On 07/10/2011 07:08 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
ell variables has always had a
>> default value of the empty string.)
>
> It achieves afaict the behavior the maintainer wanted if it was up to me
> I would have done this ( whole nfs ) completly differently
>
> Dropped
>
> ExecStartPr
On 07/10/2011 07:31 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> Let's just aggree on disagreeing about this approach anyway the last
> unit file I submitted does what Steve and you and perhaps many others
> want's it to do afaik...
>
To be clear - I have as yet no views on systemd unit files et
On 07/10/2011 09:39 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
>
>
Completely and having administrators add and to set these values
manually in /etc/sysctl.conf as I mentioned in comment 30.
>>>I don't agree with this approach actually. Doing it this way means
>>> that we now have dependen
Its easy enough to build an iso using mock/pungi which will take
advantage of all your local packages ... I really don't know that jigdo
added anything to that - in fact using pungi you always get a fully
updated build without waiting for a jigdo list.
gene
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.
On 11/16/2011 06:21 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On 11/16/11 11:31, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 10:33 +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>>> On 11/15/11 19:03, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Its easy enough to build an iso
On 11/22/2011 12:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:00:43PM +0100, 80 wrote:
>
>> The failure is due to Fedora *non-upstream* versionning scheme,
>> VirtualBox has *already* fixes the API/ABI issue upstream relying on
>> the kernel version (since 3.2 RC). It has nothing to
On 12/14/2011 07:25 AM, Andrew Price wrote:
> Hi,
>
> From the systemd.mount(5) man page:
>
> "Mount units may either be configured via unit files, or via /etc/fstab"
>
> This makes me wonder - to what extent will systemd replace fstab in
> future Fedoras? Will fstab disappear in favour of syste
On 01/03/2012 09:16 AM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> # cat /proc/meminfo >/tmp/1; killall tracker-store; sleep 1; cat
> /proc/meminfo >/tmp/2; cat /tmp/1 /tmp/2 | grep MemFree
> MemFree: 1940372 kB
> MemFree: 1963860 kB
>
> As you see, killing it on my machine freed over 23 megs worth
On 01/09/2012 07:24 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> a concern over the debug opt
Alternatively - just build it without debugging - download the source
rpm(s).
After installing/setting up the rpm tools, unpack (rpm -iv) the source
rpm in ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS dir - then go to ~/rpmbuild/SPEC and do:
rpmbuil
On 01/09/2012 09:38 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 01/09/2012 07:24 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> a concern over the debug opt
>
> Alternatively - just build it without debugging - download the source
> rpm(s).
>
...
Of course (should go without saying ... but) the obvious
On 01/11/2012 09:21 AM, Emanuel Rietveld wrote:
> On 01/11/2012 12:43 PM, Richard wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:53:52PM +0100, nodata wrote:
>>
>>> Fonts are a bigger threat to privacy, see here:
>>> http://panopticlick.eff.org/
>
> Maybe I am missing something, but isn't this only releva
On 01/11/2012 10:11 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 10:03:39AM -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> Odd as it is, IP6 reduces privacy - it was not designed with privacy
>> in mind.
>
> http://ipv6int.net/systems/linux-ipv6.html#privacy
>
Good point
On 01/24/2012 07:24 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 11:23:14AM +, mike cloaked wrote:
>> Fedora would appear to be out of line in not taking on board the
>> potential user base for a rolling release version. For servers there
>> would be huge advantages in management of
On 01/24/2012 07:13 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> How is rawhide not a rolling release? Or perhaps better asked, what
> about rawhide makes it
> unsuitable for use as a rolling Fedora release?
Actually it is totally unsuitable for a stable rolling release.
A rolling release, as most mean it th
On 01/24/2012 09:08 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 02:13 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>Fedora suffers an additional problem it seems - not only are there
>> large changes as part of many releases, but lately some of them
>> immediately stop being supported until
On 01/24/2012 02:59 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> But a fully rolling release just cannot work (and this is also why all those
> "just use Rawhide if you want the latest", "usable Rawhide" etc. suggestions
> are fundamentally flawed). Yes, there are distros doing this, but they all
> have one th
On 01/25/2012 03:48 AM, drago01 wrote:
>
> Exactly releases have the advantage of being a well tested set of
> updates where you have a window to decide whether you want to update
> yet or not.
> So I don't see what a rolling release gains really. If you always want
> to run the latest and greate
On 01/25/2012 10:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 9:17 PM, Bryan Quigley wrote:
>
> It's pretty simple, really. Basically, if we don't keep the kernel on at
> least a somewhat recent release the amount of work required to support
> that release grows beyond what we can realisti
On 01/27/2012 12:09 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
>
> why in the world is a currently useless "feature" much more forced
> than the change of the init-system?
>
perhaps this change is wanted/needed by the new init system for some
reason that may not be apparent at the moment ...
resource us
On 01/28/2012 12:23 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jan 2012 11:15:11 -0600
> Andrew Wyatt wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
...
>
> I think the way forward is the one I outlined in:
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-January/161632.html
>
> Until those interested can organize
On 01/30/2012 05:17 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
>
> The argument against rolling upgrades is that it's a wonderful idea
> early on, but then you run into a morass as time goes on, because of:
>
> - difficulty of handling wanted vs. unwanted updates, which in turn
> creates combinatorially growi
What would be the pros/cons of a bind mount instead of a soft link for
/bin et al?
gene
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 02/01/2012 09:41 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Emanuel Rietveld said:
>> On 02/01/2012 01:32 PM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>>> To-be-installed files obviously have no on-disk fingerprints, so it
>>> wont work for initial installation. So yes, those "fake" compatibility
>>> provides
Let it go kevin ...
I know there are a bunch of gnome happy users (and of course the devs),
but there are probably less now than earlier ...
A limited sample but everyone I know - all of whom were gnome users - no
longer use gnome - they have all switched to either kde or xfce (each
with its own
On 02/08/2012 12:37 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Note that this has not actually been implemented in anaconda yet, so if
>> you do an anaconda upgrade at this time, it will explode horribly. The
>> bug requesting this support be added to anaconda is
>> http://bugzilla.redhat.
On 02/10/2012 07:07 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> That is the definition of a product. Fedora has never been a product.
> Fedora is a community driven distribution and as such has no central
> or overriding authority to tell people that volunteer their time to go do
> some specific thing they don't fee
On 02/12/2012 06:19 AM, mike cloaked wrote:
> http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/2011-linuxquestions-org-members-choice-awards-95/desktop-environment-of-the-year-919888/
>
> Shows an interesting result in terms of DE popularity - though given
> the many discussions not only on Fedora lists bu
On 02/13/2012 03:47 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Fedora DE vs KDE spin download ratio compared to past release ratios would be
> more suggestive of a trend, if it exists.
Not necessarily - I always used the standard DVD to install and use
KDE and frankly never used the KDE spin - not once.
gen
On 02/15/2012 09:45 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Experienced admins dont use service iptables blah anyway ( they use
> iptables commands directly ) so it hardly matters to them documentation
> should however be updated for those that actually use service iptables
> blah to point this out s
On 02/15/2012 10:38 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We're already building at least one package (hfsplus-tools) with llvm
> because it relies on non-standard C extensions that gcc doesn't support,
> and I believe the current software rasteriser in mesa depends on it. In
> terms of it being the gen
On 02/27/2012 11:44 AM, Sandro Mani wrote:
>
will leave your system in a state where manual cleanup is likely
>> required.
> One scenario which I often hit is forgetting to change the proxy
> settings in yum.conf and then trying to update. Yum will clearly fail to
> download repodata, but it will
On 03/18/2012 02:39 PM, Mike Chambers wrote:
Are you by chance using a proxy?
If so there is a bug in google-chrome/chromium which happened when KDE
proxy changed output to have white space separated port number - if so
make just edit the file ~/.kde4/share/config/kioslaverc
and make it
On 11/13/2010 10:45 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 18:07 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>> Kevin Fenzi writes:
>>
>>> * gnome3 / gnome-shell default
>>
Does anyone happen to know how to mimic the equivalent of panel
applets esp those which are not a part of fedora
e.g. I use ma
On 11/14/2010 12:15 PM, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> Anything installing an application on the system (whether it's part of
> Fedora or not) really should be installing a desktop file. If there's no
> desktop file, there's no way for the user to launch the application.
>
> In GNOME 3, no desktop file
> btfrs providing raid0 functionality.
Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
gene/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 11/14/2010 04:26 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>
>>Does BTRFS have the equivalent of raid 5 ?
>
> I implemented most of what's needed for RAID5 (and RAID6) a year or so
> ago.
>
> It's waiting on Chris to do the final bits in the upper layers which are
> required to ensure we only ever write
On 11/16/2010 11:39 AM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 04:58:11PM +0100, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
>> Can we have this patch back ported into the current kernel for Fedora 14 and
>> possibly posted as an update? :)
>>
>> Would be wonderful!
>>
>
> Try this,
> http://kyle.fedorapeople.org/
On 11/16/2010 11:58 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/16/2010 11:39 AM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 04:58:11PM +0100, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
>>> Can we have this patch back ported into the current kernel for Fedora 14 and
>>> possibly posted as an
On 11/16/2010 08:34 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 06:09:49PM -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> I am having these now :-(
>>
>
> Hi Gene,
>
> Looks like the author hasn't run with CONFIG_DEBUG_SPINLOCK_SLEEP, as
> its a problem with the pat
Lets also not forget that the motivation for changing memcpy was to
get some speedup - has anyone seen evidence of any significant benefit
of that glibc change?
The BZ ref'd in this thread has linus' (simple) tests which dont
confirm any benefit of the change compared to his simpler version (
On 11/17/2010 05:20 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> The original testing that went with the GLIBC patches also showed no
> speedup on the hardware Linus uses, but it did show an impressive
> (perhaps too impressive) speedup on other hardware:
>
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.glibc.alpha/1
On 11/18/2010 08:28 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 21:03:02 -0600,
> It probably would have been nice to have enabled some debugging mode during
> the F14 development period to actively find code misuing the function.
Yes definitely - but for now, since,
No-one has yet
On 11/18/2010 09:28 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
>> Downside: nothing.
>
> Downside: slower memcpy on sse4.2 machines
Do you know how much slower in absolute time is it?
And is it (or would it be) visible (1/10's of seconds) or invisible
(ms) in some typical (or atypical) apps that call memcpy()
On 11/22/2010 04:21 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> It seems like what you want is actually not to have three releases at a
>> time at all but to have one and update it constantly. And I actually
>> rather suspect that would be a model that wo
On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> repo.
>
> * Whenever we move a bunch of packages from staging to
> stable we raise the minor number to M.(n+1). Larger
> changes may require major number bump if deemed
>
On 11/22/2010 01:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-22 at 13:23 -0500, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
>>* A major version should be imposed every 6 months if it
>> has not for some reason.
>
> Why? Your idea of tying version bumps to actua
On 11/22/2010 01:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>Do you have any suggestions how to manage ensuring that each ISO
>> snapshot has a working anaconda ?
>
> This is the kind of thing automated testing would help a lot with; we
> already have some automated testing of anaconda in place, but it do
On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 04:21 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/22/2010 12:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>
>>> It seems like what you want is actually not to have three releases at a
>>> time at all
On 11/22/2010 01:23 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>
> ... rolling releases ...
Interesting website - may be useful in thinking about the release
cycle ... or not :-)
http://oswatershed.org/
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedorapr
On 11/25/2010 01:13 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/22/2010 01:23 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 11/22/2010 09:44 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>
>> ... rolling releases ...
>
>
>
> Interesting website - may be useful in thinking about the release
&
> Although I can't be the only one who puts various cron jobs
> under /etc/cron.d that get run at various times.
>
> Andrew
Almost every administrative cron here is in a cron.d crontab file .. we
need control over exactly what time certain things happen. So please
keep the functionality.
If
On 11/25/2010 09:08 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Thu, 25.11.10 19:57, Genes MailLists (li...@sapience.com) wrote:
keep the functionality.
>
> Hey, as I made explcitily clear I have no plans of taking away anything
> from you. No need to be defensive...
Actually that was af
On 11/25/2010 09:19 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 11/25/2010 09:08 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Thu, 25.11.10 19:57, Genes MailLists (li...@sapience.com) wrote:
> keep the functionality.
>>
>> Hey, as I made explcitily clear I have no plans of taking away anything
On 11/25/2010 11:01 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
>> Well, I actually believe we should design an OS here, not just a set of
>> independent tools. And that means I think closer integration is good and
>> only has benefits.
>
> But this is a Unix-like OS, wher
On 12/01/2010 07:55 AM, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2010 01:33:33 + (UTC), Ben Boeckel wrote:
>
>> Why? FreeBSD (and other BSDs, I'm sure) have been naming network
>> interfaces based on the manufacturer, at least, for a while now (I
>> personally started with 7.x and am uns
On 12/01/2010 10:13 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> Because it's not so almighty. In BSD-land, including Solaris, the devices
> are named after the driver, so you get /dev/sis0 and /dev/bge1 and
> /dev/e1000g0 and whatnot.
>
That BSD scheme suffers the same pitfalls as the current fedora scheme
On 12/06/2010 06:40 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 16:10 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>
>> But once we're talking about OVERWHELMINGLY LARGE NUMBER OF SERVER INSTALLS,
>> aren't we also talking about kickstart and other automated management tools
>> with which configuring things
On 12/06/2010 07:07 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> A desktop
>> user may never ssh to his/her own machine.
>
> That's why it should be socket activated as soon as possible
Question - what do we imagine happens if user starts a service
listening on port (which happens to be sshd) ? Will
On 12/07/2010 02:41 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 7.12.2010 04:50, Genes MailLists napsal(a):
>> * Will fedora bring app-armor (and GUI's tools perhaps) as an selinux
>> partner for f15 now that its accepted in upstream kernel too ?
>
> Gosh, I hope not, but I have my d
On 12/07/2010 10:20 AM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> How many users use NFS on desktop? This is not even used on all servers.
>
> So the question is - do we want to have NFS by default?
>
> I use samba and I don't want to force all users to install it by default.
>
No idea how many but count
On 12/11/2010 06:45 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
>
> If ABRT can tell that the backtrace is same as something previously
> reported then there is no big harm, as it would only add the reporter to
> CC and won't be generating much noise..
> The problem here is that some maintainers doesn't want ABR
On 12/11/2010 02:15 PM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
will/not operate.
>>
>
> ABRT already has a blacklist configurable in it's config file, but it's
> controlled by ABRT maintainers... the problem or the request here is to
> have a directory like /etc/abrt.d/ where other maintainers can drop a
> con
On 01/02/2011 06:16 AM, Thomas Woerner wrote:
> On 12/27/2010 08:42 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>>> Can I ask a stupid question? Does dbus have the kind of performance
>>> necessary to support this type of application?
>>>
>>
>> What kind of performance do you think is necessary? Its just a
>> configu
On 01/02/2011 11:56 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
>> I switched to iptables-restore and got 2 orders of magnitude speedup
>> (yes that is indeed over 100 times faster!!) - something to consider.
>
> I think iptables-restore uses libiptc to manipulate the rules. The problem
> is that accor
On 01/15/2011 10:38 AM, John Reiser wrote:
> Perhaps it was Fedora 15 (and not Fedora 14) that took 4 days? See below.
>
>> So it took 2x4x10x96=7680 corehours to build 2 packages, at an average
>> of 7680*60/2=23 coreminutes/package.
>>
>> And we get that on average one package takes 6
On 02/22/2011 02:51 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So we're getting close to having a working fsck tool so I wanted to
> take the opportunity to talk about the future of BTRFS in Fedora.
> Coming up in F15 we're going to have the first release of Fedora where
...
>
> So what are your thou
On 02/24/2011 01:32 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> There are no essential services, which means any proposal that contains
> the phrase "non-essential services" is already unimplementable.
>
HID services (keyboard/mouse) might be nice ... :-) :-)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraprojec
On 02/27/2011 10:20 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> I think this is sort of intentional. If I understand the way this is
> supposed to work correctly then you are not supposed to care if Firefox is
> already running but instead simply click on it in your favorites and if an
> instance is alr
On 02/27/2011 02:41 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Rumor has it (coff coff) that gnome was infiltrated by kde developers
trying to get their users back
:-) :-) :-)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 02/28/2011 01:46 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> These are all rather 'GNOME 3 impressions' than 'F15 Alpha impressions'.
> It's probably going to help more to raise them on GNOME mailing lists,
> or the Fedora desktop mailing list.
Mangled Billy Shakespeare aside ...
This is a very valid poi
On 05/15/2010 05:01 AM, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 09:58:27AM +0200, Alexander Boström wrote:
>
>> Long story short: There are situations where a grub menu is vital, like
>> until you've successfully booted a new kernel.
>
> of course, and I do not think it is so hard to th
On 05/15/2010 09:48 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
rior to first boot. I always change it to 12-15, depending on how many
> stanzas are proposed. 3 seconds doesn't give me time to reach for the
You dont really need to 'react' and make a decision other than to
touch the kbd .. once you've touched the kb
On 05/15/2010 11:40 AM, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Also, I changed the timeout after the install and it stays that way and
> doesn't change back. The setting is permanently until I change it
> again.
>
Yes it is - I think someone was suggesting it be changed ..
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.f
On 05/15/2010 12:23 PM, Mike Chambers wrote:
> Actually, I was answering your question, in regards to if it's changed,
> will it be changed back. Was thinking you were asking this as in after
> the install and you changed it, will it be changed back by an upgrade or
> something.
>
> Sorry for th
On 05/16/2010 05:31 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
>> Is there any plan to build fedora with their own kernel ?
>>
>> It's a 'must have', for some packages.
>>
>> e.g. GLIBC:
>> http://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=blob_plain;f=sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/kernel-features.h;hb=HEAD
>>
>> A lot of
On 05/16/2010 02:53 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> On 16 May 2010 21:05, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> mentioned in the above link. I would say, rebuilding 30(?) packages
>> every other week just for an ImageMagick update would be impractical,
Are you referring to ABI changes or just rebuilds.
For rebu
On 05/17/2010 04:59 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> The problem with using a VM created using the latest unstable Fedora
> is that the latest unstable Fedora might not be working. Perhaps we
> could always build Fedora n+1 on top of Fedora n.
>
> Rich.
>
What some do is keep several build tr
On 05/17/2010 11:22 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> otherwise it remains at B2.
>
> Just because you manage to build a kernel, or even manage to boot a
> kernel, doesn't mean it really works. We really need all the testing
> that goes into a full Fedora release before we trust what is built
> fro
On 05/17/2010 07:15 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> We don't by any means have enough programmed testing to be confident
> about this kind of status for more than milestone releases at present.
> Given that, it certainly seems much safer to just build F(N+1) on F(N),
> as proposed earlier.
Yes - t
Sorry - there is reticence to update from something that is 12 years
old ... did I understand that correctly .. if so I am stunned.
gene
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 05/23/2010 02:25 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> I don't think anyone thinks rebuilding the builders every 6 months (and
> fixing all the bugs that comes with that) is a good use of their time.
>
> -Mike
But a release really should be boot strapped with itself once when it
gets stable en
On 05/23/2010 02:45 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> If you *just* want to rebuild, 'rpmbuild --rebuild
> kernel-package.src.rpm' is even simpler. You only need to install the
> srpm bits if you're going to actually change something. It only gets
> complex if you want to patch things, modify config optio
On 05/23/2010 08:50 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 05/23/2010 02:45 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> If you *just* want to rebuild, 'rpmbuild --rebuild
>>> kernel-package.src.rpm' is even simpler. Yo
On 05/24/2010 12:01 AM, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> I didn't say there was a vanilla-kernel.src.rpm, but there doesn't
> need to be. You rebuild the Fedora kernel src.rpm file using rpmbuild,
> passing in the flag '--with vanilla', which results in building a
> (mostly) pure vanilla upstream kernel with
On 05/23/2010 11:11 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I still carry the scars from when mysql stopped building in brew, a
> couple years ago. Not just rawhide, but brew in general. Eventually
> (after a couple months of bewilderment) it emerged that the build
>
Frustrating I am sure - but it could hav
On 05/24/2010 04:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> what would be involved in keeping the vm updated to Fedora N-1 ?
>
> It is built with itself, all except the running kernel behind the mock
> chroot.
>
Oh thats great ... thank you
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admi
On 05/25/2010 09:27 AM, Alexander Larsson wrote:
>
>> There's also this project, to add hardware acceleration (SSE and so
>> on) to libjpeg:
>>
>> http://libjpeg-turbo.virtualgl.org/
PLease also don't forget the applications which are provided by
libjpeg such as jpegtran et al ..
Are they
On 05/25/2010 05:03 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>PLease also don't forget the applications which are provided by
>> libjpeg such as jpegtran et al ..
>>
>>Are they all included in the turbo version ?
>
> Yes.
>
Thats great!
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
h
On 06/02/2010 11:11 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
=
> If someone would let the FPC know how to write good upstart scripts and
> packages we could certainly write up minimum requirements for the case where
> someone does want to package an upstart script.
And systemd is coming soon too ... i think it
On 07/24/2010 04:39 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 16:36 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:14:33AM -0400, Casey Dahlin wrote:
Why is the systemd executable in /bin instead of /sbin?
>>> Without looking too closely I believe systemd eventually seeks t
101 - 190 of 190 matches
Mail list logo
