On Sun, Jan 03, 2010 at 03:47:19PM +, David Woodhouse wrote:
Obviously that doesn't count for the nVidia binary module, which doesn't
exist for ppc64. And nouveau is relatively new and not currently being
used in Fedora/PPC64 so I'm prepared to believe that their 'work in
progress' API still
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 08:50:11PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 12/22/2009 09:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
FWIW - I agree with both jesse and jarod. Official builds are from main
branch. Anything built anywhere else will never be official.
How about scratch builds?
What about them? Scratch
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:34:04AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:06:42AM +, Tim Waugh wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:49 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Why not put everything in a single git repository?
That would require every packager to check out the
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 05:55:19AM -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 20:22 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 19:21 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
git clone git://publictest5.fedoraproject.org/git/pkgs/kernel
This was the wrong path:
git clone
Hi All,
Just a friendly reminder that Dec 11 00:00:00 UTC is the cutoff for
F10 updates submission. Ideally these would just be the final stable
updates, as pushes to updates-testing would basically be stuck there
forever.
Please take a few moments to review your pending requests, add any
final
On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 07:04:12AM -0200, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
- glibc32, glibc64 (dead packages?)
yes
No. They are needed in the build system. They just havent been updated
since FC6 or so.
josh
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 08:31:35PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Hi All,
Fedora 10 will go EOL on December 17th. The final day for
updates to be submitted will be December 14th. Please make
sure any final updates you want pushed to the F10 repos are
submitted by this date.
Due to the infrastructure
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 09:00:53AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Matthew Booth wrote:
The separate updates directory has been a pain for as long as I've
been using RHL/Fedora Core/Fedora. It means you have two places to
look when searching for packages manually, and twice as much to
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 02:39:30PM +, Matthew Booth wrote:
The separate updates directory has been a pain for as long as I've been
using RHL/Fedora Core/Fedora. It means you have two places to look when
searching for packages manually, and twice as much to configure when
you're
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 03:44:08PM +, Matthew Booth wrote:
On 02/12/09 15:26, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 02:39:30PM +, Matthew Booth wrote:
The separate updates directory has been a pain for as long as I've been
using RHL/Fedora Core/Fedora. It means you have two places
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 12:01:49PM -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
You owe me $5.
It hasn't been a week and you haven't sent me your address.
I did notice though, so keep up the good work ;)
josh
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
and
will ultimately provide better hosting facilities and room for growth.
Hmmm, how does this affect F10's EOL? Josh Boyer previously announced that
the last day to file F10 updates in Bodhi will be December 14, that's now
right within the outage window.
Hm. Crap, you are correct. I had
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 08:39:39PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 01:54:57AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Mike McGrath wrote:
Starting on December 12th The Fedora Project will start to move several
servers, disk trays and related hardware from our current hosting location
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 02:54:22PM -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On 11/30/2009 01:05 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 10:05 +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
configuration, control, and monitoring. Yes, it's harder for experts to
create a world-dominating robot with duct tape and
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 03:28:55PM -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On 11/30/2009 03:26 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 02:54:22PM -0500, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On 11/30/2009 01:05 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 10:05 +, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
configuration, control
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 04:08:27PM +, Terry Barnaby wrote:
As you obviously know tracking down and reporting bugs like these do take
a lot of time and effort, quite often more than actually fixing them. At
the moment
with the frequency of Fedora releases and the lack of a push to testing
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 05:09:14PM +, Terry Barnaby wrote:
On 11/26/2009 04:34 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 04:08:27PM +, Terry Barnaby wrote:
As you obviously know tracking down and reporting bugs like these do take
a lot of time and effort, quite often more than
Hi All,
Fedora 10 will go EOL on December 17th. The final day for
updates to be submitted will be December 14th. Please make
sure any final updates you want pushed to the F10 repos are
submitted by this date.
Thanks,
josh
___
Fedora-devel-announce
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 03:04:49PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Montag, den 23.11.2009, 14:56 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:39:28 +0100, Christoph wrote:
When two builds of the same version are done on the same day, the
rawhide report screws up the order of
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 07:26:27AM -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
Wouldn't it be a good idea to disallow a push to updates that has broken
deps?
Yes, it would. It's been discussed numerous times on this list an others.
Summary: Needs hard thinking and people actually working on it. Not trivial.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 03:49:29PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/19/2009 03:51 PM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 15:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
IMO, it is not particularly useful in a already long thread to keep
repeating the same points.
Please stop patronising. It's
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 10:01:54PM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Is RPM so hard to hack to work this around?
There's many things that need to be changed in rpm but IMHO this isn't one
of them. RPM produces predictable versioning. Hacking it up with special
cases will lead nowhere but pain.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 02:23:22AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
Many packagers don't know that maintaining a proper spec %changelog for
relevant spec file changes and %release bumps are considered important
during review already. Others add meaningless/dummy %changelog
On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 04:10:48PM -0700, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Hello,
I just posted my first review request a few days ago. I think someone
has been trying to help me through that process. Up to now I've felt
like I've been following instructions. Could someone please review the
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 11:48:53AM +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
What happened to that? It's been built in Koji but it's not Rawhide or
updates...
It's there now. It will be included in the next push.
josh
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 04:09:55PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 11/12/2009 02:52 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
I have just staged Fedora 12 for our mirrors. We're doing something a
little different this time around. The releases/12/Everything/ tree
will be open to the public as it gets staged.
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:53:35PM +, Christopher Brown wrote:
Oops, too late!
[ch...@yoda ~]$ sudo yum update
Loaded plugins: presto, refresh-packagekit
Setting up Update Process
Resolving Dependencies
-- Running transaction check
--- Package dhclient.x86_64 12:4.1.0p1-4.fc11 set to be
On Sun, Nov 08, 2009 at 09:39:47PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Sat, Nov 07, 2009 at 03:28:35PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2009-11-07 at 21:27 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1800
We wanted to get some testing on the new updates
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 08:47:33AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 5:40 AM, Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-10-21 at 16:18 -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
5) How many untagged packages are there?
koji list-tagged --latest dist-f12-updates-candidate
I
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 11:26:54AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Eric Springer wrote:
As for C++, I couldn't get some of my programs to compile as it seemed
to spew at some of the template usage. Anyway it looks very promising
and I look forward to using it in the future (especially with its
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:12:03PM +0100, Andreas Tunek wrote:
Are the nightly composes (such as this:
http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/nightly-composes/desktop/ ) a
build of what will become F12 or are they a build of rawhide?
Both. Rawhide _is_ what will become F12. At least until it's
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 09:06:02PM +, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Peter Robinson pbrobinson at gmail.com writes:
I thought dist-f12-updates-candidate were packages that had been build
for F-12 but had not yet been tagged. It doesn't necessarily mean they
are going to be pushed into F-12.
True,
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 06:17:31PM -0400, Tony Nelson wrote:
Sorry to bug developers, but I didn't get any bites from PPC users on
fedora-list.
Does Fedora PPC work or install on oldworld PCI Macs, such as a beige
G3 desktop? My impression is that no one has tried it on an oldworld
No, it
On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:52:13PM +, Bojan Smojver wrote:
Josh Boyer jwboyer at gmail.com writes:
We had around 400 0-day stable updates for F11 if I'm remembering correctly.
Which makes me think - as many should be part of the release as possible,
right?
Yep. Which is why bodhi
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:40:14PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
+# arch macro for all supported 32 bit builds
+%32bitarches %{ix86} %{sparc32} %{arm} s390
+# arch macro for all supported 64 bit builds
+%64bitarches x86_64 %{sparc64} ia64 s390x %{alpha}
missing ppc and ppc64 respectively here,
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 08:21:09PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/26/2009 08:21 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
Which affects who? koji certainly seems to be keeping up with the load.
What I'm trying to pry out of you is what you'd be hoping to accomplish
by using it. The answer so far seems
On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 11:15:55PM -0400, Warren Togami wrote:
sssd-0.6.1-2.fc12 skrooge-0.5.2-2.fc12 translate-toolkit-1.4.1-2.fc12
vhostmd-0.4-0.2.gitea2f772d.fc12 qtcurve-gtk2-0.69.0-1.fc12
qtcurve-kde4-0.69.0-1.fc12 gfs-ignacio-fonts-20090923-1.fc12
adf-tribun-fonts-1.13-1.fc12
On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 01:11:23AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Dienstag, den 20.10.2009, 17:27 -0400 schrieb Warren Togami:
Many Builds Not Tagged, but Probably Should Be
==
# koji list-tagged --latest dist-f12-updates-candidate
This command
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 08:59:13AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Conrad Meyer ceme...@u.washington.edu wrote:
On Thursday 15 October 2009 12:51:28 am Peter Robinson wrote:
Hi All,
I presume that the reason that tagging requests aren't being done is
due to the
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 07:33:45PM -0400, Luke Macken wrote:
Before we go working on the karma system - is it doable to add some
fields so we can denote critical path pkgs?
If I know there is a place for the data, I can get you quick code to
produce the list given any set of pkgs as soon
On Fri, Oct 09, 2009 at 02:08:41PM +0200, Andreas Tunek wrote:
Maybe we could do a Phoronix live cd that includes the phoronix 3d
tests and removes stuff like abiword and gnumeric?
If the tests are in Fedora and you find someone willing to create the
kickstart file for the spin, sure.
josh
--
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 01:49:49PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote:
Hi!
Oracle released a new DB 4.8.24 recently and it is now ready to hit
rawhide. Before that happens I want to let you test your package(s)
You mean devel/dist-f13. Rawhide is still tracking dist-f12.
/me tries to avoid confusion.
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 01:43:35PM +0300, Jonathan Dieter wrote:
I've just built deltarpm-3.4-18.fc11 and pushed it to testing, because
during the security fix in 3.4-17 (which is still in testing), we
accidentally undid the split of drpmsync into a separate subpackage.
I noticed that bodhi has
On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 03:46:52PM +0200, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 09/29/2009 04:48 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 03:56:52PM +0200, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 09/29/2009 12:31 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 23:00 +0100, Mat Booth wrote:
What do we
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:34:38AM +, Matej Cepl wrote:
Steve Dickson, Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:41:51 -0400:
Maybe removing the Final Development part and replace it with
something like Beta Freeze (Bug Fixes ONLY) might have helped.
Well my problem with the current state is that it is not Bug
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 07:45:22AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
I know that last week several ppc people (IBM, etc) expressed alarm
and concern about the demotion of ppc to a secondary arch. Most of
those people I pointed at Bill and Jesse who were staffing the fedora
booth.
Did we get
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jeff Garzik (jgar...@pobox.com) said:
But you're dodging the larger point -- Fedora has, de facto, demoted
big endian support in its entirety to a second-hand effort, rather
than distributed the workload much more widely. Given
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
Scoping:
- this work would target Fedora 13. I'd avoid pushing it into F12
until it's proven safe to do so
I'm going to think on the overall proposal more, but I very very very much
wish this sentence said I will not push this into
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 06:42:08PM +0100, Mat Booth wrote:
Nice bug; this one is my favourite:
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/1308 -- PPC64 noarch builds
don't expand %{_libdir} to the correct place.
I'm pretty sure I have seen 'noarch builds shouldn't be using %{_libdir}'
repeated
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 12:53:21AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
John Poelstra wrote:
The current FESCo might also want to consider taking more of a
leadership role in monitoring the release processes, tracking the
schedule, and evaluating the quality of the release under development
and our
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 08:36:54AM +, Matej Cepl wrote:
Jesse Keating, Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:45:08 -0700:
Right, I've always taken it to mean Our experimental code is in, and
we're ready to take end user testing feedback on it which is different
from our code is in, but not really done, and
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 07:02:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Jeff Garzik jgar...@pobox.com writes:
The lack of big endian builds by default is a notable loss, and will
lead to a decline in software quality.
I think this is a net-negative for Fedora.
I think the same, but it's getting harder to
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 03:56:52PM +0200, Roman Rakus wrote:
On 09/29/2009 12:31 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 23:00 +0100, Mat Booth wrote:
What do we have to do in order to build on PPC? Does it happen
automagically?
Once the ppc builders are setup and running
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 05:16:13PM +0200, Jan Safranek wrote:
Net-SNMP 5.5 is heading to rawhide (i.e. Fedora 13). The update comes
Rawhide is still based on dist-f12. We have no cute name for dist-f13.
josh
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:33:37PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2009-09-28 at 23:00 +0100, Mat Booth wrote:
What do we have to do in order to build on PPC? Does it happen
automagically?
Once the ppc builders
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 04:25:46PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Thu, 2009-09-24 at 16:22 -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
I don't consider the single command a
significant barrier, either way.
Maybe not for people who maintain yum...
I get the feeling that either
1) you think our users have no
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:38:32AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 01:27 -0400, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
Boy, I'm so glad we decided to jump onto the xz ship.
I take it it's too late to
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 01:56:55PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Josh Boyer (jwbo...@gmail.com) said:
Simple solution: Don't build the noarch RPMs on ppc.
Why?: Because F12 is the last release that will have ppc be a primary arch
and it is fairly arguable that you want to optimize
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 06:35:09AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:46:26PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Jakub built gcc-4.4.1-10 earlier today, with a new feature that
generates much better debug information in optimized programs.
The feature has been under development
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:43:26PM +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 07:32:07AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
Why are you backporting something like this from a non-released compiler
into F12 _after_ Alpha and particularly _after_ the mass rebuild?
No response? None?
I mean
On Tue, Sep 08, 2009 at 10:46:26PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
Jakub built gcc-4.4.1-10 earlier today, with a new feature that
generates much better debug information in optimized programs.
The feature has been under development for a couple of years, and it's
recently been accepted into GCC,
Hi,
Recently the mechansim bodhi uses to obsolete older updates was disabled due
to it doing the wrong thing in certain cases. However, that means it won't
obsolete the older updates for the cases it used to get right.
This can lead to having multiple updates submitted for a single target at
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 08:13:34PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
drago01 wrote:
Sorry but the fail here is 100% on bodhi's side , why does a single
package obsolete a complete group update?
That is just broken, and this example clearly showed it.
It's broken (we've had some fun with that with the
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:19:39AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Michael Schwendtmschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 01:31:47PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 07:18:50 -0400, Josh wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:19:39AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 03:51:04PM +0400, Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus)
wrote:
I very want see this driver in Fedora:
http://dag.wieers.com/rpm/packages/dkms-tiacx/
This is free and even packaged, so no problem there...
May be except what it dkms? But it have not kernel modules (I known
A general reminder. As we are out of Alpha freeze now, that means we are not
taking tag requests for F12 Alpha any longer. The package set for Alpha has
been finalized.
Thanks
josh
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
I've orphaned the following packages in pkgdb:
gquilt
quilt
jfsutils
josh
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:49:22AM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Wednesday 19 August 2009 08:40:52 am Rawhide Report wrote:
Compose started at Wed Aug 19 06:15:07 UTC 2009
New package
Does this large list mean that the Alpha freeze is lifted?
Yes.
josh
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 09:32:24PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/13/2009 09:29 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:53:57 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With you folks demanding more explicit changelogs you are rudestly
pushing around package maintainers and
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:45:50AM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to upgrade OpenSSL to 1.0.0-beta3 version just after the F12
Alpha release. I asked rel-eng to create a custom build target for the
rebuild so we can avoid shipping the symlink hacks in rawhide.
A few questions:
Why a
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 03:38:27PM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 07:36 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:45:50AM +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to upgrade OpenSSL to 1.0.0-beta3 version just after the F12
Alpha release. I asked rel-eng to create
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 11:31:26PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 07:12 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Er, the _topic_ of this thread is Fedora 12 Features Proposed for
Removal. The email doesn't say anything about 'if you fix this stuff
before the
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 06:47:55AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 06:55 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
We have a Feature process now, and while I'm not a huge fan of process,
this one is run very well by the Feature Wrangler. It treats them all the
same, they have to all follow
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 01:02:15PM -0400, Mail Lists wrote:
On 08/08/2009 12:56 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Lennart Poettering wrote:
Upgrading PA like this involves big changes and does not qualify as
either security nor as small other bug fixes.
Well, then you could backport at least the
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:59:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 05:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
I probably couldn't do much justice to a comprehensive plan as I have
insufficient knowledge of how the buildsystem works. I was acting at a
higher
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 02:33:58PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
This looks somewhat truncated. I have at least one new package that
should be in the list :-(
We're in Freeze. If you didn't request a freeze tag, it won't get into the
rawhide compose.
Of course! I thought the alpha was going to
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:43:03AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 09:24 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
We either have to make it clear which policy we use and which policy we
don't, and hence which theoretical user base we are not targeting, or
take on extra work and try
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 11:39:16AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 20:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
As I said, the particular code isn't the issue. We ship a kernel API. At
present, we consider it fine to break that API in stable releases. This
is
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 11:41:20AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 11:14 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:37 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I think the correct question here is why has a perfectly routine version
bump for components included in Fedora
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 12:49:30PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 13:39 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 06 Aug 2009 12:34:26 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
...snip...
Sure, and I was always happy to write in GNOME and KDE versions as
'Features'
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 12:23:12PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 05.08.2009 12:02, Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/8/5 Josephine Tannhäuser josephine.tannhau...@googlemail.com:
KDE 4.3 will come to F11 and F10. It's a cool thing.
There aren't updates like this for Gnome. Why not?
F10 with
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 09:12:24PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
[..]
17:45:48 Kevin_Kofler As for killing multilibs, a proposal for next
week: restrict multilibs to wine, redhat-lsb and their dependencies.
Rationale: way too much stuff which will never be needed multilib is
multilib. The people who
On Sat, Aug 01, 2009 at 02:00:10AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/01/2009 01:31 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Source0:
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/lookaside/pkgs/anaconda/anaconda-11.5.0.59.tar.bz2/0b0b7b30f1ff03bad05bda3d052b73a8/anaconda-11.5.0.59.tar.bz2
is really no better.
This would
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:09:43PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-01 at 01:20 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
That's kind of side tracking though. Point is that SRPM as upstream
source is simply a stupid thing. We would complain loudly or atleast
whine about it if Novell or Mandriva
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 02:06:38PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
It is a random upstream project but one developed within Fedora and
Fedora can and should tell them not to do so. Why shouldn't we? Again
they don't need or deserve special exceptions. Treat them like any other
upstream project.
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 06:48:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Mathieu Bridon (bochecha) boche...@fedoraproject.org writes:
ERROR with rpm_check_debug vs depsolve:
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) is needed by exim-4.69-12.fc12.x86_64
I had the same on F11, building in a Rawhide mock.
I was advised to update
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:50:31AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:44:59 -0700, Adam wrote:
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 09:37:03PM -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 20:29 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
It has not seen a release since November of 2006. I think we
should let it slip into retirement.
I'm fine with seeing it go.
I should make it clear
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 11:55:27AM -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
You actually want overlap for a while so that when rsyncing you can use
hardlinks instead of having to redownload files you already have.
This is going to be more relevant if koji signing happens and packages don't
get different
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 08:21:47AM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Dodji Seketeli wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 13/07/2009 20:36, Tom Lane a écrit :
(Not sure if this is the right list to complain on, but ...)
Trying to do a routine yum update on an F-11 x86 machine
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 11:56:02AM -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
On 07/17/2009 07:57 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
It takes a push between 2 and
3 days to actually complete right now.
We've had some significant delays due to a variety of factors over the past
couple of weeks. I think we now have
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 02:49:36AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi,
I have a concern with the recent delays in signing packages and how best
to handle that. I maintain Gnote in Fedora. This is very actively
maintained and has frequent releases, even weekly. It is also a rather
young project
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 06:10:49AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 07/18/2009 05:27 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
I can understand your concern with a very active package like that. At the
moment, we can't do anything we aren't already trying to do to get official
updates out faster. Have patience
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 10:32:08PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue July 14 2009, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
JK == Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com writes:
JK At 7000+ srpms there is no way I could evaluate each and every one
JK for validity before submitting it for a rebuild.
I think the
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 07:17:38PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But, once I do that, you'll abandon this reasoning too, once you realize
that it's a non-starter, and change the topic to something else. It'll
probably be line number changes.
Nonsense. I'm not being intentionally dishonest, please
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:16:59PM +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Michael Schwendtmschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
package: CodeAnalyst-gui-2.8.38-12.fc12.i586 from fedora-development-i386
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 03:33:27PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 23:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Why was this update marked as security, but not bundled with the package
that actually had the security issue that you were rebuilding for? When
the
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 09:27:33AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Josh Boyerjwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 06:46:36PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 11:21:58AM +, Rawhide Report wrote:
kernel-2.6.31-0.42.rc2.fc12
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:27:43AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 17:52 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
As described on the Feature page, but if there's any specific
questions
about the reasoning on there I'll be happy to answer those questions.
I had read the feature
1 - 100 of 139 matches
Mail list logo
