On Wed, 2011-10-05 at 10:17 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> On 10/05/2011 10:02 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > What exactly did you do for "dependency-ordered builds"? What I could
> > really use right now is a tool that would sort the package list into
> > dependency order for me, and point to where
> >
> > What exactly did you do for "dependency-ordered builds"? What I could
> > really use right now is a tool that would sort the package list into
> > dependency order for me, and point to where there are circularities.
> > I'd like to think that w
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 10:51 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 18:41 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On 12 October 2011 17:44, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > All existing users of the Fedora Account System (FAS) at
> > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts are required to change
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 10:58 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 13:53 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 10:51 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 18:41 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > > > On 12 October
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 22:13 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> >
> > You have to remember, lots of our contributors aren't highly technical.
> > Some don't even know what a private key is. They just follow the docs on
> > the website and get access to contribute. Not everyone is a packager.
>
> OK, but
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 22:34 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> Unnecessary work is kind of punishment.
>
> BTW what prevents the people who do not care about their SSH private key
> security to upload their new SSH key to a compromised system immediately
> after their generate it again?
Nothing prevents
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 21:19 +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> just to let you know - I'm taking a two-week holiday starting
> tomorrow, during which time I probably won't have internet access. So,
> don't wonder why I'm not, e.g., attending anything in bugzilla.
Thank you for sending this
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:25:54 + (UTC)
Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
>
> > > Yeah, I got that bit. But I'm sure all you folks are in the know,
> > > so I asked.
> >
> > No more than anyone - there really is no cabal ;) All I know is
> > what the GNOME / desktop te
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 14:10:57 +
Ian Malone wrote:
> On 4 November 2011 13:21, seth vidal
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 10:25:54 + (UTC)
> > Bojan Smojver wrote:
> >
> >> Adam Williamson redhat.com> writes:
> >>
> >> > >
On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:52 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:44, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 05:11:00PM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> >> On 7 April 2011 16:02, Matt Domsch wrote:
> >> > Question is, is it valuable enough to the Project as a wh
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 09:57 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 18:23 +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
>
> > > I have to defend Seth here ... in the last flamewar on this theme he
> > > admitted that introducing Suggests/Recommends would be question of half
> > > an hour (maybe he did
On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 23:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:37:26AM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> > By the way, maybe it would be good to think about the meaning of /srv
> > existance? For seven years FHS requires that this directory exists
> > http://www.pathname.com/
On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 17:26 +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> 2011/4/29 seth vidal :
> > On Thu, 2011-04-28 at 23:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:37:26AM +0200, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
> >> > By the way, maybe it would be good to t
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 16:27 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:11:51AM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
> > Sounds interesting:
> >
> > http://digitizor.com/2011/05/12/ubuntu-11-10-lightdm/
>
> It's less functional than gdm, and by the time it's as functional as gdm
> it'll be l
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 17:12 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 11:29:18AM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 16:27 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > It's less functional than gdm, and by the time it's as functional as gdm
&g
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 12:05 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 11:29 -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 16:27 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:11:51AM -0400, Neal Becker wrote:
> > > > Sounds inte
On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 02:06 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 07:42:17PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> > > I am pretty sure we don't want to run Java programs at late boot, as
> > > root. This would be really bad.
> >
> > You know, it's not like there is a choice for many mod
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 17:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 05:59:36PM +0200, Petr Sabata wrote:
> > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:36:10AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > The question is - why does having incompatible plan9 implementations of
> > > common commands make Fedo
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 13:10 -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:56:25PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
>
> > > What would cause someone to choose to use these tools rather than the
> > > ones that exist in Fedora already?
> >
> > They com
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 18:41 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:56:25PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 17:52 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > What would cause someone to choose to use these tools rather than the
> > > ones t
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 01:42:02PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 18:41 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:56:25PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2011
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:35 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:21:04PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:14 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > If they're used to plan9, they'll presumably want these in their path.
> >
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:53 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 02:39:16PM -0400, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 19:35 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > If I get a bug complaining that something doesn't work because the user
> > >
On Sun, 2011-05-29 at 17:56 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
> Hi, everyone. I want to deeply apologize for my recent several months of
> absence without notice.
>
> I realize that disappearing so abruptly, especially disregarding my
> packaging work as I did, is entirely unfair. It was unfair to our us
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 15:04 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> On 1 Jun 2011 21:54, "Ville Skyttä" wrote:
> >
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
> >
> > I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default
> install. In
> > my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:11 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 02.06.2011 16:04, schrieb drago01:
> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Reindl Harald
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Am 01.06.2011 22:54, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> >>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=709647
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to hav
On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:21 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> > package-cleanup --leaves --all
>
> is listing "grub-0.97-66.fc14.x86_64"
> i hope you understand why i not trust this output :-)
grub isn't required.
> >> and then tell why the count of unneeded base-packages should be increased
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 22:46 +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
>
> Slide 14:
> "systemd is an Init System"
> "systemd is a Platform"
>
> systemd is a platform? Really? What next? systemd is an Aircraft
> Carrier? More to the point: Lennart can call his program whatever he
> wants, even Nuclear Submari
On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 11:25 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I've installed XFCE. It was easy to install, and it works sanely
> (unlike GNOME 3 / Unity).
And you can add some interesting tools around xfce which enhance,imo,
its operation.
-sv
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject
On Wed, 2011-06-15 at 21:08 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2011 07:12:56 AM Paul Howarth wrote:
> > I propose to retire bittorrent (the original python client) for the
> > reasons outlined below. If anyone's interested in taking it over
> > instead, please apply on the packag
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 18:59 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 01:19 +0200, Henrik Wejdmark wrote:
>
> > My impression is that GNOME3 is trying to compete with Android and FrontRow,
> > but have forgotten all of us who still uses desktops/laptops. We don't have
> > touch screens
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 20:02 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Trusted_Boot is a proposed
> feature for F16. We've traditionally had a hard objection to the
> functionality because it required either the distribution or downloading
> of binary code that ran on
On Fri, 2011-07-01 at 00:09 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 06:34:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 12:27:47PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> >
> > > Portreserve is also useful to reserve (not let the OS make use of)
> > > ports that are needed by an e
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 03.02.2010, 00:47 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 00:15:41 +0100, Christoph wrote:
Sindre Pedersen Bjørdal was declared to be MIA in a fast track
nonresponsive maintainer procedure [1, 2]. This means that we h
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 02.02.2010, 19:16 -0500 schrieb Seth Vidal:
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>>
>>> Huh? the list I posted was from packagedb and both seth and me counted
>>> 25 packages:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> After more than 7 months John T. Guthrie III is now officially AWOL, see
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=514882 and my previous mail
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-January/130011.html
>
> John owned 18 packages:
On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> I'm trying to track down a bug (563103) which only occurs in Koji. We
> think it may be because the Rawhide qemu binary, when it runs on the
> Koji RHEL 5 kernel, makes some system call that returns -EINVAL.
> Unfortunately qemu turns -EINVAL f
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> As part of no frozen rawhide, we'll have a new tree on the mirrors,
> pub/fedora/linux/development/13 That's where we'll be putting things
> that are tagged for the release after they get through testing. We
> don't yet have a clever name for this co
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 22:06 -0700, Robyn Bergeron wrote:
>>
>> * short (1-3 words)
>> * a call to action
>> * positive
>>
>>
>
> So, "Houston, we have a problem." is not acceptable?
>
With absolutely no reference to any other linux distribution namin
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> Proposal: don't ship fedora-release-rawhide at all. To move between
> streams, run "yum --releasever install/upgrade fedora-release"
>
> yum --releasever= upgrade
>
> Am I missing something? Do people think this would be better, or worse?
>
gpg
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Seth Vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
>>> Proposal: don't ship fedora-release-rawhide at all. To move between
>>> streams, run "yum --releasever install/upgrade fedora-release"
>>>
>&g
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto wrote:
> This is off topic, but important to open software developers & supporters
>
Yes - this is definitely off-topic. Please do not continue this thread.
Thank You.
-sv
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedor
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Will Woods wrote:
>
>> * Has ABI/API change (and is a Critical Path package)
>
> This should be handled by the current rpmguard test:
> https://fedorahosted.org/autoqa/wiki/rpmguard
>
> since changing the ABI/API should generally change the soname/version,
> thus changing the
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:30:18PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Will Woods wrote:
>
>>> So I think it would be shortsighted for FESCo to refuse to even discuss
>>> a policy about what manua
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said:
>>> For most bugfixes, the user doesn't notice at all. When a user gets a
>>> bugfix on something they've hit, they think "oh, that's nice, Fedora fixed
>>> it", but they don't really care whether it cam Mon
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, James Antill wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 12:06 -0800, Josh Stone wrote:
>
>> But for rolling back an update, yum requires that the old package is
>> still available. We only keep the very latest version in the updates,
>> so unless your previous version was from the initi
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Seth Vidal (skvi...@fedoraproject.org) said:
>>> Given that we don't provide an easily accessible user-friendly rollback
>>> mechanism, I don't know that that's actually applicable to the general case,
>>>
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le lundi 01 mars 2010 à 14:46 -0500, Seth Vidal a écrit :
Given that we don't provide an easily accessible user-friendly rollback
mechanism, I don't know that that's actually applicable to the general case,
though.
yum history un
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> This is the problem with arguing about a proposal that hasn't even been
> written yet. You latch onto the one part you assume will be there that
> is the most unreasonable, and use that as a tool to bash the entire
> concept of the proposal (which hasn
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>> --> Processing Dependency: tor-lsb = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package:
>> tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686
>
> This is where things go to hell. Why in the hell is tor-lsb /required/
> by tor? LSB isn't
y
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, David Malcolm wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>> So after having heard the nth discussion about tor, I decided to check it
>> out.
>> I tried installing it on a stripped down f12 box that has no X, or other
>> stuff
>> unnecessary for routing
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:51:17AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > --> Processing Dependency: tor-lsb = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package:
> > > tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686
> >
> > This is where thing
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Enrico Scholz wrote:
> Jesse Keating writes:
>
>> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 12:37 -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>>> --> Processing Dependency: tor-lsb = 0.2.1.23-1200.fc12 for package:
>>> tor-0.2.1.23-1200.fc12.i686
>>
>> This is where things go to hell. Why in the hell is tor-lsb
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
> functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why is this update
> going out? What possible benefit doe
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 02:11 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> You and everyone else, please stop proposing Rawhide as the solution for me
>>> and people who want the same "update everything that doesn't break things"
>>> policy, i
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>> I do not agree Kevin's view is incumbent. I think what's happened is we
>> exploded in size when extras came in and when we merged core and extras
>> and we lost control over the process and over as
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
> Again, I fail to see that mess. To me we're actually doing a great job!
>
>> We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in
>> cleaning up the mess, not making it
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> the suggestion I had made at fudcon went something like this:
>>
>> 1. all packages being put in as updates would need to be marked as per
>> the type of update. the default is 'trivial'. Options might include: new
>> pkg, trivial, feature, bugfix, s
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 00:05 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> The issue right now appears to be the same as when we have a critical
>> security or bugfix that has to be fast-tracked and we have LOTS of pkgs
>> in updates-testing.
>
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>> At the risk of complicating the world would it make any sense for us to
>> have (in increasing order of importance)
>>
>> updates-testing
>> updates
>> updates-important
>>
>> pac
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2010/3/3 Josh Boyer :
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:52:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in
cleaning up the mess,
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>> And stages non-critical/important updates so our QA team can test and
>> check them over more thoroughly and align testing goals and days to help
>> foster and create a more active and involved t
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
>>> working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> So far, I haven't seen any indication of such a team being in existance
> (c.f. dnssec-conf, kernel) nor am I aware of any means for testing such
> perl-modules (perl-modules typically are equipped with a testsuite).
>
> The real testing is performed
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
> >Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
> >different?
>
> What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further
> members of FPB and FESCO) to be graduall
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
>>> Are there even any metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
>>> bug that can be fixed issuing an updat
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> 2010/3/3 Seth Vidal :
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
>>>> Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anythi
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
>> since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
>> decided what will happen will have to live with it.
>>
>> Well, there you see how dumb i am
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> I think it's ultimately a Board decision whether we pick one of the two
> target groups and stick to it, or whether we try to cater to both. That
> decision should basically make it obvious what we should do with our
> update streams.
It's a fesco
Till Maas wrote:
>
>> A less ugly script can now be found here:
>> http://till.fedorapeople.org/tmp/easy-karma.py
>> Improvements:
>> - display update details, e.g. bugs and notes
>> - use src.rpm to find matching update
>> - skip updates that have already been commented
>>
>> With this giving
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:23:30AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> Great script here's a small set of changes to have easy-karma use yum as a
>> module
>> instead of via subprocess.
>>
>> http://skvidal.fedorapeopl
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 4 March 2010 13:17, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But of course the GNOME spin "works" (for some definition of "works", they
also have a PackageKit issue which was declared not a blocker –
For the record, it is a yum-langpacks issue.
If you're running an
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:23:30AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> Great script here's a small set of changes to have easy-karma use yum as a
>> module
>> instead of via subprocess.
>>
>> http://skvidal.fedorapeopl
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:26:17AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 01:23:30AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>
>>>> Great script here
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
> reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to
> this? I created a wiki page for this:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Till/update_availability_
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>>
>> the problem is you have to depsolve both sets of pkgs separately keeping
>> in mind stable vs unstable. And the depsolving impacts the multilib
>> selection (and vice versa).
>
> I do not understand the problem, can you maybe give an example?
> Does the
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Quentin Armitage wrote:
> The glibc packages (including nscd) were in updates-testing, but have
> been obsoleted, and so 2.11.90-12 is now the current version again. What
> is the mechanism for becoming aware that a package that has been
> installed through updates-testing ha
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I will propose this to FESCo through their normal channels.
>
> My proposal is that we create a "Fedora User Survey" and create a link
> on the fp.o website with a few very simple questions. One of those
> questions would be what users think ab
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 08:51:06AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> 1. One group wants us to aim for mom/pop/grandma/desktop users - the
>> apple market or what ubuntu aims for.
>>
>> 2. one group wants us to aim exclusively
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 08:51 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> Here's the camps I see:
>>
>> 1. One group wants us to aim for mom/pop/grandma/desktop users - the
>> apple market or what ubuntu aims for.
>>
>> 2. o
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 11:05 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> -1
>>
>> It sure looks like a californian referendum process. Let me make this
>> abundantly clear: I have ZERO interest in developing a distro which is
>> driven by m
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
> Another question - how many broken things we shipped in release that could be
> fixed by updates? We shipped lot of unfinished, feature incomplete stuff in
> history...
>
> Nobody can't say I'm for shipping broken stuff - for release, updates etc...
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
>
> Seth,
>
> The problem is that when things do get broken in a stable release, the
> updates that fix the problem often only get released in the next
> release.
>
> When I installed F11, two of my systems ran fine for the install and
> those upda
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
>
> I have limited time to do system installs and maintenance. Sticking
> with one distribution helps keep that sane. I have a
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>> Here's the camps I see:
>>
>> 1. One group wants us to aim for mom/pop/grandma/desktop users - the
>> apple market or what ubuntu aims for.
>>
>>
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Karel Zak wrote:
>
> Always when I see that someone is trying to introduce a new rule I
> have to ask myself ... why so large project like kernel is able to
> successfully exist for 20 years without a huge collection of rules?
the kernel has one rule which ends up working ve
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 March 2010 14:02:07 Seth Vidal wrote:
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>>> Ok, but then we're stuck in infinite cycle. Some people want to change
>>> update policies/target of Fedora because
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Karel Zak wrote:
> It's not (only) about Linus. It's about working environment and
> strong focus on technical things.
>
> Please, read:
> http://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/ManagementStyle
>
>> Yes, we don't have Linus here ;-) But usually I like his decisions - mostly
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Ok, but then we're stuck in infinite cycle. Some people want to change update
> policies/target of Fedora because of users, we don't know who are our user and
> what they want. Now someone wants to know who are our users/what our users
> really want,
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:26:15PM +0100, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
>
>> -1 to this. I've packaged a number of things that I know just one user of.
>> I have no idea how many people actually use my packages or how to reach
>> them. Ther
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>> you have been on websites that allow anonymous posting, right? You know
>> what happens to them?
>
> Yes, anonymous polling is liking playing with fire. Let me throw this
> out there -- for a *firs
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 job there. Nobody from QA has
> ever given feedback to any of my updates, and it won't happen in the
> future either.
I would not b
On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 03:42:19PM -0600, Mike Chambers wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-03-09 at 14:06 +0100, Thomas Spura wrote:
>>> Am Dienstag, den 09.03.2010, 07:50 -0500 schrieb Stephen Gallagher:
On 03/06/2010 05:21 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> [0] https://
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 9 March 2010 21:54, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> ===
>> #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-03-09)
>> ===
>>
>>
>> Meeting started by nirik at 20:00:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
>
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Seth, respect would be a good starting point.
>
>> 20:45:30 I know there are people that will leave Fedora if
>> we decide a policy that forbids major updates. both users and
>> contributors
>> 20:45:42 cwickert: people threatening to leave shoul
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> I can agree with that last sentence in parts. Please don't forget the
> order of incidents, however. First the early-warning system with hundreds
> of messages and multiple threads, which made several packagers think "do
> they want to ruin the co
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 2:51 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 9 Mar 2010, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Another question - how many broken things we shipped in release that could
>>> be
>&
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> as long as you require only a few 32-bit packages, requesting them
>> explicitly is not the end of the world. So if we were to drop support
>> for that "always install all libs as multilibs" option
>
> Eh? I didn't even know th
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010, Paul Wouters wrote:
>
> That might be harsh for some soname updates. Six months is a long time
> to wait on new functionality after upstream released it. Even for users
> running only full Fedora releases. Though I see various phrasing around
> this that would allow exceptio
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:23:58PM +, Andy Green wrote:
>
>> However I agree this isn't a real issue, the packages with the homegrown
>> apps should choke the yum update because they see the lib versions they
>> depend on would go away, so nothin
101 - 200 of 485 matches
Mail list logo
