On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> Is there some reason we don't have a iwl5150-firmware package? Or
> that /lib/firmware/iwlwifi-5150-2.ucode isn't included in
> iwl5000-firmware?
>
> Just asking because I was helping someone on #fedora get their Intel
> 5150ABN working, a
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 20:26:10 +0100
> drago01 wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jan 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Jonathan Dieter
>> wrote:
>> > Is there some reason we don't have a iwl5150-firmware package? Or
>>
On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 9:30 AM, M A Young wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010, Frank Murphy wrote:
>
>> On 31/01/10 12:59, M A Young wrote:
>>
>>> At the moment it does for you, though more updates may be required
>>> depending on what you have installed, but you also have to think longer
>>> term, becau
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Since 2006 I counted 18 slips (I think one or two of those may just be a
> single slip listed twice). Lets not yell, lets not flame war, lets not
> point fingers. How can we fix this?
It isn't broken so there is nothing to fix; slipping to
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 18:26 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> But the end effect is, we're allowing a web browser to disable memory
>> protection, exposing all users to a severe security risk from merely
>> browsing web sites. IMHO, the performa
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 22:41 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 9:45 PM, Matt McCutchen
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 2010-08-15 at 18:26 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> >> But the end effect
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>> The times where javascript is only used for some fancy effects are
>> long over ... welcome to 2010 ;)
>
> Some web sites are indeed abusing JavaScript. Why should we promote this
> behavior? It is a
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to propose a general rule that ABRT crash logs should remain
> "assigned" to the actual application, unless an actual investigation
> has been done and there's a "reasonable" certainty the flaw is in the
> library code in whi
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Tim Waugh wrote:
> The unix2dos and dos2unix packages have merged upstream and I've been
> sent a spec file that upgrades dos2unix to the new upstream version. It
> correctly obsoletes the unix2dos package.
>
> Is it too late in the Fedora 14 cycle to bring this
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 8:54 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> That's what I meant by a (correct) specification and a compliant
>> implementation.
>
> And here too, I'm afraid you're missing the point. The same specification
> can be implemented in 2 perfectly compliant ways, one being secure and one
>
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 5:46 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> I mentioned this on:
> http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/fedora-app-market-proof-of-concept/
>
> last night but I thought I'd bring it up here:
>
> Yesterday someone was talking about installing apps in fedora and how it
> was hard to figu
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I know its been discussed in the past but there's been reasons not to
>> drop a default MTA but now that cronie (the last actual dependency)
>> has support for logging to system logs is there any reason to includ
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
>> Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) said:
>> > > My concern with this line of thinking is that you're asking us to
>> > > quantify
>> > > the unknown unknown, and define a time period of testin
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 03:02:27PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
>> > I did not want to imply that PulseAudio is useless. I doubt that you
>> > would have implemented it, if you did not have any use for i
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 10:23 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 12:14 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>
>> > > The intent is not to do so in the final release, AIUI. We're only
>> > > keeping it around during pre-release, so
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> FWIW, I'm with Jon and Adam on this one. I just don't see how not having
>> an MTA by default is a win, except in disk space terms, and it takes up
>> a tiny amount of disk space (especially if we pick a lighter-weigh
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:06 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 10:46:41PM +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
>>
>> > for workstation most users already use ubuntu. why? because it's more
>> > user friendly.
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with usi
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 23:31 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
>> > I'm going to be blunt. I DON'T CARE.
>>
>> Yay, thanks that you don't care. You are aware that by putting
>> everything on a single man's shoulders and then telling him "yo
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 15:35 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>
>> Indeed, imo we should add them to the release criteria.
>
> It's a rather indigestible lump, for the criteria. James and I were
> thinking about a '
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:19 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matej Cepl wrote:
>> I believe KDE should have something equivalent ... don't you have a tool
>> for managing multiple screens/heads?
>
> It doesn't do systemwide/permanent settings. (But I think the GNOME tool
> also doesn't implement that at
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 9:32 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 2:57 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
Heads up to Clutter consumers - I'm updating it
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:30 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 17:20:23 -0400,
> Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>>
>> Please do not ignore that the browser is there for the user to use,
>> not for Fedora to stream information in spite of the user's wishes.
>
> Nor for Mozilla to track
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2010-09-01, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>
>> Is there any possibility to use Youtube in Fedora 14? First I tried to
>> install Adobe Flash 10.1. I tried to copy flashlib to various dirs
>> /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins, /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins,
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:32 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 10:34 +, Petr Pisar wrote:
>> On 2010-09-01, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> >
>> > Is there any possibility to use Youtube in Fedora 14? First I tried to
>> > install Adobe Flash 10.1. I tried to copy flashlib to various
2010/9/7 Miloslav Trmač :
> Richard Hughes píše v Út 07. 09. 2010 v 12:46 +0100:
>> The updater will be an improved version of the old package updater,
>> and anything that's not an application (e.g. PackageKit-libs-devel)
>> will be under a group (not shown in the screenshot) called "System
>> inf
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 2:43 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 8 September 2010 13:16, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> First off, I think this is a great idea and very much needed, thanks for
>> working on it.
>
> Cool, thanks. Some positive feedback at last! Too... much... stop... energy...
FWIW the way
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> A patch would be lovely, but some sample code that renders a ttf file
>> to a png file "The smart brown fox or whatever" using cairo is
>> probably good enough for me to get going.
>
>
>
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:59 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>>> A patch would be lovely, but some sample code that renders a ttf file
>>> to a png file "The smart br
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:16 AM, pbrobin...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Does anyone know if the new Broadcom drivers are in a state where they
> would be in the Fedora 14 kernel? I've seen the release but i've not
> seen any comment as to the state of them other than they already
> support mac8
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>
> "pbrobin...@gmail.com" wrote:
>
>>Hi All,
>>
>>Does anyone know if the new Broadcom drivers are in a state where they
>>would be in the Fedora 14 kernel? I've seen the release but i've not
>>seen any comment as to the state of them other
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 01:05:34AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
>> So, we closed all blocker bugs, we worked through the vast majority of
>> other bugs. I dealt with almost all issues raised in Bill's list, only
>> few small issues le
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Thomas Janssen
wrote:
>
> My security fix build was rejected going to stable directly, because
> it could break anything (freeciv game), so i expect critical packages
> for end users have to go trough as well.
>
The web browser is the attack surface #1 in deskt
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:27 PM, M A Young wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010, drago01 wrote:
>
>> I think the main point here wasn't "there are bugs #X, #Y and #Z that
>> can't be fixed in time so we should revert" but a "we have a bad
>> feeling
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-15 at 11:05 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>
>> The Broadcom position seems to be entirely crack-inspired, if it's based
>> on the notion that a binary driver cannot be modified to break the
>> regulations. That assumption is
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:25 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 07:20:30 -0700,
> John Poelstra wrote:
>>
>> And we are already reviewing and accepting features for Fedora 15. The
>> process never stops.
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy
>
> Thanks for the r
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 4:38 PM, FlorianFesti wrote:
> While showing the user "applications" instead of packages might be a
> good idea for several use cases I think this approach misses the point
> here. The questions for redesigning the Updater dialog should be:
It is not only about the update
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:15 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 17:11:03 +0200,
> drago01 wrote:
>>
>> That doesn't work ... someone has to be activly pushing the patches
>> upstream .. instead of just waiting and hoping that they magically
>>
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 13 September 2010 21:49, James Antill wrote:
>> So Seth spent half a day implementing a proof of concept:
>> http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/fedora-app-market-proof-of-concept/
>
> Translations?
> Icons?
> Offline queries?
> Co-
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 10:34 -0400, Fulko Hew wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Jon Masters
>> wrote:
>
>> > Well, the US law of the land says that you can't listen in on
>> > telephone communications frequencies either. And the CFR ad
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:34:10 + (UTC), Petr Pisar wrote
>
>> Adobe Flash Player is not produced for x86_64 architecture by vendor.
>> (It used to be, however it containted serious security flaws). To use
>> it by 64b Firefox, you n
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Neal Becker wrote:
> I've pushed an update to f14 testing for igraph. Now I need to update
> python-igraph.
>
> DEBUG util.py:255: No Package Found for igraph-devel = 0.5.4
>
> What is the procedure to make igraph-0.5.4 available so I can build python-
> igraph-0
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:01 PM, James Antill wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-16 at 10:57 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 11:39 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> > On 13 September 2010 21:49, James Antill wrote:
>> >> So Seth spent half a day implementing
2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski :
> 2010/9/20 Bryn M. Reeves :
>> On 09/20/2010 01:37 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 11:56:56 +0200
>>> Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>>
You can blacklist the firewall modules - it can be critical :)
>>>
>>> Actually, I think you can run any arbitrary co
2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski :
> W dniu 20 września 2010 15:02 użytkownik drago01 napisał:
>> Well depends on the cirumstances.
>
> I fully agree.
>
>>
>> As the file is supposed to be obsolete anyway ... we should just make
>> modprobe ignore it ;)
>
>
2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski :
> W dniu 20 września 2010 20:03 użytkownik drago01 napisał:
>> Why?
>> The file is obsolete for a while now, apps that rely on it if any
>> should crash and burn and use the proper interface (/etc/modprobe.d)
>> I can't think of a reas
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 15:47 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> Greetings.
>>
>> I'd like to ask for feedback and helping cleaning up an updates policy
>> draft page:
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
>>
>> How can w
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 party repositories (both as packagers and as
>> >> users) grows, thi
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> > This example is IMO wrong:
>> > - WebKit requires an update to solve a security problem. This requires
>> > updating Midori to a version with some minor menu layout changes. This
>> > would be a judgement call based on how intrusive the chan
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:59 PM, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> 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
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 17:01:02 +0200,
> Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> I say that the example of Webkit should be removed because if it is not
>> possible to backport the security patch and due to the version update
>> Midori has to be updated to
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 17:27:43 +0200,
> drago01 wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 17:01:02 +0200,
>> > Tomas Mraz wrote:
>> >>
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 04:22:45PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 10:13 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>> > Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > > It isn't going to be perfect, but it'll definitely be better than what
>>
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:35 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 12:12:54 -0500
> Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 18:58:25 +0200,
>> drago01 wrote:
>> >
>> > In case of a security issue a random note somewhere "don'
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
wrote:
> Le mercredi 22 septembre 2010 à 21:30 -0400, Gerald Henriksen a écrit :
>
>> After all Gnome 2.32 isn't released until later this month, and the
>> beta releases have been included in Fedora 14 up to now.
>
> Is that a good example ? Gnome
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 23 September 2010 08:37, drago01 wrote:
>> Well this cycle there was "on the way to gnome3 and back" situation,
>> which caused a lot of churn (even upstream).
>
> For what it's worth, the GNOME &q
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 22:15:48 +0200,
> Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:58:26 +0200, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> > On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 21:50:21 +0200, Jan Kratochvil
>> > wrote:
>> > > F14+ livecd-tools have now /us
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 23:00:45 +0200,
> drago01 wrote:
>>
>> The x86_64 vs. i686 thing aside ... IMO the CD size limit does more
>> harm than good and should have been lifted a while ago.
>
> The CD siz
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> Richard Zidlicky wrote:
>> > One issue - many people have a mix of systems not all 64 bit capable. As
>> > long as the advantages are not overwhelming many of those will stick to a
>> > single var
On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:49 PM, John Reiser wrote:
> On 09/28/2010 11:37 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 8:09 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
>>> We run 32 bit vms in Fedora Infrastructure a lot for purposes of memory
>>> density, we do it based on what wil
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:08 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> Imagine if Linus forbid people from calling their OS Linux if they
> didn't use the binaries provided by him.
As the trademark owner it is his right to do so, but that alone does
not make Linux unfree.
You are confusing trademarks and copyr
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you
>>> change the name, in which case you may
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 23:10 +0100, Camilo Mesias wrote:
>> I think the moral of this story is that the input to the process is
>> fallible. Shit always happens.
>>
>> Automated systems that filter or delay the 'happening' should be
>> backe
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 2:34 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are
>> obliged to allow you to access and modify their code. They are not
>> obliged to allow you to benefit from t
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> You have to remove MoFo's artwork and perform a name
>>> change or you're required to get permission from Mozilla to
>>> redistribute a modified binary. That's not free.
>>
>> Yes, i
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 10:53 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
>
>> I don't agree. There's nothing unusual about a dumbed-down interface for
>> novices, with an 'advanced' tab hiding more options.
>
> As someone else has pointed out, a lot of usabi
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 18:34 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2010-10-12 at 10:53 -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't agree.
2010/10/21 Michał Piotrowski :
> Hi,
>
> 2010/10/21 Bill Nottingham :
>> I've set up a repo on r.fp.org:
>> http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/notting/initscripts-systemd/
>>
>> This repo includes updated initscripts and associated packages
>> that test the conversion of various boot-time actions
On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 11:00 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 21:16 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Mon, 18.07.11 15:13, Simo Sorce (s...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>
>> > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 20:57 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 18.07.11 20:54, Michał Piotrowski (m
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 1:11 PM, JB wrote:
> Hi,
>
> My suggestion is that you keep both init systems, SysV/LSB and systemd,
> as separate offerings out of many, and forever so.
That's just adds a maintenance burden for no real benefit.
> You would install them as suitable for your individual sy
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 6:51 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 08:45 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> [...]
> I agree with one section of your argument:
> arguments which are just "I'm not used to this" are bad arguments.
>
> Many of the arguments presented in this and other threads do no
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 21.07.2011 13:14, schrieb Bryn M. Reeves:
>> On 07/20/2011 11:05 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> hopefully systemd will aslo live for 40 years as sysvinit
>>> did or the next replacement will be finished BEFORE release
>>> including the c
On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 4:53 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 22.07.2011 16:33, schrieb drago01:
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 21.07.2011 13:14, schrieb Bryn M. Reeves:
>>>> On 07/20/2011 11
On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:19:08 -0700, JK (Jesse) wrote:
>
>> On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> > There is a big difference between "a package going backwards in its EVR
>> > and staying there" and "a package getting untagged bec
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 07/29/2011 09:47 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
>>> Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the
>>> gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've th
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Stijn Hoop wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:57:59 +0200
> drago01 wrote:
> ...
>
>> Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
>
> [citation needed]
https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-shell-list/2011-June/m
2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be
>> like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click
>> "install" to install an extension.
2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> On 07/29/2011 09:21 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> 2011/7/29 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
>>> On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>>> Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be
>>>>
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 1:37 PM, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Is there any plan to have the EKOPath compiler, from PathScale,
> shipped as part of the future Fedora releases?
>
> It doesn't necessarily mean having Fedora's packages built with it,
> but merely packaging it as a first step.
>
On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:34 PM, Ilyes Gouta wrote:
>> Well assuming no legal issues anyone can package it and submit it for review
>> ...
>
> I do know that SLES and RH releases are being worked on. It should
> also become available for Scientific Linux too at some point.
So?
You (or anyone el
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
> On 08/18/2011 06:28 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> On Wed, 17.08.11 16:43, Tim Waugh (twa...@redhat.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Oh, I just noticed this:
>>>
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines:Systemd#Socket_activation
>>> "Since
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 01:12:31PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:45 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
>> > On 08/18/2011 06:28 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 17.08.11 16:43, Tim W
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 06:47:37PM -0500, David Lehman wrote:
>> On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 23:13 -0700, a...@clueserver.org wrote:
>> > I have tried installing Fedora 16 alpha (i386 version) on VMWare player
>> > and it dies starting up the
On Mon, Aug 29, 2011 at 9:55 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 04:15:37PM -0700, a...@clueserver.org wrote:
>>
>> In both cases I had 2 gigs of ram. Should not be a memory issue.
>
> That is more than enough. Please file a bug(s) and include the logs
> from /tmp/*log
>
> Memory us
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:36 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2011/08/30 15:06 (GMT+1000) Chris Jones composed:
>
>> I can't see any reason for floppies these days considering their extreme
>> price per data unit as opposed to usb memory.
>
> For some people the price of floppies is a sunk cost, or was
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 1:37 AM, John5342 wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 14:47, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Christoph Frieben
>> wrote:
>>> 2011/9/8 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson":
On behalf of the systemd convertion team Just wanted to say thanks to
Tom "Spot" Ca
On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 11:52 -0400, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
>> "gcc -m32 -o foo foo.c" gives me:
>> /usr/include/gnu/stubs.h:7:27: fatal error: gnu/stubs-32.h: No such file
>> or directory
>>
>> If I copy the gnu/stubs-32.h file from the 32
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 11.09.2011 18:18, schrieb drago01:
>>>> Am I doing something wrong? Or is this a packaging bug? I can't think of
>>>> any reason why I shouldn't be able to compile at least a basic C
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:44 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram writes:
>> On 09/14/2011 09:55 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>>> Honestly, if systemd updates has 5% of users failing on an update to
>>> the software - we should dump the thing immediately and go back to
>>> upstart. That is insanely
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 01:03:04AM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>> Hi
>>
>> 2011/9/13 Tom Lane :
>> > (This isn't new with 9.1, btw --- the last version or so of 9.0
>> > for F16 was the same, since we switched over to native systemd
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 09/14/2011 04:31 PM, drago01 wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 4:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jones
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 01:03:04AM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
>>>> Hi
>>>>
On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 18:23 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>
>> What kind of disk is that? For a mechanical drive any gain from
>> parallel startup would get killed by disk seeks.
>
> There is no real 'gain' fr
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 09/14/2011 06:23 PM, drago01 wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>>> My netbook boots up F14 in ca. 60 secs, while F15 boots up in 62 secs.
>>> I'd call this "belo
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jan F. Chadima wrote:
> [...]
>. When watching the load of the virtual machine that starts with systemd it is
>clear to me that the total CPU consumption is significantly greater than in
>the case of upstart one.
That's the whole point of doing things in parall
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 09/15/2011 02:07 AM, drago01 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> On 09/14/2011 06:23 PM, drago01 wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>
>
&
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Jan F. Chadima wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2011, at 11:03 AM, drago01 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Jan F. Chadima wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> . When watching the load of the virtual machine that starts with systemd it
>
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 1:10 PM, Jan F. Chadima wrote:
>
> On Sep 15, 2011, at 1:02 PM, drago01 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Jan F. Chadima wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 15, 2011, at 11:03 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu,
On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 5:46 PM, tim.laurid...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 1:00 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> Debian policy is that any virtual dependencies must also have an
>>> explicit dependency. In your case it would be something like
>>>
>>> Requires:
On Sat, Oct 1, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> And I can honestly say I've never seen a
> desktop machine where suspend worked with Linux, so suspending desktop
> machines by default seems like a bad idea.
I don't get where this is coming from, suspend has pretty much always
worked on my
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 11:45 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Tue, 04.10.11 21:01, JB (jb.1234a...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> Results interpretation.
>> ---
>> Knoppix won by a wide margin, while:
>> - Knoppix having microknoppix fast-parallel boot (based on SysV/LSB scripts)
>>
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 7:51 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-09-17 at 13:20 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
>> (That said, there definitely needs to be a way to disable it, and maybe it
>> should even be disabled by default. I personally always uninstall yum-
>> presto. For me, it's much fas
1 - 100 of 1083 matches
Mail list logo
