Hello Milos,
Monday, January 18, 2010, 2:27:22 PM, you wrote:
> is there any good way how to handle the situation described at
>
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528524
>
> ?
>
> I.e. you have a single library (single soname) which can be compiled
> with or without GUI support (with d
Hello Kevin,
On Thursday, August 12, 2010, 8:04:12 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> The F-(x) package will have higher EVR than the F-(x+1) one. This
>> will break the upgrade path. Is there any measures to prevent this?
> No. In fact FESCo specifically refused to consider this
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 11:52:33 AM, Kevin wrote:
> Mike McGrath wrote:
>> :( I'm saddened you think so little of us Kevin. I'd have thought we
>> could do both.
> And you think Santa Claus exists, too? ;-)
> Kevin Kofler
http://www.snopes.com/holidays/christmas/photos/badsanta.asp
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:05:16 PM, Kevin wrote:
> Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> My understanding of the SIG concept was that they were groups of people
>> who were self-organizing around a particular theme to further that theme
>> in Fedora, i.e. Games, Live Upgrade, KDE, etc.
> Right, but that makes
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:11:49 PM, Kevin wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> This is where Kevin blames the scenario on not having the same sqlite on
>> all of the Fedora releases, which is another evil plot hatched by the
>> devils of FESCo
> Right. If F12 has a buggy SQLite, then that SQLi
On Friday, August 13, 2010, 1:26:34 PM, Jon wrote:
> Hey, no fair stating the same point as I did, at the same time, but
> better, and without ranting. That's cheating!
> :)
> -J
Sorry... Must be feeling mellow - it's Friday afternoon, and I'm
taking next week off.
I'll make sure I flick
On Thursday, August 26, 2010, 3:17:52 PM, Jeff wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> Great. It works fine on a laptop, in general. But on a
>> desktop/server/workstation that is connected for weeks at a time (like
>> mine), I don't want to have to do clicky buttony stuf
On Tuesday, August 31, 2010, 4:59:27 PM, Matt wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 08:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> It doesn't seem to be an unavoidable requirement, it says:
>>
>> "If you proposed Start/Home Page is not similar to the existing Firefox
>> Start Page, please be prepared to provide
On Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 6:41:34 AM, David Howells wrote:
> Would it be worth our while putting into Fedora basic gcc and binutils rpms
> for cross compilers for all the Linux arches? I keep finding the need to
> compile kernels for arches other than the x86_64 boxes I normally use, and I
On Wednesday, September 1, 2010, 9:35:16 AM, I wrote:
> On July 7th, 2009, Mark Salter made a post "crossbuilding rpms with
> koji" on the fedora-buildsys-list".
> http://www.mail-archive.com/fedora-buildsys-l...@redhat.com/msg02148.html
And for folks who prefer the official archive,
http://www
On Tuesday, September 7, 2010, 10:42:54 AM, Richard wrote:
> On 7 September 2010 15:23, James Antill wrote:
> This isn't repodata, it's a separate data package. You /could/ push
> the icons.tar.gz and desktop sqlite database as repodata, although
> it's not going to change for the duration of eac
On Tuesday, September 21, 2010, 2:54:31 AM, Martin Stransky wrote:
> On 09/21/2010 01:45 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-09-12 at 17:50 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>>> Isn't that a security related
>>> update?
>> Ping...
> I'm working on it, recently it's delayed in rel-eng:
> https://fed
On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 8:06:12 AM, drag01 wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Richard W.M. Jones
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 09:58:53PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
>>> 2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski :
>>> > 2010/9/21 Toshio Kuratomi :
>>> >> As the concept of using third
On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 6:19:28 PM, Jesse wrote:
> On 09/22/2010 04:07 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 10:24 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> This is reasonably easy to fix: we should do some testing and withhold
>>> packages from Rawhide if they don't pass som
On Wednesday, September 29, 2010, 4:15:28 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Today it's this package. Tomorrow it'll be another one. Sure we can solve
> this particular problem (but it's taking WEEKS!), but why would that be the
> only one?
See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmxyj6iInMc
Now that the pro
Hello Kevin,
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 5:30:52 PM, you wrote:
> Well, normally it's the s390 arch team's job to fix the build on s390, and
> they should have commit access to all packages, even Firefox. If that's not
> the case, talk to the infrastructure team to get the required access.
>
On Wednesday, October 13, 2010, 6:56:18 PM, Gregory wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 00:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> > * Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not
>>> > simply invested
On Friday, August 26, 2011, 3:35:52 PM, Andrew McNabb wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 04:29:55PM +0200, Karel Zak wrote:
>>
>> Windows and GPT FAQ:
>>
>> Q. Can Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows Server 2008 read, write,
>> and boot from GPT disks?
>>
>> A. Yes, all versions can use GP
On Monday, August 29, 2011, 7:54:10 AM, Karel Zak wrote:
> I'd like to remove:
> ddate - converts Gregorian dates to Discordian dates
> command from rawhide (F17). IMHO this crazy command is used by very
> very small minority of Fedora users.
> Comments?
Why does it matter to you?
On Tuesday, September 6, 2011, 5:28:34 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>> There is one thing I have learned ( so far in the conversion process )
>> and that is that the current model surrounding maintainers and
>> maintainership followed by various policies surrounding that m
On Tuesday, October 25, 2011, 6:32:26 PM, Michael wrote:
> Luke Macken wrote:
>>> In case you hadn't noticed, response to this has so far been pretty
>>> > negative. It seems people liked being able to tell from the URL what the
>>> > update actually*was*. I must admit I do to. I've resorted to c
Hello Nathaniel,
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 2:01:26 PM, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-12 at 13:57 -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 01:48:19PM -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>> >
>> > With this approach, you have lost a critical feature: the ability for
>> >
On Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 3:04:36 PM, I wrote:
> For the Intel arches, it may make sense to have all kinds of X drivers
> available by default. For the secondary arches, the user requirements
> and physical environment.
Brain fart - I meant to say "and physical environment differ".
Al
--
deve
-1. Nay. NoWay. No thanks. Uh uh.
I could find little or nothing in your proposal to which I agreed... so
decided not to quote any.
I just registered at Fedoraforums.org and voted "adventurous" in
Adam's poll. Just to make sure my voice is heard, and not the
shouting of f
Hello Seth,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 8:38:44 AM, you wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> On Tuesday 09 March 2010 14:02:07 Seth Vidal wrote:
> I'm sure with the same logic I can say a lot of things.
> What I said was " I want fewer broken things."
> -sv
Seth,
The problem is
Hello Seth,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:37:26 AM, you wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> Hello Seth,
>>
>> Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote:
>>
>>> Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?
>>> -sv
>>
Hello Seth,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote:
> Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?
> -sv
I have limited time to do system installs and maintenance. Sticking
with one distribution helps keep that sane. I have a dual boot XP +
Ubuntu machine that I do some play with
Hello Ewan,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 11:50:21 AM, you wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:33:45AM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> Hello Seth,
>>
>> Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote:
>>
>> > Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why?
>>
Hello Ewan,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 12:41:26 PM, you wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 12:07:20PM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> To some extent, I view my current contribution to Fedora as being
>> unreasonable and insisting that it be able to perform basic server
>>
Hello Michael,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 1:23:59 PM, you wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010 13:08:48 -0500, Al wrote:
>> I want more updates. I want them to be more frequent, incremental and
>> each reasonably well tested. Trying to do too many changes at a time
>> not only leads to an increased lik
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 2:10:04 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> However, I do wonder about some of the concerns about this being
> a requirement for all packages. So, here's a counter-proposal/expansion.
> If need be, each of these policies could be considered separately, although
> they do stack
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 2:49:00 PM, Dan Horák wrote:
> Thanks Bill, this proposal is very similar to my "dump of ideas" posted
> earlier today. The only thing I would like to improve (probably in
> PackageKit) is the presentation of the content in updates-testing to the
> users, to make it more
Hello James,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 2:53:22 PM, you wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 13:41 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>
>> > If you - and the QA team - want to expand your testing activities, focus
>> > on the CRITPATH packages first. Do a good jo
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 3:20:25 PM, Adam Willamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 15:13 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> > 1) All updates (even security) must pass AutoQA tests.
>> > Rationale: If a package breaks dependencies, does not install, or
>> > fails other o
Hello Krzysztof,
Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 3:36:43 PM, you wrote:
> Matthew Garrett writes:
>> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
>> without sufficient testing.
> True.
The whole point of an update may be the deliberate removal of
features/functionalit
On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 7:24:18 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 13:06, Steven I Usdansky
> Your proposal especially doesn't address the third point. How do
> effectively you rollback the package on the mirrors when you don't
> control them?
Assuming reversion to an o
On Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 8:09:40 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 16:08 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
>>> It seems to cast doubt on the value of karma -- just because something
>>> gets lots of positive karma on N doesn't mean that N-1 is ok. Then
>>> again, t
On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 5:59:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 22:44 +, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
>> The LHC is an interesting analogy; it certainly has problems that can be
>> picked out with 20:20 hindsight, but there was no way anyone could have
>> changed the processes
On Wednesday, March 10, 2010, 7:11:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> The update to an older stable release should be made widely available
>> in that release's updates-testing after the equivalent (not
>> necessarily identical) fix has been w
Hello Kevin,
Thursday, March 11, 2010, 8:09:02 AM, you wrote:
> Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> For older releases, the presumption/requirement for stability is
>> higher.
> Nonsense. The previous and current stable releases are both equally
> supported, there isn't one w
Hello Kevin,
On Friday, March 12, 2010, 10:41:53 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
>> Because we don't despise our users. I don't, anyway.
> If we don't despise our users, we shouldn't let them use crap like third-
> party connectivity software which isn't even packaged properly. :-
Friday, March 12, 2010, 10:52:35 AM, spot you wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 10:47 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> I really think this is not the approach, unless Fedora is just for rich
>> people
>> in (theoretically) rich countries. I doubt that's what we want.
> Or we could just make Fedora print money.
Hello Matthew,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 1:47:18 PM, you wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 01:19:07PM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> A) Fedora requires backports for problems that break ABI. Note that this
>> also means that Fedora may need to have people who create non-upstreamable
>> patches t
Hello Simo,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 3:42:41 PM, you wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:21:41 +0100
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> The problem with all the proposals centered on the idea of N-1 as
>> conservative, N as less conservative, including yours above and
>> jreznik's, is that it forces all the
| Accidently sent off-list. Resent.
On Friday, March 12, 2010, 3:05:18 PM, Tuju wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> RHEL has the resources to backport. Centos uses those backpotrs for
>>> free, but does not generate them (unless again the party supporting a
>>> component
Hello Kevin,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 5:33:15 PM, you wrote:
> Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:21:41 +0100
>>> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>>>> The problem with all the proposals centered on the idea of N-1 as
>>>> conservative
Hello Kevin,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 5:39:33 PM, you wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Mar 2010 21:18:11 +0100 Simo Sorce wrote:
>> rawhide? F-13 ?
> No.
> This has already been explained several times!
> Rawhide is not the answer. It comes with disruptive changes (and there's no
> real way to avoid this pr
Hello Jesse,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 6:20:13 PM, you wrote:
> Keeping that cutting-edge release practice, but adding to that stability
> once released would indeed be a very unique and desirable niche for
> Fedora to fill.
Indeed.
It means the Fedora community will have grown up enough to unde
Hello Kevin,
Friday, March 12, 2010, 6:52:32 PM, you wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
>> push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
>> to.
>>
>> Others take the point of view of not updating anythin
Friday, March 12, 2010, 7:02:54 PM, Kevin wrote:
> Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> Maybe part of the answer is that some resources (especially
>> automation) need to be dedicated to keep the core critical components
>> of rawhide from being gratuitously broken and staying t
Friday, March 12, 2010, 7:09:02 PM, Kevin wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
>> to those users, can go start their own project.
> Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users? That's quite
> plausible given the resu
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 6:12:44 PM, Reindl wrote:
> this will not work since if a systemd-unit is present
> systemd no longer is interested in anything from
> /etc/init.d/
> so there is no solution except patch systemd if iptables.service is
> called which will not happen because it would
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 7:15:13 PM, Reindl wrote:
> Am 16.02.2012 00:48, schrieb Al Dunsmuir:
>> On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, 6:12:44 PM, Reindl wrote:
>>> this will not work since if a systemd-unit is present
>>> systemd no longer is interested in an
On Friday, March 2, 2012, 12:23:51 PM, Jóhann wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 05:10 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Again, what access do you need and who have you asked for it?
> It's pretty obvious that this is a proposal I made today thus I have
> asked no one for it nor can I since infrastructure has mad
On Friday, March 2, 2012, 4:21:13 PM, Jóhann wrote:
> Some people seem to be confusing this like this would instantly take
> effect which is not the case here.
> We are just talking about automating the "NonResponsiveMaintainers
> policy" as is so instead of an reporter to manually perform these
On Thursday, November 18, 2010, 2:06:38 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 11/17/2010 10:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 12:42:56AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>>> Because it's NOT a bug in glibc, because what glibc does is CORRECT,
>>> because
>>> it actually POINTS OUT bugs
On Monday, May 17, 2010, 7:24:14 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 14 May 2010 14:22, drago01 wrote:
>> 4) People adding negative karma because "unrelated bug that has been
>> present in the older version is still not fixed"
> I get this all the time. It would be nice to be able to have a
> "discou
Hello Chen,
Thursday, July 8, 2010, 12:05:43 PM, Chen Lei wrote:
> 2010/7/8 Jakub Jelinek :
>> Generally, much better speedup can be achieved by using PGO
>> (-fprofile-generate, run on some testsuite, -fprofile-use).
>> GCC itself is built that way for several years, but it would be useful if
>>
Hello Chen,
Thursday, July 8, 2010, 12:05:43 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> 2010/7/8 Jakub Jelinek :
>> Generally, much better speedup can be achieved by using PGO
>> (-fprofile-generate, run on some testsuite, -fprofile-use).
>> GCC itself is built that way for several years, but it would be useful
On Wednesday, July 9, 2014, 1:24:12 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 09.07.2014 19:18, schrieb Chris Adams:
>> Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
>> Please, no! As soon as you use disparate systems in a network
>> environment, having differing versions of UID_MIN (where recompilation
>> is r
On Saturday, July 19, 2014, 8:20:30 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 7:26 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>> How about not rebuilding the chroot every time... It's not like you have to
>> worry about leftover BR's from building another package.
> That could lead to packages that happen to
Greetings!
I've been a Fedora user since Fedora Core 3, but now I'm starting the
move to the next level - becoming a Fedora packager.
I'm interested in vintage hardware, especially older ATI/Radeon video,
and PPC (Macs & IBM).
I'm hoping to contribute to Fedora development in a couple of areas:
. On Tuesday, November 4, 2014, 10:01:02 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> The Fedora 21 beta release is here, and - as usual - is packed
> with amazing improvements to Fedora, as well as fantastic free
> and open source software, gently harvested for your enjoyment. No
> bits were harmed in the making o
On Tuesday, November 4, 2014, 6:01:35 PM, Robert Mayz wrote:
>2014-11-04 23:55 GMT+01:00 Al Dunsmuir :
>On Tuesday, November 4, 2014, 10:01:02 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
>> The Fedora 21 beta release is here, and - as usual - is packed
>> with amazing improvements to Fedora, as
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 7:21:25 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 05:46 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:37:10PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 09:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> T
On Tuesday, April 10, 2012, 11:27:59 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Horst H. von Brand wrote:
>> That is just irresponsible. BTW, there are too few rawhide consumers as
>> things stand; this would make rawhide be russian roulette, but with 5
>> bullets instead of 1.
> Rawhide IS already Russian roulett
On Tuesday, April 17, 2012, 4:15:53 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:49 PM, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> I do not see anything in the f17 feature page describing any graphical
>> configuration tool. But I also agree that gui configuratio is needed,
>> otherwise it will probably be really
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, 4:27:55 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> ** possibly adjust spec files to require or build-require lbzip2 instead of
>> bzip2.
> Is this necessary? Wouldn't it be better to have lbzip2 Provide bzip2
> or something so that updating all those packages is not n
Hello Al,
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, 5:14:53 PM, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, 4:27:55 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>>> ** possibly adjust spec files to require or build-require lbzip2 instead of
>>> bzip2.
>> Is this necessary? Wo
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014, 2:03:38 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
>> = Proposed System Wide Change: lbzip2 as default bzip2 implementation =
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/lbzip2
>>
>> Change owner(s): Mikolaj Izdebski
>>
>> This change aims
On Friday, April 4, 2014, 1:42:49 PM, Matthew Milleru wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 04, 2014 at 11:32:57AM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
>> As far as I am concerned they are very useful. In more detail I am
>> looking mostly at "Broken deps" and "Summaries", with only an occasional
>> peek at a changelog
On Tuesday 2014-04-29 at 14:15 +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: Default Local DNS Resolver =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Default_Local_DNS_Resolver
>
> Change owner(s): P J P , Pavel Šimerda
> , Tomas Hozza
>
> To install a local DNS resolver trust
Has anyone else noticed problems with the Fedora mailing lists today?
As of last night, I am not getting copied on my posts, but can see
them at https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ppc/2014-May/date.html
I tried checking my mail options, at
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/options/pp
On Thursday, May 15, 2014, 12:42:25 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> More fallout from pkgdb2?
I just send an email to this list about weird problems I have been
experiencing with the ppc mailing list. When I tried to log on to
check my options, I got a 502 proxy error about a DNS lookup fa
On Thursday, May 15, 2014, 8:28:33 PM, I wrote:
> Has anyone else noticed problems with the Fedora mailing lists today?
> As of last night, I am not getting copied on my posts, but can see
> them at
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ppc/2014-May/date.html
> I tried checking my mail opt
On Friday, May 30, 2014, 12:22:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2014-05-29 at 18:24 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 03:43:49PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>> Isn't this driver therefore required by this emulated card? Or does
>> another driver do the job?
> No and ye
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 2:53:33 PM, Till Mass wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:01:53AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:24:09 +0200
>> Till Maas wrote:
>> > yaboot dwmw2, dwmw2, fkocina,
>>
>> this is a secondary arch only package since F-12, so it s
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 10:05:22 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 10:33 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> Is the mga450 supported? Aside from formal graphics test days, I can
>> run whatever tests required on x86 (both 32-bit and 64-bit).
> Define "supported&q
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 5:15:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-06-02 at 16:52 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> On Monday, June 2, 2014, 10:05:22 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> > On Sat, 2014-05-31 at 10:33 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> >> Is the mga450 supported? A
On Monday, June 2, 2014, 5:54:10 PM, Till Mass wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> Please do not start deleting ppc32-only packages.
>>
>> A few of us would like to resurrect ppc32, likely initially as a
>> Fedora Re
On Tuesday, June 3, 2014, 2:37:49 AM, Dan Horák wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jun 2014 23:54:10 +0200
> Till Maas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>>
>> > Please do not start deleting ppc32-only packages.
>> >
>> > A
>>
>> > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 04:36:28PM -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>> > > On Monday, June 2, 2014, 2:53:33 PM, Till Mass wrote:
>> > > > On Mon, Jun 02, 2014 at 11:01:53AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote:
>> > > >> On Sun, 1 Jun 2014 11:24:09 +0200
On Saturday, July 14, 2012, 7:25:15 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> See:
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Binary_Firmware
> Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
>> Question about that: The first requirement is that the file is
>> non-executable. Does that mean that Fe
On Tuesday, January 6, 2015, 11:25:19 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> As of 6th of January 2014, Fedora 19 has reached its end of life for
>> updates and support.
> Yay!
> Does this mean Schrödinger's cat is actually dead?
> josh
Wulf's looked bette
On Thursday, October 24, 2013, 4:41:09 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-08-27 at 10:46 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> For F21, I plan to orphan the following X video drivers:
>> ...
>> xorg-x11-drv-mach64
>> xorg-x11-drv-r128
>> ...
> These have now been orphaned.
I would like to volunteer to
On Monday, October 28,2013, 6:00:07 AM, the owner-change drone spake:
> Change in ownership over the last 168 hours
> ===
> 23 packages were orphaned
> -
> . . .
> xorg-x11-drv-r128 [devel] was orphaned by jwboyer
> Xorg X11 r128
On Monday, October 28, 2013, 10:07:05 PM, I began...
I left IBM in 2002. Since then, I have joined RBC, and spend my days
developing a mainframe file/data server (written in C and assembler -
about 250 KLOC) and a few bits and pieces on AIX.
I'm still a quite active coder, just not so much hardw
On Wednesday, November 27, 2013, 2:30:23 PM, Ralph Bean wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 07:46:28PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 12:35:13PM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 19:21:53 +0100,
>> > Till Maas wrote:
>> > >
>> > >What are your opinions a
On Monday, June 4, 2018, 4:35:34 AM, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64 =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/i686_Is_For_x86-64
> Owner(s):
> * Florian Weimer
> Fedora builds its i686 packages for use on x86-64 systems as multi-lib RPMs.
> == Detailed d
89 matches
Mail list logo
