i > must not say the words in public Please stop posting to this thread. Richard. -- devel mailing list deve

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 01/23/2014 04:27 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 01/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > >So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: That doesn't answer the question. You keep using the word "we". Who is we? We in quality assurance if you want us to come up with an official respond regarding inactively maintained packages I can put it on the meeting agenda. JBG -- devel

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:56 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > > Obviously not you... > That doesn't answer the question. You keep using the word "we". Who is we? > To me this is pure community resources leakage due to distribution litterers with the mentality of >packaging *everyt

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:08 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> >> That doesn't answer the question. You keep using the word "we". Who is >> we? >> > > We in quality assurance if you want us to come up with an official respond > regardi

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: If you have specific problems in any packages, feel free to point them out. Tracker bug [1] which fixes requirements on crontab as got approved by the FPC [2]. Each of those ca 50 components contains a patch submitted by myself in last July wh

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > By going through those reports you will notice how long it took for those > patches to be applied as well as see all those that have yet to be applied. > Yep but these are n

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 01/23/2014 05:41 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: By going through those reports you will notice how long it took for those patches to be applied as well as see all thos

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi! On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote: > […] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What > else should be included? What different directions should we > consider? How will we make Fedora more awesome than ever in the > coming

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On Jan 23, 2014, at 5:09 AM, David Tardon wrote: > And at what point does package become > unmaintained? It seems self evident that it's at least insufficiently maintained, if it doesn't meet the long description requirement to appear in software center. I don't know how else you expect this t

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Hi Cutting off inactively maintained packages being the only way we can deal > with that which in turn will reduce the size of the distribution to > something we actually can maintain or cover ( which probably is around 5k > components ) > I don't agree with the premise at all and therefore unsu

[perl-Set-Infinite] Created tag perl-Set-Infinite-0.65-9.el7

The lightweight tag 'perl-Set-Infinite-0.65-9.el7' was created pointing to: 47a8651... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Mass -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:09:25 + Richard Hughes escribió: > Hi, > > As the subject suggests, Fedora 22 will require applications to have a > long description to be shown in the software center. We're introducing > this change so that we can show a

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

On 01/23/2014 06:09 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: I don't agree with the premise at all and therefore unsurprising I don't agree with this conclusion. In any case, I sincerely doubt you will get even a single person other than yourself to agree with this proposal but feel free to try filing a t

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Verbose: Yes, I really think the Fedora needs changes -- at some point > a few years ago we mostly continued to do things as they have "always" > been done (read: since Core and Extras merged), without thinking if > those ways are still

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:18 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > > Oh I see you apparently have no idea what we in the QA community do but > since you dont we dont handle this matters so there is no point for me to > file a ticket it would not lead anywhere > This seems pretty incoherent an

[perl-Date-Simple] Created tag perl-Date-Simple-3.03-13.el7

The lightweight tag 'perl-Date-Simple-3.03-13.el7' was created pointing to: 138c886... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Mass -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl perl-devel mailing list perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.

Re: Git repos location

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:48:00 -0500 (EST) Kamil Paral wrote: > > https://phab.qadevel-stg.cloud.fedoraproject.org/ > > > > The hosting does work over ssh, but I'm noticing some quirks > > - the ssh urls are displayed incorrectly. This may be fixed in the > >latest upstream (the version we're

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On 23/01/14 18:26, Josh Boyer wrote: On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: And I really wonder if Fedora.next is really backed by those community contributors that are not involved in Fedora to deeply. One reason for I wonder the same. However, I don't think it's because

Re: What to do about packaging beta, or rc as alternate installable

Christopher Meng wrote: > But you can do this on copr IMO. Also update-testing is not just a place > for updates to have a break, you can let it satisfy the needs of testing > for unstable. Well, that's kinda abusing updates-testing. IMHO, COPR is the much better option until you have something

[Bug 1056804] (possibly) branch for EPEL 7

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056804 Bill Nottingham changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|NOTABUG

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 23/01/14 18:26, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis >> wrote: >> >>> And I really wonder if Fedora.next is really backed by those community >>> contributors that are not involved in Fedora to deeply. On

Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)

Kevin Fenzi wrote: > While github is nice for pulls and patches, it's not so great for > tickets and support needs. > > github issues are very primitive last I looked and wouldn't meet Fedora > Infrastructures needs, IMHO. I also object to the idea of hosting critical parts of our infrastructure

[perl-DateTime-Set] Created tag perl-DateTime-Set-0.33-2.el7

The lightweight tag 'perl-DateTime-Set-0.33-2.el7' was created pointing to: 271802c... Bootstrap epel7 build -- 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/per

RFC - Downgrade BlueZ to v4.101 in Fedora 20

Hi all, This might be a viewed as a fire torch, but there is, IMO, a major regression in BlueZ 5 which is shipped in Fedora 20. It doesn't support HSP/HFP headset profiles, which enables the microphone on many bluetooth headsets. It's already tracked in this BZ:

Re: RFC - Downgrade BlueZ to v4.101 in Fedora 20

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:53:19 +0100 David Sommerseth wrote: > > Hi all, > > This might be a viewed as a fire torch, but there is, IMO, a major > regression in BlueZ 5 which is shipped in Fedora 20. It doesn't > support HSP/HFP headset profiles, which enables the microphone on > many bluetooth h

Re: RFC - Downgrade BlueZ to v4.101 in Fedora 20

On 23/01/14 19:58, Frank Murphy wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:53:19 +0100 > David Sommerseth wrote: > >> >> Hi all, >> >> This might be a viewed as a fire torch, but there is, IMO, a major >> regression in BlueZ 5 which is shipped in Fedora 20. It doesn't >> support HSP/HFP headset profiles, w

Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)

2014/1/23 Kevin Kofler : > IMHO, projects where Fedora is upstream MUST be on fedorahosted.org, we > should enforce that at least for our infrastructure. IMHO you're absolutely wrong. Fortunately it seems that not so much people agree with you since I see a lot of activily on a given third-party

[Bug 1056804] (possibly) branch for EPEL 7

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056804 Bill Nottingham changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|---

[perl-HTML-TableExtract/epel7] (3 commits) ...Fix requires.

Summary of changes: 51dda63... Perl 5.18 rebuild (*) 567181b... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass (*) f5efb4b... Fix requires. (*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent -- Fedora Extras Perl SIG http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extra

[perl-HTML-TableExtract] Fix requires.

Summary of changes: f5efb4b... Fix requires. (*) (*) 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/mailm

Re: SELinux RPM scriplet issue annoucement

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 09:54 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 23:18 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 01:01 -0600, Ian Pilcher wrote: > > > On 01/20/2014 11:48 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > The bug currently under discussion was caused by a change that

[perl-DateTime-Set] Created tag perl-DateTime-Set-0.33-3.el7

The lightweight tag 'perl-DateTime-Set-0.33-3.el7' was created pointing to: 5a29747... Bootstrap of epel7 done -- 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/p

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:03:02PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Okay, I'll bite (after thinking whether writing this mail is worth it): Thanks. I hope that I can make you feel that it was. > The main reason for that: Fedora.next is a huge effort that seems to > make everything even more comp

Re: What to do about packaging beta, or rc as alternate installable

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 01/23/2014 01:43 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Christopher Meng wrote: >> But you can do this on copr IMO. Also update-testing is not just >> a place for updates to have a break, you can let it satisfy the >> needs of testing for unstable. > > Well, t

Re: RFC - Downgrade BlueZ to v4.101 in Fedora 20

On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:04 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote: > On 23/01/14 19:58, Frank Murphy wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:53:19 +0100 > > David Sommerseth wrote: > > > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> This might be a viewed as a fire torch, but there is, IMO, a major > >> regression in BlueZ 5 whic

Re: RFC - Downgrade BlueZ to v4.101 in Fedora 20

On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 14:17 -0600, Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:04 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote: > > On 23/01/14 19:58, Frank Murphy wrote: > > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:53:19 +0100 > > > David Sommerseth wrote: > > > > > >> > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> This might be a viewed as

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On 23 January 2014 11:48, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > > > Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the way the whole thing > seemed > > to be a fait accompli such that there seemed to be little point doing > > anything other than sitting back and

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > > > On 23 January 2014 11:48, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: >> >> > Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the way the whole thing >> > seemed >> > to be a fait accompli such that

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Hi! > > On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote: >> […] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What >> else should be included? What different directions should we >>

Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center

Hi, On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:06:16AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > > What I wanted to point out is that forced removal > > of packages _is not_ going to guarantee more packager's attention to > > the rest of the distribution. > > Is there a reading comprehension problem in this thread? I don't r

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Hi! > > On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote: > > […] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What > > else should be included? What different directions should

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:03 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hi! > > On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote: > > […] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What > > else should be included? What different directions should we > > consider? How will we make Fedora more awesome th

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:03 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > wikipedia page. Further: kororaproject.org, fedorautils-installer and > similar project show that there are people that want to make Fedora > better. But they do their work outside of Fedora and RPM Fusion; > fixing the issues directly

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor > > hat - that we will lose the gold standard unified packaging standards and > > single source and mechanism for installing packages. > > I haven't seen anything fro

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> > To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor >> > hat - that we will lose the gold standard unified packaging standards and >> > single source and mech

Re: RFC - Downgrade BlueZ to v4.101 in Fedora 20

On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:53 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote: > Hi all, Hi, > This might be a viewed as a fire torch, but there is, IMO, a major > regression in BlueZ 5 which is shipped in Fedora 20. I agree. But everyone probably already knows that. > It doesn't support > HSP/HFP headset profil

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:54 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > >> > To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor > >> > hat - that we will lose the gold stand

Re: RFC - Downgrade BlueZ to v4.101 in Fedora 20

On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:04 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote: > > Nope, several packages depends on the bluez-5.13-1 package. Indeed. However I could probably live without gnome-bluetooth if blueman were still available. pulseaudio-module-bluetooth though. Would it work with Bluez4? Would it nee

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:57:38 -0800 Adam Williamson wrote: > The repos will still exist, but things will be different. At present, > the Fedora repos are the single unified official Fedora method for > deploying software on Fedora products. Any other method you can use to > deploy software is not

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 01:57:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > If these plans go ahead, we will have multiple official/blessed methods > for deploying software on Fedora, potentially with different policies > about what software they can include and how that software should be > arranged, how d

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:54 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > >> >> > To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on th

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On 23 January 2014 14:14, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen > wrote: > > > My view of the matter was pretty much the same as Tom's and I was at > FLOCK. > > The language at the sessions I attended was not one of "We would like to > do > > this" but that it

Re: RFC - Downgrade BlueZ to v4.101 in Fedora 20

On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:56 PM, "Brian J. Murrell" wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:53 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote: > >> As a side note, it also needs to be discussed how such a key feature of >> the bluetooth stack could go unnoticed through QA, and how to avoid this >> from happening again.

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

quoting simplified: >>> is Tom Hughes, >> is me, > is Josh. Restored part of Tom's original context. >> > The actual spins (or whatever you want to call them) aren't something >> > that bother me at all, as they are to my mind largely irrelevant for >> > anybody other than a new user. When I bri

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > quoting simplified: >>> is Tom Hughes, >> is me, > is Josh. Restored > part of Tom's original context. > >>> > The actual spins (or whatever you want to call them) aren't something >>> > that bother me at all, as they are to my mind largely

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 17:26 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are > > technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos, > > the RPM format, or yum/dnf, their plans - under a reasonable > > interpretation of the discussi

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 17:26 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> > Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are >> > technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos, >> > the RPM format, or yum/dnf, the

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 23:37 +0100, drago01 wrote: > > No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a > > vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in Fedora: our > > *only* way. If you want to install the Fedora-y version of a particular > > piece of software, yo

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

Am 23.01.2014 23:37, schrieb drago01: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a >> vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in Fedora: our >> *only* way. If you want to install the Fedora-y vers

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > Am 23.01.2014 23:37, schrieb drago01: >> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson >> wrote: >>> No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a >>> vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in F

Re: .spec file Source0 magic for github release source tarballs?

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 11:09 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote: > On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Miroslav Suchý > wrote: > On 01/21/2014 06:01 PM, Kaleb KEITHLEY wrote: > > > > Take, for example, > https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha/releases, where > there

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 23:37 +0100, drago01 wrote: > >> > No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a >> > vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in Fedora: our >> > *only* way. If you want to instal

Re: Security update process without CVEs

On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 14:32 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:26:19 -0500 > Dan Scott wrote: > > > Hi: > > > > A few hours ago I submitted requests to push perl-MARC-XML directly to > > stable (by filling out the "fedpkg update" request with type=security > > and request=stable)

Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes

Am 23.01.2014 23:49, schrieb drago01: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Reindl Harald > wrote: >> >> Am 23.01.2014 23:37, schrieb drago01: >>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson >>> wrote: No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a vacuum. Ri

Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)

On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:41:52 +0400 > Peter Lemenkov wrote: > > > 2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi : > > > > > Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get > > > it updated. > > > > Don't know what others think, but I personally

  1   2   >