On 02/05/2013 07:43 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
Any advises or opinions ?
I think you haven't yet described the original problem you're trying to
solve.
--
Florian Weimer / Red Hat Product Security Team
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 07/02/13 21:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu 07 Feb 2013 02:26:48 PM EST, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
On 07/02/13 19:24, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
Now that I'm a bit more familiar with node.js packaging (ie,
never even looked at node.js before this week...), I'll take
it.
I don't currently have
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 07:47:48 +0100
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 02/06/2013 08:42 AM, Stijn Hoop wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:46:32 +0100
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
The actual problem is the current Gnome 3 being an entirely
different product than Gnome 2,
On 02/08/2013 03:56 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:57:19 +0100
Petr Machata pmach...@redhat.com wrote:
I have just built boost 1.53. I didn't go through the side tag as
originally envisioned, as tomorrow's mass rebuild should take care of
it all in one fell swoop. I'll still
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
it was requested in https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1004 that
we do a mass rebuild for Fedora 19 for
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/GCC48
Additionally we will be mass patching config.guess and config.sub to
support aarch64 in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:41:29 +0100
Kalev Lember kalevlem...@gmail.com escribió:
On 02/08/2013 03:56 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:57:19 +0100
Petr Machata pmach...@redhat.com wrote:
I have just built boost 1.53. I didn't go
Quoting Jamie Nguyen (2013-02-08 10:12:12)
On 07/02/13 21:33, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Thu 07 Feb 2013 02:26:48 PM EST, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
On 07/02/13 19:24, Jamie Nguyen wrote:
Now that I'm a bit more familiar with node.js packaging (ie,
never even looked at node.js before this
On 08/02/13 10:52, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Will do. I'm currently packaging a tonne of deps for buddycloud, so
many review swaps may be imminent!
Ah, buddycloud in Fedora? Cool. I'll have to try it out one day :-)
Hopefully one day is going to be reasonably soon :)
There are quite a
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com writes:
On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 02:57:19 +0100
Petr Machata pmach...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi there,
I have just built boost 1.53. I didn't go through the side tag as
originally envisioned, as tomorrow's mass rebuild should take care of
it all in one fell swoop.
Hi,
a few days ago, the topic of package shipping their own ssl CA bundle
was discussed on irc with kiilerix, and the discussion prompted me to
add some code to rpmlint to warn people about it. In short, shipping a
private key, or a .pem is highly suspicious.
For a private key to be used as
On 02/08/2013 12:41 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
For a certificate, that's slightly more subtle. A certificate alone in a
package cannot do much. If there is no private key, then it cannot be
used out of the box, except for client side validation ( afaik ). So
all .pam certificates we can find
On 02/08/2013 12:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 08.02.2013 12:54, schrieb Florian Weimer:
On 02/08/2013 12:41 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
For a certificate, that's slightly more subtle. A certificate alone in a
package cannot do much. If there is no private key, then it cannot be
used out of
Le 08/02/2013 12:41, Michael Scherer a écrit :
Hi,
a few days ago, the topic of package shipping their own ssl CA bundle
was discussed on irc with kiilerix, and the discussion prompted me to
add some code to rpmlint to warn people about it. In short, shipping a
private key, or a .pem is
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original
statement, namely that there is a completely different target
audience for GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3.
I am that datapoint.
As are various others during FOSDEM (Vincent
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 02/06/2013 08:42 AM, Stijn Hoop wrote:
On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 21:46:32 +0100
Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
The actual problem is the current Gnome 3 being an entirely different
product than Gnome 2, which
On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 12:41 +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
Hi,
a few days ago, the topic of package shipping their own ssl CA bundle
was discussed on irc with kiilerix, and the discussion prompted me to
add some code to rpmlint to warn people about it. In short, shipping a
private key, or a
The mediawiki package is severely outdated. I have attempted to contact
the maintainer and received only one reply in a couple of weeks. He has
ignored my requests for co-maintainership.
I commented on the NRM bug[1] two weeks ago with no response. The bug
itself is months old, but he pops in to
I just got this output when updating a package:
$ fedpkg push
warning: push.default is unset; its implicit value is changing in
Git 2.0 from 'matching' to 'simple'. To squelch this message
and maintain the current behavior after the default changes, use:
git config --global push.default
Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us writes:
Additionally we will be mass patching config.guess and config.sub to
support aarch64 in preperation for 64 bit arm support
Hm, it would be much better in the long run to pester upstreams to
update to an appropriate version of these files. Are the required
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com wrote:
I just got this output when updating a package:
$ fedpkg push
warning: push.default is unset; its implicit value is changing in
Git 2.0 from 'matching' to 'simple'. To squelch this message
and maintain the current
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Richard Shaw hobbes1...@gmail.com wrote:
Does it matter which method is used for packaging purposes?
I believe fedpkg might want to start setting push.default to matching
when it does a clone.
Summary of changes:
91c503e... Update to latest upstream release. (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Summary of changes:
91c503e... Update to latest upstream release. (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Summary of changes:
91c503e... Update to latest upstream release. (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
That's where it start to be funny and security related, because the
whole certificate authority idea requires update to be kept secure ( for
exemple, when a CA was compromised, like DigiNotar, Trustwave ). And
that's
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=904756
Robin Lee robinlee.s...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:41:29PM +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
What triggered to write this mail is review 902503, where I was not able
to find a way to inspect the cacert.p7s. I am not able to decipher
openssl man pages to do anything with that file ( as a side note, if
someone can tell me
On 02/08/2013 07:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us writes:
Additionally we will be mass patching config.guess and config.sub to
support aarch64 in preperation for 64 bit arm support
Hm, it would be much better in the long run to pester upstreams to
update to an appropriate
would deveopers of core-packages take a look at this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887763#c37
god knows what happens here with the /etc/mtab symlink
BUT this all did never happen before the problems with
/etc/mtab where solved by replace it with a symlink
may i suggest to make
Am 08.02.2013 13:05, schrieb Florian Weimer:
On 02/08/2013 12:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 08.02.2013 12:54, schrieb Florian Weimer:
On 02/08/2013 12:41 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
For a certificate, that's slightly more subtle. A certificate alone in a
package cannot do much. If there
On 02/07/2013 04:23 PM, Aaron Gray wrote:
Can someone who knows firewalld please do a HOWTO to on setting up a
secondary DHCP with DNS and HTTPS access for PXEBOOTing of Fedora18
please to go with the PXEBOOT HOWTO :-
http://linux-sxs.org/internet_serving/pxeboot.html
Hope someone can help, I
Summary of changes:
91c503e... Update to latest upstream release. (*)
44c263d... Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into el6 Updat
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
commit 44c263dcf884abb0ed928a38096242ba3d3f5a1a
Merge: 9dfbc9a 91c503e
Author: Orion Poplawski or...@nwra.com
Date: Fri Feb 8 09:44:54 2013 -0700
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/master' into el6
Update to 1.98.8
.gitignore |1 +
abi-compliance-checker.spec |
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:20:23AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
I don't mind filling one out, but I'm not sure what I would put in it.
Are you saying that fedpkg should not rely on the default and explicit
set the push method?
Fedpkg doesn't set any setting. It only call git push.
The issue
Dear xfce/lxde user/maintainer,
perhaps you know i re-retired compiz-0.88 for f18.
I also added a start-script for lxde and xfce, subpackage compiz-xfce
and compiz-lxde.
Unfortunately i do not use xfce or lxde directly so i have no feedback
if compiz is running well in those desktop.
I did a short
Hi Wolfgang,
I have heard it is working in LXDE but I have not tried it myself.
Thanks for your hard work on this.
Dan
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:27 AM, Rave it chat-to...@raveit.de wrote:
Dear xfce/lxde user/maintainer,
perhaps you know i re-retired compiz-0.88 for f18.
I also added a
Le vendredi 08 février 2013 à 11:08 -0500, Nalin Dahyabhai a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:41:29PM +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
What triggered to write this mail is review 902503, where I was not able
to find a way to inspect the cacert.p7s. I am not able to decipher
openssl man pages
Le vendredi 08 février 2013 à 16:54 +0100, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
- ban all certificates if used to validate something.
I think this is too strict; there may be legitimate cases of
service-specific CAs; there
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Jochen Schmitt joc...@herr-schmitt.de wrote:
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 09:20:23AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
I don't mind filling one out, but I'm not sure what I would put in it.
Are you saying that fedpkg should not rely on the default and explicit
set the
Hello,
A couple of months back I asked about updating MongoDB from 2.0.7 to
2.2.0 in EPEL6 and Fedora 17.
Although it is backwards compatible, there were several bugs brought up
that people wanted fixed in Mongodb 2.2.x before we moved to this
version. With MongoDB 2.2.3, the last of these bugs
2013/2/8 Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com:
Yes, but fedpkg is currently relying on the existing git default, which
is matching. That is changing upstream in git, so fedpkg needs to set
a default when it clones.
And this default should probably be push.default=upstream.
--
Thomas Moschny
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Moschny
thomas.mosc...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/8 Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com:
Yes, but fedpkg is currently relying on the existing git default, which
is matching. That is changing upstream in git, so fedpkg needs to set
a default when it clones.
And
Hello,
My name is Frederik Holden, and I'm trying to becoming a package
collection maintainer. I am sending this email to introduce myself, as
recommended by the wiki. I submitted my first review request earlier
today, which can be found at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909387.
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 06:40:05PM +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le vendredi 08 février 2013 à 11:08 -0500, Nalin Dahyabhai a écrit :
This worked for me:
openssl cms -verify -noverify -in cacert.p7s
Sorry to not have been clearer, what i want is the clear text version of
the
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
At this point it is time for someone to update the package as it
is currently a security hazard. I have already built the latest
mediawiki package and have it ready to rock-and-or-roll once the NRM
procedure is finished.
There
#5467: 2 Packages missing from mirrors
--+---
Reporter: limb | Owner: rel-eng@…
Type: task | Status: closed
Milestone: Fedora 19 Alpha | Component: koji
Resolution: fixed| Keywords:
Le Ven 8 février 2013 13:22, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original
statement, namely that there is a completely different target
audience for GNOME 2 vs GNOME 3.
I am that
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909136
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
abi-compliance-checker-1.98.8-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
17.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909136
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
abi-compliance-checker-1.98.8-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
16.
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:35:56 +0100
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Le Ven 8 février 2013 13:22, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original
statement, namely that
I'm not sure there's any place in our community where it is acceptable
for people to go to fight. Nor do I think that would be healthy.
I would prefer to think that noone in our community really wants to
hurt anyone else. I think if anyone showed up at any face-to-face
meeting specifically with
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=909136
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
abi-compliance-checker-1.98.8-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora
18.
On 8 February 2013 12:15, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:46 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
At this point it is time for someone to update the package as it
is currently a security hazard. I have already built the latest
mediawiki package and have it
On Fri, 08.02.13 20:35, Nicolas Mailhot (nicolas.mail...@laposte.net) wrote:
Le Ven 8 février 2013 13:22, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 10:34:58AM +0100, Stijn Hoop wrote:
I am providing a datapoint that directly contradicts your original
statement, namely that there is
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
This package is a bit difficult to fix. One it has custom patches
that upstream doesn't accept. Two the fix is to upgrade to a very new
version which will break everyone who upgrades until they (or the
first person who gets to the website :) ) runs the upgrade
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/576
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/576/0001-Ticket-576-DNA-use-event-queue-for-config-update-onl.patch
Bug description: DNA config updates were always put into the
event queue and executed in 30 seconds, which increased a chance
to conflict
The FOSDEM poll was stacked ??? no one really wanted to hurt Vincent Untz
too much given his obvious efforts to be nice, there was this knot of
GNOME people bunched together that were a tad intimidating, and people do
[...]
So don't overplay the GNOME 3 FOSDEM session, it was an awkward
I'm an Ambassador and this proposal is confusing me.
We have LibreOffice in our repositories; I think that bring back
Apache OpenOffice generates only confusion between users, not freedom
of choice.
The confusion is already there in Windows world, linux user should be
more capable of
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
If you consider that free software is meant for everybody, irrespective of
their technical abilities, then, yes, it creates too much confusion.
There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one
more isn't really
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Email-Address:
0ea27eae4888ec25733af68b51f20245 Email-Address-1.898.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 3d0142676e5a3a7b77f350d468484dd3cbd40f54
Author: Tom Callaway s...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Fri Feb 8 15:52:27 2013 -0500
1.898
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Email-Address.spec |5 -
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
Unlike pulseaudio (in the above linked thread), AOO is
end-user GUI application, not a library/daemon/sound-server/whatever
used to get the wanted sound to your headphones (that by design
interferes with anything else trying to do the same) ;-) By adding AOO
we're not breaking some third app,
On 8 February 2013 13:15, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
This package is a bit difficult to fix. One it has custom patches
that upstream doesn't accept. Two the fix is to upgrade to a very new
version which will break everyone who upgrades until they (or
There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one
more isn't really going to aggravate the problem too much for users
We suck. So lets suck a little bit more. Is that what you are saying? :-)
especially since there is a default installed already.
The first time I ran
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se wrote:
It is irrelevant whether it is a daemon or a GUI application. The main
point is that you are confusing users and also developers. Why the hell
should a random user have to choose from half a dozen seemingly similar
programs
I know this applies, but installing gnome-shell pulls in gdm.
I.e. removing gdm without removing gnone-shell is not possible.
Because gnome-shell (running in a special mode) is nowadays the greeter used
by GDM. That does not mean GDM won't let you log into KDE if you have it
installed.
As
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one
more isn't really going to aggravate the problem too much for users
We suck. So lets suck a little bit more. Is that what you are saying? :-)
If you want to
Keep in mind that to get to the point of installing an alternative-only
DE, in current Fedora, you normally first have a full blown Gnome3
installed, which is close to impossible to get rid of.
[citation needed]
Cheers,
Debarshi
--
If computers are going to revolutionize education, then
There are multiple alternative office suites already in Linux. Adding one
more isn't really going to aggravate the problem too much for users
We suck. So lets suck a little bit more. Is that what you are saying? :-)
If you want to build a distribution with a single default for everything
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se wrote:
Ok.
sarcasm
So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose
a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple
different depsolvers has already been frowned upon.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se wrote:
sarcasm
So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose
a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple
different depsolvers has already been frowned upon.
deadpan
On an
On Feb 8, 2013 12:54 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote:
. Two the fix is to upgrade to a very new
version which will break everyone who upgrades until they (or the
first person who gets to the website :) ) runs the upgrade mode..
which might not work due to either custom changes
sarcasm
So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose
a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple
different depsolvers has already been frowned upon.
Now why did *that* happen? It is Fedora, isn't it?
/sarcasm
Sarcasm isn't
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se wrote:
Users don't care where LO comes from at all.
Then how will you empower them to make a choice between LO and AOO?
We don't. We don't need to, and we don't care to.
We empower interested programmers to work on AOO within
sarcasm
So what is the next step? Offering another kernel? Or allowing us to choose
a different package manager or packing format? Oh, wait, using multiple
different depsolvers has already been frowned upon.
deadpan
On an F18 system
yum info smart
yum info dpkg
/deadpan
You do know the
We empower interested programmers to work on AOO within the Fedora
ecosystem. That's all.
How is packaging AOO a requirement for that? They can compile AOO and work on
it just fine.
Cheers,
Debarshi
--
If computers are going to revolutionize education, then steam engines and cars
and
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
Sarcasm isn't going to resolve the problems.
But it might highlight the problem with this lets have some more choices
madness.
There are better ways to highlight that not to mention the examples you
used already exist in Fedora.
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Debarshi Ray rishi...@lostca.se wrote:
For starters:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/669
Uhm that ticket is specifically about a feature proposal to include
something as a default installed tech.
We are not talking about AOO as a default installed
There are better ways to highlight that not to mention the examples you
used already exist in Fedora.
So do we have multiple kernels in Fedora? We offer .deb variants of Fedora?
That doesn't solve the existing problem at all. There is no reason why we
should have say Epiphany but exclude
Le vendredi 08 février 2013 à 20:56 +, Debarshi Ray a écrit :
especially since there is a default installed already.
The first time I ran an installer 10 years ago, I remember staring at a screen
which gave me 2 options: GNOME and KDE, and the description for both of them
were exactly
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
So do we have multiple kernels in Fedora? We offer .deb variants of
Fedora?
Reductio ad absurdum. We will discuss serious considerations based on
actual proposals on a case by case basis. Alternative office suites
already exist in
Le Ven 8 février 2013 21:30, Debarshi Ray a écrit :
The FOSDEM poll was stacked ??? no one really wanted to hurt Vincent
Untz
too much given his obvious efforts to be nice, there was this knot of
GNOME people bunched together that were a tad intimidating, and people
do
[...]
So don't
This thread is over.
I'd like to ask everyone to take a few minutes to re-read:
http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
and get some away time from the discussion and think about things and
how to approach discussions more constructively.
Thanks,
Stephen
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
Don't derail a
Lennart,
For better or worse Vincent Untz had people express themselves on systemd
at FOSDEM, and pretty much everyone thought you were doing great. I can
understand your regrets that it was less the case for your GNOME 3
friends, but that should not overshadow this great achievement of the
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:07:02 +
Debarshi Ray wrote:
So do we have multiple kernels in Fedora? We offer .deb variants of
Fedora?
Let me say one thing: if you're going by examples, go with proper ones.
There is vast difference of work needed to support two kernels and work
needed to support
Reductio ad absurdum.
To me this is as absurd as the others.
Right. When we moved from Openoffice.org to Libreoffice by default, AOO
We could have kept the openoffice.org packages instead of replacing them with
LO, but we did not.
(I guess, at this point, it is quite clear that I am losing
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
Right. When we moved from Openoffice.org to Libreoffice by default, AOO
We could have kept the openoffice.org packages instead of replacing them
with
LO, but we did not.
Yes because we had some problems with how openoffice.org was
Let me say one thing: if you're going by examples, go with proper ones.
There is vast difference of work needed to support two kernels and work
needed to support two office suites. You know kernel is the base upon
everything runs, right? Please, don't make the most basic component
that cannot
Hi
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 6:21 PM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
I don't think that the guiding principle should be: here is some FOSS
code,
lets package it.
Claiming what it shouldn't be is the easy part. Writing up a proposal on
what the guiding principles should be and building consensus on it
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:50:11 +
Debarshi Ray wrote:
It is irrelevant whether it is a daemon or a GUI application.
No, it is not. To stay with pulseaudio -- when you're playing a song,
it's not exactly easy to tell if it goes to your headphones through
alsa, oss, openal, pulseaudio, or a
On 02/08/2013 12:57 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
would deveopers of core-packages take a look at this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=887763#c37
god knows what happens here with the /etc/mtab symlink
BUT this all did never happen before the problems with
/etc/mtab where solved by
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 20:45:30 +0100
Stijn Hoop wrote:
But I will keep objecting to the single-sided argument that there is
no GNOME 2 user that likes GNOME 3. I fully support those who have
tried and rejected the new stuff -- as long as they don't impose their
opinion on me :-)
I don't think
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:23 AM, Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com wrote:
* Gnome devs didn't learn from KDE's mistake (the release of beta
stuff as 4.0) and went even further. Users affected by only this
might return (like Linus did).
I can't recall that many stability bugs
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:37 PM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
Being different does not imply different target audience ... same
thing and discussion happened when GNOME 2.0 got released.
Now the haters from back then want GNOME 2.0 back ;)
Can we start a new thread about bringing sawfish
On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 01:37:03 +0100
drago01 wrote:
I can't recall that many stability bugs getting reported against GNOME
3.0 ... so [citation needed].
Well the fallback mode being a poor man's excuse was partly the case why
the people couldn't stay with gnome. Loads of features weren't
Could we move this to a gnome/desktop list?
The subject of the thread has been decided...
I don't think it's providing much value to the Fedora devel community
anymore.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 18:21:00 -0700
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Could we move this to a gnome/desktop list?
The subject of the thread has been decided...
I don't think it's providing much value to the Fedora devel community
anymore.
Ah, yes, my apologies. I would rather end this off topic
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Could we move this to a gnome/desktop list?
The subject of the thread has been decided...
I don't think it's providing much value to the Fedora devel community
anymore.
+1. Gnome 2 was counterintuitive enough. I can't imagine how Gnome 3
Can a admin pls close this topic?
boring
since some days, people who don't want use gnome anymore are branded as
'haters' and 'reactionary'.
.i don't and want follow your logic.
regards,
Wolfgang
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
I've handed up with this question when I first request for an upgrade of
mediawiki.
I remember someone told me that upgrading may cause errors of custom css or
custom theme,is it true?
在 2013-2-9 AM5:37，Pete Travis li...@petetravis.com写道：
On Feb 8, 2013 12:54 PM, Stephen John Smoogen
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
