Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote: > El 2014-10-03 05:31, Andre Robatino escribió: >> >> openSUSE 13.2, scheduled for release in November, will have btrfs as the >> default filesystem. What are the chances that F22 will follow suit, >> assuming >> openSUSE has no major proble

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

Hi, On 03/10/14 07:42, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote: El 2014-10-03 05:31, Andre Robatino escribió: openSUSE 13.2, scheduled for release in November, will have btrfs as the default filesystem. What are the chances that F22 will follow suit, assuming openSUSE has no major problems with it? https://

F-21 Branched report: 20141003 changes

Compose started at Fri Oct 3 07:15:02 UTC 2014 Broken deps for armhfp -- [PyQuante] PyQuante-libint-1.6.4-11.fc21.1.armv7hl requires libint(armv7hl-32) = 0:1.1.6-2.fc21 [audtty] audtty-0.1.12-9.fc20.armv7hl requires libaudcli

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

El 2014-10-03 11:38, Steven Whitehouse escribió: Hi, I should also add (just in case anybody gets the wrong idea!) that I think it should definitely be made as easy as possible for anybody who wants to evaluate running btrfs on Fedora, but it is far too early to make it the default yet, I agre

rawhide report: 20141003 changes

Compose started at Fri Oct 3 05:15:04 UTC 2014 Broken deps for i386 -- [Agda] ghc-Agda-2.3.2.2-5.fc22.i686 requires libHSterminfo-0.3.2.5-ghc7.6.3.so ghc-Agda-2.3.2.2-5.fc22.i686 requires libHShaskeline-0.7.0.3-ghc7.6.3.so

Re: Dash as default shell

On 10-2-14 10:01:45 Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > On 10/02/2014 04:39 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > >> Is it worth considering using Dash as the default (non-interactive) shell > >> in Fedora? > > > > Why starting with changing target of /bin/sh? >

Re: Go packaging

- Original Message - > From: "Haïkel" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:56:11 AM > Subject: Re: Go packaging > > 2014-09-30 16:20 GMT+02:00 Richard W.M. Jones : > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:19:01AM +0200, Haïkel wrote: > >> @R

Re: Go packaging

- Original Message - > From: "Florian Weimer" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:37:46 AM > Subject: Re: Go packaging > > On 09/29/2014 08:54 PM, Haïkel wrote: > > Currently, there is *no* golang packaging guidelines approved, so we > > shouldn't h

Re: Go packaging

- Original Message - > From: "Richard W.M. Jones" > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" > > Cc: "Vincent Batts" > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:45:05 AM > Subject: Re: Go packaging > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 08:54:08PM +0200, Haïkel wrote: > > Currently, there is *

Retiring OpenShift v2 non-client packages from Fedora

OpenShift Origin release 4 no longer supports Fedora, only RHEL/SL/CentOS. The reason is that the ruby in Fedora has progressed so fast that it is no longer compatible with the code in OpenShift Origin. There is currently no plans to update the current code in OpenShift Origin to a newer ruby, ins

Re: The Shimmer Project - Desktop Suites & GTK+ 3

We're working on rewriting the themes. So the patches might not be merged upstream. On 3 October 2014 22:03, poma wrote: > On 11.09.2014 06:42, Satyajit Sahoo wrote: > > Yeah. Got caught up in work. Will merge this weekend. > > I was hoping at least upstream would say that your patch was the r

Re: The Shimmer Project - Desktop Suites & GTK+ 3

Also, this patch misses a lot of stuff which are needed for GTK3.14 compatibility. On 3 October 2014 22:04, Satyajit Sahoo wrote: > We're working on rewriting the themes. So the patches might not be merged > upstream. > > On 3 October 2014 22:03, poma wrote: > >> On 11.09.2014 06:42, Satyajit S

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 04:28:22PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > The thing to note is that in all scenarios, the user *MUST* fully update > their F20 system first, or the results will be undefined and could be > unpleasant. We need to spell this out very clearly to our upgrading > users. Here'

Re: The Shimmer Project - Desktop Suites & GTK+ 3

Yeah. I know. We're working on complete 3.14 compatibility. On Oct 3, 2014 10:11 PM, "poma" wrote: > On 03.10.2014 18:37, Satyajit Sahoo wrote: > > Also, this patch misses a lot of stuff which are needed for GTK3.14 > > compatibility. > > Sahoo, my patch is intended for the specific case, and cer

Re: The Shimmer Project - Desktop Suites & GTK+ 3

They have completey rewritten Adwaita and integrated it into GTK. If they change it again, it'll be hard for them too. But let's hope for the best :D On 3 October 2014 22:18, poma wrote: > On 03.10.2014 18:43, Satyajit Sahoo wrote: > > Yeah. I know. We're working on complete 3.14 compatibility.

Re: The Shimmer Project - Desktop Suites & GTK+ 3

On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 22:20 +0530, Satyajit Sahoo wrote: > They have completey rewritten Adwaita and integrated it into GTK. If > they change it again, it'll be hard for them too. But let's hope for > the best :D Even better to just talk to 'them' - we are right here, and happy to answer questions

Re: EPEL [Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux] #4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages.

#4: Decide on criteria to unretire packages. -+ Reporter: till| Owner: epel-wranglers Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: Policy problem |Version: Re

Re: The Shimmer Project - Desktop Suites & GTK+ 3

We're not relying on any engine and writing CSS only code. So we are at the safe side \o/ And it's awesome to see support for box-shadow in GTK3.14. Keep up the good work. On 3 October 2014 22:25, Matthias Clasen wrote: > On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 22:20 +0530, Satyajit Sahoo wrote: > > They have co

Re: The Shimmer Project - Desktop Suites & GTK+ 3

On 03.10.2014 18:37, Satyajit Sahoo wrote: > Also, this patch misses a lot of stuff which are needed for GTK3.14 > compatibility. Sahoo, my patch is intended for the specific case, and certainly better than without it. poma -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fed

Re: The Shimmer Project - Desktop Suites & GTK+ 3

On 11.09.2014 06:42, Satyajit Sahoo wrote: > Yeah. Got caught up in work. Will merge this weekend. I was hoping at least upstream would say that your patch was the right approach. Did they reply to you on the patches? Kevin Fenzi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1114161#c34

Re: The Shimmer Project - Desktop Suites & GTK+ 3

On 03.10.2014 18:34, Satyajit Sahoo wrote: > We're working on rewriting the themes. So the patches might not be merged > upstream. > Fenzi, there you go. Thanks Sahoo. poma -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of

Re: The Shimmer Project - Desktop Suites & GTK+ 3

On 03.10.2014 18:43, Satyajit Sahoo wrote: > Yeah. I know. We're working on complete 3.14 compatibility. > On Oct 3, 2014 10:11 PM, "poma" wrote: > >> On 03.10.2014 18:37, Satyajit Sahoo wrote: >>> Also, this patch misses a lot of stuff which are needed for GTK3.14 >>> compatibility. BTW Sahoo,

5tFTW: Last bit on Shellshock, plus, Fedora Governance, Flock, Fedocal, and F21 (2014-10-03)

Reposted from . Fedora is a big project, and it’s hard to keep up with it all. This series highlights interesting happenings in five different areas every week. It isn’t comprehensive news coverage — just quick summaries with links to each. Here are the

EPEL Fedora 7 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 14 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-2657/python-oauth2-1.5.211-7.el7 9 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-2748/nodejs-0.10.32-1.el7,v8-3.14.5.10-14.el7 8 https://admin.fe

EPEL Fedora 6 updates-testing report

The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing: Age URL 894 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5620/bugzilla-3.4.14-2.el6 226 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2014-0590/oath-toolkit-2.0.2-4.el6 113 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/update

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 12:37 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 04:28:22PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > The thing to note is that in all scenarios, the user *MUST* fully update > > their F20 system first, or the results will be undefined and could be > > unpleasant. We nee

Re: Retiring OpenShift v2 non-client packages from Fedora

This makes sense to me, though it annoys me as a token of our failure to be an attractive platform for such use cases. DId you consider providing a copr repository ? Regards, H. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code

Re: Dash as default shell

On 10/01/2014 08:39 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi Is it worth considering using Dash as the default (non-interactive) shell in Fedora? Other distributions including Ubuntu and Debian (https://lwn.net/Articles/343924/) have been using dash as the default shell and Android uses mksh. While this a

Re: Retiring OpenShift v2 non-client packages from Fedora

On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 21:43 +0200, Haïkel wrote: > This makes sense to me, though it annoys me as a token of our failure > to be an attractive platform for such use cases. > > DId you consider providing a copr repository ? A COPR repository probably wouldn't work, because they'd have to provi

Re: Dash as default shell

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:29:53PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > >Is it worth considering using Dash as the default (non-interactive) > >shell in Fedora? Other distributions including Ubuntu and Debian > >(https://lwn.net/Articles/343924/) have been using dash as the default > >shell and Android

Re: Retiring OpenShift v2 non-client packages from Fedora

2014-10-03 22:30 GMT+02:00 Stephen Gallagher : > > > > On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 21:43 +0200, Haïkel wrote: >> This makes sense to me, though it annoys me as a token of our failure >> to be an attractive platform for such use cases. >> >> DId you consider providing a copr repository ? > > > A COPR repo

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

On Wed, 2014-10-01 at 16:28 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 12:16 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > There has been some discussion in various forums lately about how we > > will handle fedup upgrades from Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 products. > > > > Several suggestio

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 16:57 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > To that end, fedup will grow a new mandatory option: --product. It will > take one of four arguments: "standard" (non-productized), "server", > "workstation" or cloud. I volunteered to come up with the text if you dont' specify --produc

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

Hi On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > To that end, fedup will grow a new mandatory option: --product. It will > take one of four arguments: "standard" (non-productized), "server", > "workstation" or cloud. > When the discussion about the "standard" name came up earlier i

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

Am 03.10.2014 um 23:12 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > To that end, fedup will grow a new mandatory option: --product. It will > take one of four arguments: "standard" (non-productized), "server", > "workstation" or cloud. > > Wh

Re: Dash as default shell

On 10/03/2014 02:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:29:53PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: Is it worth considering using Dash as the default (non-interactive) shell in Fedora? Other distributions including Ubuntu and Debian (https://lwn.net/Articles/343924/) have been using

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

Hi On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > "generic" is technical speak or for "normal" people outside IT at best > has a negative context to "generica" and spam It is not really technical. Generic is often used in other contexts by "normal" people: Ex: Generic drugs which mea

Re: Dash as default shell

On 10/03/2014 03:55 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: On 10/03/2014 02:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:29:53PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: Is it worth considering using Dash as the default (non-interactive) shell in Fedora? Other distributions including Ubuntu and Debian (ht

Re: Dash as default shell

Hi On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Garry T. Williams wrote: > > $ (checkbashisms -f -p $(grep -rlE '^#! ?/bin/(env )?sh' /usr/bin) ) > 2>&1 >/dev/null|grep 'possible bashism'|awk '{print $4}'|sort -u|wc -l > 113 > $ > > Many of these trigger multiple warnings from checkbashisms. The

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

Am 03.10.2014 um 23:57 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > "generic" is technical speak or for "normal" people outside IT at best > has a negative context to "generica" and spam > > > It is not really technical. Generic is often used in ot

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

Hi On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > "generic drugs" is the one thing nobody wants to have in context honestly > Not true but irrelevant anyway since I was just pointing out that generic is not a technical term. why would you try to force somebody to a "prodcut setup" >

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

Am 04.10.2014 um 00:29 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > "generic drugs" is the one thing nobody wants to have in context honestly > > Not true but irrelevant anyway since I was just pointing out that generic is > not a technical term. >

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

Hi On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > and *because* non productized variants are continued there should > be no emphasis instead *equal options* > Fedora as a project has already discussed that extensively and decided otherwise. We are not really revisiting that discussion

Re: Dash as default shell

On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:14 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Hi > > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Garry T. Williams > wrote: >> >> >> $ (checkbashisms -f -p $(grep -rlE '^#! ?/bin/(env )?sh' /usr/bin) ) >> 2>&1 >/dev/null|grep 'possible bashism'|awk '{print $4}'|sort -u|wc -l >> 113 >> $

Re: Dash as default shell

Hi On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Nico Kadel-Garci wrote: > And it's going to break backports to EPEL for RHEL 5 or RHEL 6, or > CentOS or Scientific Linux, pretty seriously > Please explain how. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailma

Re: Dash as default shell

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 06:14:05PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 9:04 AM, Garry T. Williams > wrote: > > > > > $ (checkbashisms -f -p $(grep -rlE '^#! ?/bin/(env )?sh' /usr/bin) ) > > 2>&1 >/dev/null|grep 'possible bashism'|awk '{print $4}'|sort -u|wc -l > > 113 >

Re: Dash as default shell

Hi On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > But why? Seriously, bash has lots of nice extensions, are you going in > this > quest to stop using extensions > You seem to have misread what I said. Bash is great and I love some of the extensions but if you want to use bash, just

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 17:06 -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: > standard: choose this if none of the above apply; in particular > choose >this if you are using an alternate-desktop spin of Fedora I'd add a comma right after "in particular." > Feedback from this wide audience appreciated. Would you k

Re: Dash as default shell

Once upon a time, Jakub Jelinek said: > But why? Seriously, bash has lots of nice extensions, are you going in this > quest to stop using extensions going to suggest that we get rid of GNU C > library extensions usages in the distro programs next, or GCC extensions, > what else? To be fair, port

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 06:18:11PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > I agree with Rahul that "standard" is not a great name for the > nonstandard, non-productized upgrade, though. "Generic" is more > descriptive anyway. But vanilla is the most delicious. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader

Re: How to handle upgrades to Fedora 21

Hi, > I agree with Rahul that "standard" is not a great name for the > nonstandard, non-productized upgrade, though. "Generic" is more > descriptive anyway. I'm not sure it's worth repainting the bikeshed at this point, but during the alluded-to discussion a few alternative names came up that woul

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

On Fri, 2014-10-03 at 13:18 +0200, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote: > El 2014-10-03 11:38, Steven Whitehouse escribió: > > Hi, > > I should also add (just in case anybody gets the wrong idea!) that I > > think it should definitely be made as easy as possible for anybody who > > wants to evaluate running bt

Re: Dash as default shell

Hi On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > > To be fair, portable programs wrap GCCisms in #ifdefs. > Indeed. To wrap this up for now, I have filed https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1352 Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.o

Re: Dash as default shell

On 10/04/2014 01:04 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote: On 10/03/2014 03:55 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote: On 10/03/2014 02:34 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Oct 03, 2014 at 02:29:53PM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: Is it worth considering using Dash as the default (non-interactive) shell in Fedora? Oth