On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 20:32 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >> When I tryed to boot the CD on HP Compaq DC5850 it just restart again
> > >> and again (looping). On the Dell Dimension 3100 it just stoped
> > >> displaying:
> > >>
> > >> ISOLINUX 6.02
> > >>
> > >> There was no problem making net
On Sat, 2014-09-20 at 19:32 +0200, Joachim Backes wrote:
> On 09/20/2014 07:14 PM, Jon Ingason wrote:
> > Den 2014-09-19 18:23, Jon Ingason skrev:
> >> I am trying to make netinstall from
> >> Fedora-Server-netinst-x86_64-21_Alpha on two PC. One is HP Compaq DC5850
> >> with AMD Athlon P5200B and t
On Sat, 2014-09-27 at 05:52 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2014, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2014-09-24 at 10:44 -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > i am at my wit's end with firefox on my fedora rawhide system -- to
> > > say it's nad-grindingly slow would be charitab
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 29 Sep 2014 16:20:03 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 14:38 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > We have some bugs filed
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142516 and
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.
On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 08:31 -0600, Mike Ruckman wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 06:42:07AM -0400, Kamil Paral wrote:
> > In the base installation matrix
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_21_Alpha_RC1_Base#Test_Matrix
> >
> > we have this test case:
> > https://fedoraproject.o
On Thu, 2014-09-18 at 05:43 -0300, Carlos Morel-Riquelme wrote:
> i solved this. i disable fedora-workstation,cloud and server repo , but
> what is the difference between fedora.repo and fedora-workstation.repo ?
The fedora-(product).repo repos are intended for use during network
installation by t
On Wed, 2014-09-17 at 20:55 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Sep 17, 2014, at 1:14 AM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 15:50 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >> For reference:
> >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/2014-September/010657.html
> >>
> >> I'm uncerta
The following Fedora 20 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
151 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-5897/nrpe-2.15-2.fc20
45
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-9474/pipelight-0.2.7.3-3.fc20
20
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-10458/
The following Fedora 19 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
339
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-19963/openstack-glance-2013.1.4-1.fc19
151 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-5896/nrpe-2.15-2.fc19
102
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-20
The following Fedora 21 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
17
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-10766/mod_gnutls-0.5.10-13.fc21
17
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-10767/squid-3.4.7-2.fc21
5
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2014-
"All applications installed by default in Fedora Workstation must comply
with each MUST and MUST NOT guideline in the Applications and Launchers
policy." [1] (This is already mentioned at the very bottom of the
policy.)
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 17:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> We don't really ha
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 18:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi, folks. I'm checking the release criteria again for Fedora.next
> compatibility, and there's an Alpha criterion with obvious issues:
For Pete's sake, I suck at email today - again I got my addresses wrong,
and sent this as well as test
Hi, folks. I'm checking the release criteria again for Fedora.next
compatibility, and there's an Alpha criterion with obvious issues:
"Package sets
When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images, the
installer must be able to install each of the release blocking desktops,
as
Hi, folks. I wanted to ask if you envisage a need for release criteria
for Workstation at Beta (or Final) over and above those that already
exist for 'desktop' stuff. Areas I notice:
SSSD is listed in the tech spec. We have server-side requirements for
FreeIPA in the Server product; do we want to
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 17:16 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hi, folks. So, I drew up a rough draft of the Server release criteria
> for Beta and Final as I suggest they might be. We could kick it around
> at tomorrow's meeting if desired. Here we go:
note I mis-spelled the name of the server list
Hi, folks. So, I drew up a rough draft of the Server release criteria
for Beta and Final as I suggest they might be. We could kick it around
at tomorrow's meeting if desired. Here we go:
BETA
=== Remote logging ===
It must be possible to forward system logs to a remote system using
Server packag
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 14:38 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> We have some bugs filed
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142516 and
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142512 to do with ARM
> images being over size. They do not make any sense because the size of
>
I test in workstation,mate,lxde and kde and work fine ,
[n0oir@localhost ~]$ rpm -qa |grep -i yumex
yumex-3.0.15-1.fc21.noarch
[n0oir@localhost ~]$
regards
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:18 PM, Reynold wrote:
> I am trying to use yumex on fedora 21 alpha workstation. Every time I try
> to install
I am trying to use yumex on fedora 21 alpha workstation. Every time I
try to install a package with it I get this error message:
Backend not running as expected
Yum Extender will terminate
--> exit code : 1
I would like to know if yumex will run on fedora 21 or if it will be
dropped in the
# F21 Blocker Review meeting
# Date: 2014-10-01
# Time: 16:00 UTC (12:00 EDT, 09:00 PDT)
# Location: #fedora-blocker-review on irc.freenode.net
It's that time of the week again! Currently there are 14 bugs that need some
TLC. Happily, that's 11 less than there were last week, so we might stand a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi All,
We have some bugs filed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142516 and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142512 to do with ARM
images being over size. They do not make any sense because the size of
the download is really n
>
> Hi folks! So if I may, can we try and reset this thread to the criteria
> discussion? it'd be good to have any new criteria in place before we hit
> Beta TC1.
>
> So I believe we have under discussion the following criteria:
>
> 1. "The installer must be able to install into free space along
On Mon, 2014-09-29 at 10:16 -0400, Gene Czarcinski wrote:
> > 2. "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside an
> > existing OS X installation, install and configure a bootloader that will
> > boot Fedora; if the boot menu presents OS X entries, they should boot OS
> > X."
> >
On 09/29/2014 03:32 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 11:09 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
re: dual boot criteria for existing Linux + new Fedora install
On Sep 7, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
"The installer must be able to install into free space alongside
existing
Broken deps for i386
--
[Agda]
ghc-Agda-2.3.2.2-5.fc22.i686 requires libHSterminfo-0.3.2.5-ghc7.6.3.so
ghc-Agda-2.3.2.2-5.fc22.i686 requires libHShaskeline-0.7.0.3-ghc7.6.3.so
ghc-Agda-2.3.2.2-5.fc22.i686 requires
ghc(
Compose started at Mon Sep 29 07:15:02 UTC 2014
Broken deps for armhfp
--
[PyQuante]
PyQuante-libint-1.6.4-11.fc21.1.armv7hl requires libint(armv7hl-32) =
0:1.1.6-2.fc21
[askbot]
askbot-0.7.48-13.fc21.noarch requires python-d
On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 11:09 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> re: dual boot criteria for existing Linux + new Fedora install
>
> On Sep 7, 2014, at 6:52 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> > "The installer must be able to install into free space alongside
> > existing GNU/Linux installations that are in
27 matches
Mail list logo
