Hi folks,
This lwn article reports that berlios.de has been compromised for a long,
long time.
http://lwn.net/Articles/369633/
So I compiled a little list of pkgs that need a look:
http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/berlios-pkg-owners-list.txt
Here is the list as well:
arbiter:slim:http:
On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Matt Domsch wrote:
> We could easily create a new class of bugzilla ticket, say
> "MAINTAINED". An automated process would generate such tickets,
> blocking F13MAINTAINED. The ticket would ask the maintainer to close
> the ticket to remain the owner of the package. Ticket
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Farkas Levente wrote:
> the real bottleneck is not the rpmbuild itself (with ccache it cab be
> very fast), but the mock surroundings. suppose there is build which
> takes about 2 minutes and in mock it takes about 5 minutes:-(
> most of the time is in yum, python tar, gzip
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Farkas Levente wrote:
>>
>> the tar and gzip are mostly BUILDING the cache.
>
> no tar and gzip used unpacking root cache.
>
How slow are your disks? You're not doing any of this to nfs are you?
> but have to run yum each time for the package specific depsolve and yum
>
Farkas,
Don't email just to me offlist. Keep this onlist.
>>
>> How much of this is network access and how much is disk? B/c I doubt
>> very much that you're cpu bound at all.
>
> everything is on the local mirror server which is on a gigabit lan. is there
> any way to banchmark mock and dif
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
should be possible, we have an (old but we have one) apt
unless I'm reading that forum thread wrong - it sure seems like apt-fast
requires axel's repo? If that's true then I think it nixes any chance of
the pkg getting into fedora.
-sv
--
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Ugh, this seems like it would just create a lot of make-work for the
> common case where packages *are* maintained. Perhaps only do this
> for packages that appear via some criteria (have not been built, have
> not been committed to, have lots of bug
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:25:44PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>> Ugh, this seems like it would just create a lot of make-work for the
>>> common case whe
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> I think there should be at least two conditions which would have to be
> fulfilled for the nagging bug to be created - the package was not
> touched by the maintainer during recent x months and at least one bug is
> opened not closed in the bugzilla on th
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 14:04 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Tomas Mraz wrote:
>>
>>> I think there should be at least two conditions which would have to be
>>> fulfilled for the nagging
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> First of all, that would be two bug reports per year, as we have a 6
> month development cycle. But it also will not be that useful, as we
> already have three things that have to be done by every maintainer once
> or twice a year, so they can be easily us
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>> Often maintainers don't realize they have some of these packages, or the
>> maintainers have left the project.
>
> Do maintainer really "often" forget, that they own a certain package?
> Ok, maybe if they are forced to do this from Red Hat, I do not know.
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 02:55:36PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> Yes, I believe the expression you're looking for is:
>>
>> "Perfect is the enemy of the good"
>>
>> What is being suggested is not perfec
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-01-18 at 12:25 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> If we do that check before the alpha release that should let us track
>> down
>> awol maintainers and unmaintained pkgs pretty easily, I think.
>>
>> th
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> After some talk on IRC yesterday, skvidal is the person doing work on this
> at them moment. His plan is to implement tests that try to tell if
> individual packages are maintained and get people to orphan those that are
> not. Here's his general pl
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Thomas Moschny wrote:
> 2010/1/18 Seth Vidal :
>> 1. extraordinarily stable
>> [...]
>> in ANY of those cases I'd want to start thinking about nuking the pkg from
>> fedora.
>
> Are you serious?
>
As a heart a
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Dominic Hopf wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 13.01.2010, 12:23 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
>> dmaphy:graphem:http://graphem.berlios.de/
>
> I contacted upstream concerning this Package as soon as I read your mail
> last week. Upstream made the security audit at
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010, Jens Petersen wrote:
> - "Seth Vidal" wrote:
>> which is why All we're suggesting is filing a bug and/or some other
>> kind of notification that says "are you alive".
>
> To clarify, only for FTBFS, right?
>
There&#x
> On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 12:21 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
>> However, this changes behavior that has existed since the dawn
>> of time in Red Hat/Fedora systems; with this change, single-user
>> mode would now require the root password.
>> Comments?
I'm totally in favor of it. It is somethin
On Fri, 22 Jan 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Freitag, den 22.01.2010, 14:52 +0100 schrieb Andreas Osowski:
>> Hello,
>> I do herewith request to take over the package "mumble", currently owned by
>> igjurisk.
>> The maintainer seems to be unresponsive and all previous attempts of contact
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Juha Tuomala wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Mike McGrath wrote:
>>> but we catch you doing it (and we have) and we'll do something about it.
>>
>> Just for curiosity, what? Prevent doing it again? How?
>>
>> Like said, it's
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Juha Tuomala wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> And I'd suspect that intentionally entering into an agreement with knowingly
>> false information is a kind of Fraud in just about every country.
>
> Feel free to sue t
On Tue, 2 Feb 2010, Juha Tuomala wrote:
>> Out of curiosity is your point to be antagonistic or are you actually trying
>> to improve things?
>
> If cleaning false assumptions and admitting that some areas are real
> problems - is improving, that's what I'm doing.
You don't appear to be doing t
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 11:46 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 10:17:27AM +0100, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 08:32:07PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >> Rawhide (dist-f14) now has python 2.
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 12:40 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 11:53:55AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > I think I had suggested it, multiple times, and each time fesco had a
> > problem with it.
> > maybe even the package was named p
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 13:01 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:44:23PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > > Would it make sense for the obsolete list to be specified with versions?
> > yes, of course - it was just a sample.
> > google for package-swift
On Thu, 2010-08-05 at 19:56 +0300, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
> So I'm syncing up our school's local mirror over our rather slow
> internet connection and I notice that the root-doc subpackage (which is
> part of the root package) has just hit the slightly obese size of 687MB
> [1]. For reference, the
On Wed, 2010-08-11 at 09:32 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> Im no longer maintaining all my packages
>
> Do whatever you need to do to orphan them or open them up.
>
All your packages are now orphaned.
Thanks for letting us know.
-sv
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
htt
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 18:07 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> > You are assuming that it is somehow a good idea to push release Fn, in
> > spite of no (or negative) testing.
>
> Yes I am! If I build the EXACT SAME specfile for all F*, then I don't see
> why testing on ANY F* isn't
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 13:30 -0400, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> 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
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 20:14 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Martin Sourada wrote:
> > I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly oppose
> > this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things
> > differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either more
On Wed, 2010-08-18 at 12:24 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 01:10:29PM +0200, Adam Tkac wrote:
> > Fedora Engineering Services
> > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Engineering_Services) received
> > request to get rid of file requires outside of the primary paths
> >
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 figure out what to install/try b/c there were too much STUFF
in fed
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 18:30 +0200, Dennis J. wrote:
> On 08/19/2010 05:46 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> ...
> > Now, the concept of an app can be refined in many ways but this is just
> > to prove that the infrastructure has been available.
>
> What's missing is the abili
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 18:59 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:42:18PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 18:30 +0200, Dennis J. wrote:
> > > On 08/19/2010 05:46 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> > > ...
> > > > Now, the concept of
Visible here:
http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/searching-package-tags-from-the-pkgdb/
In the last round of roll outs the fedora packagedb added tags and
ratings to the site. A great bit of work by mbacovsk, maploin and toshio
made this happen. I added support for yum to use the db that t
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 22:55 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> Thanks for working on this, the concept of "packages" should be an
> implementation detail that much (desktop) users shouldn't have to care
> about.
>
> This is definitely a step in the right direction. PK should follow
> that and only display a
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 23:46 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le jeudi 19 août 2010 à 22:55 +0200, drago01 a écrit :
>
> > This is definitely a step in the right direction. PK should follow
> > that and only display apps by default in the GUI.
>
> This is a very naïve position. For example, even in
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 16:47 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:15:12PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> >> It would be good to define such a nonstandard abbreviation as "MTA"
> >> when posting a new thread so that more p
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 10:00 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 08:45 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 23:06 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > BOOTUP
> > > - System boots successfully to GUI, when configured.
> > > - System boots successfully to text mode, wh
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 10:10 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> > I think there's a much more fundamental question here, which is
> > whether a default Fedora installation is intended to be a real
> > UNIX-like system or just the dependencies for GNOME.
>
> I was going to rep
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 14:28 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> seth vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> > > > You mean 'being passed on the kernel cmdline', I assume ?
> > > > Do we consider interactive boot essential (I think not) ?
> > > >
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 15:46 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 14:28 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > seth vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> > > > > You mean 'being passed on the kernel cmdline', I assume ?
> > > > > Do we
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 22:41 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 11:52:45AM -0700, 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
On Tue, 2010-08-24 at 22:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 05:43:49PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>
> > that seems like a bit of odd logic. The logs are emitted to syslog with
> > the same thought in mind - that someone will read them - but that is
> &
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 13:12 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> And, yes, the harm won't be equally distributed— it seems to me that
> Fedora has ignored quite a bit of harm because it didn't primarily
> fall on what the developer's considered a "typical desktop" (which,
> as far as I can tell, really
On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 20:41 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 2:06 PM, Paul W. Frields
> > wrote:
> > > I don't think anyone can generalize that the usage of Fedora is
> > > declining. What we can prove, and certainly is troubles
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 20:07 +0200, Björn Sund wrote:
> repoquery --whatprovides MDA
> repoquery --whatprovides MUA
Honestly, I think things like that would be better off as pkgtags on the
pkgs in the pkgdb!
-sv
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.or
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 14:06 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 19 August 2010 16:46, seth vidal wrote:
> > Yesterday someone was talking about installing apps in fedora and how it
> > was hard to figure out what to install/try b/c there were too much STUFF
> > in fedora. T
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 15:26 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 29 August 2010 15:07, seth vidal wrote:
> > I realized after this that I don't even need it the pkgTags db that we
> > already generate has the information needed b/c all the apps are tagged
> > with &#x
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 16:04 +0200, Christoph Höger wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I cannot use gnupg2 from evolution anymore. Apparently somewhere in
> evolution the command "gpg" is hardwired, while whe only have gpg2
> nowadays.
>
> Any suggestions? Testing updates or something?
>
yum install gnupg
it's
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 12:22 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> The avalanche has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote.
>
> The changes towards a distribution that attracts people who live in
> the moment happened a while back, and has been building momentum for
> quite some t
On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 16:01 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> I like the release schedule of Fedora, but I don't like the idea of each
> release continuing to be a rolling update target. I don't really
> understand why about six months (or less if you didn't install on
> release day) is such a horrible
On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 20:04 +0200, Christoph Höger wrote:
> Am Montag, den 30.08.2010, 10:08 -0400 schrieb seth vidal:
> > On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 16:04 +0200, Christoph Höger wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I cannot use gnupg2 from evolution anymore. Apparen
On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 16:47 -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:15 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> >
> > Florian has already been working that out. He's got a pure-python script
> > that grabs up the icons and we'll work on implementing them at the pk
On Thu, 2010-09-02 at 13:19 +0300, Marko Myllynen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> some people build their local RPMs with Mock because a Koji instance
> might be a bit overkill in smaller environments. Keeping spec files and
> possible patches under version control is always a good idea but
> unfortunately M
On Sun, 2010-09-05 at 21:33 -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> I'm pretty much a novice at both mock and chroot. Where can I find out
> how to change to the mock build chroot (using fedpkg or otherwise) so
> that I can debug a failed mock build?
>
mock -r name-of-root-config --shell
that'll get y
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 17:27 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 09/07/2010 05:16 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > Linux has traditionally shown the user packages to update and install,
> > which is great for administrators, but sucks hard for end users. How
> > many times have you been prompted with an
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 09:19 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 09:11 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 17:27 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > On 09/07/2010 05:16 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > > Linux has traditionally shown t
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 14:17 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 7 September 2010 14:11, seth vidal wrote:
> > okay - I'll bite - why do we want to make it less distro-specific?
>
> For the same reason as pirut and pup were replaced. Fedora is *not* a
> big enough ecosystem t
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 18:24 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> When installing packages with yum, if there is more than one enabled
> repository
> that can be used to resolve a dependency, how does yum choose which one to
> use?
>
> I ask because I modified the instructions for installing the 32-bit
On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 19:21 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> seth vidal fedoraproject.org> writes:
>
> > http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/CompareProviders
> >
> > that's how it does it.
>
> Thanks. I didn't understand all of that, but since it only describe
On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 03:07 +0800, Liang Suilong wrote:
> If someone has enough interest in backporting something from a newer
> release, we can set up a personal repo on the repos.fedorapeople.org.
> Just like firefox4 and yum-rawhide repo.
>
>
> Maybe we wait for Copr. Set
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 13:48 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
> continue to promote i686 installs over x86_64, the result being that
> only a third of fedora users are on x86_64.
>
> When will the Fedora project begin recommending
On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 18:04 -0400, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> On 09/30/2010 05:45 PM, Richard Fearn wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have yum-updatesd installed on a headless Fedora server, so every so
> > often I get the email saying there are updates available.
> >
> > The email itself doesn't tell me mu
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 09:23 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free
> > software? Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that
> > interpretation.
> >
> > Rahul
>
> I'm
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:35 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:24:30 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote:
> >> Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual
> >> property with specific restrictions on what you'r
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 13:18 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Chris Lumens (clum...@redhat.com) said:
> > > - downloads updates in parallel too
> >
> > Package updates?
>
> 1) Given that it's using yum, downloading multiple things in parallel
> would need to be fixed there.
We have an open rfe
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 14:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 02:43:33PM +0100, Paul Howarth wrote:
>
> > This despite the FHS says (right at the top of Chapter 3, the Root
> > Filesystem):
> >
> >/usr, /opt, and /var are designed such that they may be located on other
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > /usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime, for
> > example) or mounted readonly to prevent unnecessary writes to the
> > system.
>
> That doesn't require it to be a separate partition.
Mounting the location meanin
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
>
> > another benefit (not yet mentioned) is for filesystem encryption. I have /
> > and
> > /home encrypted and /usr not encrypted (for better performance of my laptop)
>
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:11 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:07:24AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:05 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 04:59:29PM +0200, Michal Hlavinka wrote:
> > >
>
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:08 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 11:03:50AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > > > /usr is frequently given different mount options (like noatime, for
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 11:18 -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
> >>> So it seems like you need to explain why you think /usr should NOT be on
> >>> a separate partition.
> >>
> >> Because it adds additional complexity for no obvious gain.
> >
> > that's not plausible enough, imo. There is clear gain to eno
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 16:22 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, So when this was broken a lot of bugs were triggered?
> >
> > Sure seems like if a lot of bugs are being triggered then it is NOT a
> > niche usecase.
> >
> > You can't have it both ways.
>
> Very few people do it. When the
On Tue, 2010-10-19 at 15:40 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, James Antill said:
> > Putting my really old sysadmin hat on, one other reason for
> > having /tmp, /var and /usr as separate mount points was so that you
> > could allocate different disk space to each (and they couldn't b
On Sat, 2011-06-25 at 22:23 -0500, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 9:55 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> >
> > Heck, I'd be willing to accept ANY bittorrent server that can be both
> > tracker and primary seed and doesn't require a special apache module to
On Sun, 2011-06-26 at 00:22 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 06/15/2011 09:55 PM, seth vidal wrote:
> > Heck, I'd be willing to accept ANY bittorrent server that can be both
> > tracker and primary seed and doesn't require a special apache module to
> > do
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 13:34 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Now if you just happen to be a sysadmin then I suggest you either get
> with the program or expect to be out of job tomorrow since there is
> plethora of competent sysadmins out there that are able and willing and
> after your
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 09:57 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 11:11 +, JB wrote:
>
> > My suggestion is that you keep both init systems, SysV/LSB and systemd,
> > as separate offerings out of many, and forever so.
>
> We'll take that under advisement.
Ajax,
That remark is a
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 12:16 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> seth vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> > > > My suggestion is that you keep both init systems, SysV/LSB and systemd,
> > > > as separate offerings out of many, and forever so.
> > >
&g
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 08:45 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> Just because shell scripts are familiar doesn't make then easier.
> Shell scripts can be quite quite fragile. Collectively as admins
> we've grown very attuned to dealing with shell semantics good and bad.
> None of us who are deeply famili
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 12:57 -0400, James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 22:59 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 10:55 PM, James Antill
> > wrote:
> > > Is it really necessary to change this in %pre ... can't you just copy
> > > your old login.defs file over the inst
On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 17:02 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 13:59 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 12:57 -0400, James Antill wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 22:59 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jul 20,
On Wed, 2011-07-27 at 15:54 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I think the discussion where to place this is moot anyway, as the spec
> has been written years ago and widely (though not universally)
> implemented, and we should just stick to it, since where it to place it
> is nothing more than bi
On Sat, 2011-07-30 at 02:23 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> So, just so I understand, the requirement/assumption is that all
> machines will be online and pulling bits down directly from GNOME? That
> won't map at all to enterprise or non-fully connected environments. It
> needs to be possible to inst
On Sat, 2011-08-13 at 09:19 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:08:50 -0400, SS (Simo) wrote:
>
> > If rpmbuild does not add an implicit requires with libraryX >= > we built against> then it is certainly broken.
>
> One could also argue that an activity like "yum install ..."
On Fri, 2011-08-19 at 17:47 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Well, I think Fedora is more interested in real-life users than
> synthetic certifications.
I think you are not the arbiter of what fedora is interested in.
If this is a point of conflict it should be discussed with the board and
fes
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 17:53 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> I've discovered data inconsistencies in a (nearest) mirror of Fedora.
>
> For me,
> "https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=updates-released-f$releasever&arch=$basearch";
>
> return a mirror at "mirror.yandex.ru".
>
> Assuming
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:04 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
> > download.fedoraproject.org hits a redirector which sends you to the
> > nearest mirror from mirrormanager.
> >
>
> Well, but what should I do if that mirror seems broken?
Broke
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 19:16 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> > seth vidal wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 18:04 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Well, but what should I do if that mi
On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 11:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2011 at 11:18 AM, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-09-07 at 19:16 +0400, Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> >> Dmitry Butskoy wrote:
> >> > seth vidal wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 10:08 -0500, Richard Shaw wrote:
> I noticed this started in F15, but when I run "createrepo --update
> ..." it litters the current directory with a "garbageid" directory.
> I'm not sure if anything ever exists in it but after createrepo exits
> the directory is always empty f
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 11:33 -0500, Matyas Selmeci wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Hope it's okay to ask for general RPM/Yum advice here.
>
> We have several packages that require grid CA certificates to be
> installed. There are multiple sets of grid certificates, and we want to
> leave up to individual sit
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 18:26 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 16 September 2011 17:36, seth vidal wrote:
> > Here is how yum does comparison between multiple package providing the
> > same thing:
> > http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/CompareProviders
>
> I don't think
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 19:31 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On 16 September 2011 17:36, seth vidal wrote:
> >> Here is how yum does comparison between multiple package providing the
> >> same thing:
>
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 19:42 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 16 September 2011 18:43, seth vidal wrote:
> > having different tools is not acceptable. Especially when one of them is
> > not even remotely covering the use cases of our actual users.
>
> Installing 205 n
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 19:48 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> 2011/9/16 Miloslav Trmač :
> > How about the 1126 members of the "packager" group - i.e. most of us -
> > that would have to create and maintain packages compatible with two
> > different systems?
>
> That's nonsense, sorry. Zif is quite c
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 20:02 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Is Zif a SAT solver?
>
> We could really use a SAT solver to replace the current yum depsolver.
no, it is not a satsolver.
1. a satsolver is not the panacea that is purported to be - you end up
with some funny resolutions that do s
On Fri, 2011-09-16 at 11:07 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote:
>
>
>
> And since we seem to only be talking about optimization of policy
> rules (which could and probably should equally apply to all depsolvers
> in Fedora) shouldn't it be possible to encode your possibly more
> optimal policy rules as a
1 - 100 of 485 matches
Mail list logo
