On 07/07/2009 06:39 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:24 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
If you take into account that the proposal concerns security fixes only,
then every update has to be labeled a security update (and preferably
have some kind of CVE/bug# attached??). We
- John5342 john5...@googlemail.com wrote:
Firstly, not all people turn the automatic upgrade on.
Secondly, there are folks use rpm -hiv or build from srpm.
In that case, they are more likely to spot the bugs.
I am not talking about upgrades. I am talking about updates. Most
people
- John5342 john5...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/7/8 Ding Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
I don't think this has anything to do with motivation. You have an
idea and on the face of it it sounds great but even the greatest
ideas
can be doomed by the details. If you don't believe me (or Kevin)
Ding Yi Chen wrote:
If X-1.3 does not specify Y-1.3 as dependency, I don't think
yum update X will pull Y-1.3, even with the current version.
Selective updates are not really tested in practice and tend not to work.
You're expected to get ALL stable updates, not just one. The old RHL
Ding Yi Chen wrote:
Tell Denture your constraint and
it will build packages if it can; or reasons why it cannot build.
The word build there is another big fail. Users DO NOT WANT to build their
packages from source. If they did, they'd all be using Gentoo!
Kevin Kofler
--
Ding Yi Chen wrote:
- John5342 john5...@googlemail.com wrote:
I am not talking about upgrades. I am talking about updates. Most
people just run updates when packagekit (or similar) tells them to.
In
a proper release updates are released together. In Denture they will
be updated out of
於 三，2009-07-08 於 11:37 +0200，Kevin Kofler 提到：
Ding Yi Chen wrote:
Tell Denture your constraint and
it will build packages if it can; or reasons why it cannot build.
The word build there is another big fail. Users DO NOT WANT to build their
packages from source. If they did, they'd all
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:18:51 +0200, Kevin wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
Fedora Legacy (the original one) failed.
It failed because of excess bureaucracy (they didn't even trust Bugzilla's
authentication, requiring GPG signing of all Bugzilla comments with impact
on the procedures, and QA
於 日，2009-07-05 於 12:32 +0200，Jeroen van Meeuwen 提到：
On 07/05/2009 12:12 PM, Jos Vos wrote:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 12:03:05PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of approximately
three years -not a steady release cycle of three years
On 07/07/2009 02:30 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Is there a reason any of that can't be done as a secondary arch-like effort?
Nope. Not as far as I can see.
I've already pointed out why it's painful to keep EOL releases around. You
didn't really address those, and you seemed to have grouped them
On 07/07/2009 12:37 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:18:51 +0200
Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Patrice Dumas's proposal failed because he wasn't provided with the
required infrastructure (and he was unable to come up with it
himself, which I can't blame him for).
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
於 日，2009-07-05 於 12:32 +0200，Jeroen van Meeuwen 提到：
On 07/05/2009 12:12 PM, Jos Vos wrote:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 12:03:05PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of approximately
three years
On 07/07/2009 12:29 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 07/06/2009 03:07 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Bugzilla spam. If we keep the release open for random bug filing, we
have no good way of telling bugzilla that only specific users should get
bugs for specific releases of Fedora. Ownership is at a
On 07/07/2009 12:07 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 23:58 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
You can find more details at
On 07/07/2009 01:06 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:20:50 +0200
Jeroen van Meeuwenkana...@kanarip.com wrote:
Reading it on a question-mark per question-mark basis though, I think
the feature page answers half of the half-posed questions. Anyway:
- a bunch
fas names?
於 二，2009-07-07 於 14:44 +0100，John5342 提到：
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
Any comments?
In theory your proposal sounds great but i see just one major flaw
that probably doesn't have a solution. Your idea of packages being
built based on dependencies should work great apart from
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
於 二，2009-07-07 於 14:44 +0100，John5342 提到：
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
Any comments?
In theory your proposal sounds great but i see just one major flaw
that probably doesn't have a solution. Your idea of packages being
built based on
Ding-Yi Chen wrote:
Therefore, I would like to propose an alternative approach,
namely, project Denture. See my blog post for further information:
http://dingyichen.livejournal.com/14055.html
Any comments?
As I've tried to explain to you last time you proposed that approach on your
blog,
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Fedora End-Of-Sales or something (please avoid the Legacy or LTS names).
End-Of-Sales doesn't make a lot of sense for something which isn't sold…
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:24 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
If you take into account that the proposal concerns security fixes only,
then every update has to be labeled a security update (and preferably
have some kind of CVE/bug# attached??). We would need to think about a
policy for that,
On Tue July 7 2009, Jesse Keating wrote:
See above, should be how we do things now, group related updates into a
single bodhi submission, and attach the bugs/CVEs to that single
submission.
This may be disliked by upstream and others, because it creates bogus security
update notification
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 23:06 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
This may be disliked by upstream and others, because it creates bogus
security
update notification mails, that say that there are security updates for
packages that are no security updates, e.g.:
On Tue July 7 2009, 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
It was bundled with the packagate that had the security issue:
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 entire list of packages is in one email then it makes sense. Such
as https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-1095.html
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 entire list of packages is in one email then it makes sense.
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
- John5342 john5...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
於 二，2009-07-07 於 14:44 +0100，John5342 提到：
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
Any comments?
In theory your proposal sounds great but i see just one major flaw
that probably doesn't have a
- Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Ding-Yi Chen wrote:
Therefore, I would like to propose an alternative approach,
namely, project Denture. See my blog post for further information:
http://dingyichen.livejournal.com/14055.html
Any comments?
As I've tried to explain
2009/7/8 Ding Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
- John5342 john5...@googlemail.com wrote:
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
於 二，2009-07-07 於 14:44 +0100，John5342 提到：
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen dc...@redhat.com:
Any comments?
In theory your proposal sounds great but i see just one
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 page, in which you claim that a three-year cycle
disqualifies
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
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:13:07 +0100, Christopher Brown
snecklif...@gmail.com
wrote:
Honestly, I'm impressed by your persistence but I think simply trying
to re-instate Fedora Legacy (which it sounds like this is what you are
trying to do) is doomed to permanent failure.
I love your
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:03:01 +0200, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at
wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Whether 6 months of additional availability of security updates is going
to help, and to what extend, we'll have to see. Compared to the current
situation, that'll give an environment 7
2009/7/6 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:13:07 +0100, Christopher Brown
snecklif...@gmail.com
wrote:
Honestly, I'm impressed by your persistence but I think simply trying
to re-instate Fedora Legacy (which it sounds like this is what you are
trying to do) is
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:27:43 +0100, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org
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
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Christopher Brown wrote:
The sooner Fedora gets out of its identity crisis the better. I
believe the following:
Fedora is the distribution for those who love computers.
CentOS, Ubuntu and others are for those who dont.
well, crap. I guess I'm in the wrong place ;)
-sv
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 07:11:30 -0400, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
No, the sky does not fall. There are a few hurdles though.
1) Master mirror space. This used to be an issue, in that we had to move
older releases to alt.fp.o in order to make space for the new release. I
believe we
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:25:08 +0100, Christopher Brown
snecklif...@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/7/6 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com:
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:13:07 +0100, Christopher Brown
snecklif...@gmail.com
wrote:
Honestly, I'm impressed by your persistence but I think simply trying
to
On 07/05/2009 03:28 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
You can find more details at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle
Instead of saying yet to be
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 11:16:45AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
You can find more details at
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 09:50:53PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
The FAQ should also answer
How is this going to succeed, where Fedora Legacy failed?. You should
this was debated a lot in the previous attempts, and I still think that
any attempt to do this with fedora infra (not necessarily
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:58:52 +0200
Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
You can find more details at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle
Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
- The issue I have with this plan (and the others very like it) is that
if you say we will just do updates for the things we have people
willing to do updates it means the entire end of life distro is not
covered and the likelyhood of an outstanding
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:56:43 -0400, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com
wrote:
Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
- The issue I have with this plan (and the others very like it) is that
if you say we will just do updates for the things we have people
willing to do updates it means the
Jeroen van Meeuwen (kana...@kanarip.com) said:
These two are my big concerns - doing this badly is worse than not
doing it, IMO. When it comes to user's security, I don't want to give
promises we can't keep, or leave them in a bind.
This has been addressed in another response to the
On 07/05/2009 11:46 AM, Jon Stanley wrote:
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Jos Vosj...@xos.nl wrote:
I don't completely agree that desktops tend to need to run the latest and
greatest (when we're talking about business desktops), but desktops
I don't agree with that position either - note
On 07/05/2009 08:03 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
They already have 7 months of time to move to the next version. It's just if
they absolutely want to skip a version that they only have 1 month.
In the field I've often found that a Fedora at GA+0 isn't really ready
to deploy. A bunch of fixes
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 23:58 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
You can find more details at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle
When we talked at
Josh Boyer wrote:
Fedora Legacy (the original one) failed.
It failed because of excess bureaucracy (they didn't even trust Bugzilla's
authentication, requiring GPG signing of all Bugzilla comments with impact
on the procedures, and QA requirements were also unrealistic given the
manpower).
On 07/06/2009 03:07 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Bugzilla spam. If we keep the release open for random bug filing, we
have no good way of telling bugzilla that only specific users should get
bugs for specific releases of Fedora. Ownership is at a product level,
not at the product version level.
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:18:51 +0200
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
Fedora Legacy (the original one) failed.
It failed because of excess bureaucracy (they didn't even trust
Bugzilla's authentication, requiring GPG signing of all Bugzilla
comments with impact on
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:20:50 +0200
Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com wrote:
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:57:34 -0600, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com
wrote:
...snip...
- The issue I have with this plan (and the others very like it) is
that if you say we will just do updates for the things we
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 12:18:51AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
Without a concrete group of people large enough to make this wory saying
that they are signing up to do that work, I don't have high hopes for this
succeeding in the long run.
We'd just need some minimal
On 07/06/2009 09:19 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen (kana...@kanarip.com) said:
These two are my big concerns - doing this badly is worse than not
doing it, IMO. When it comes to user's security, I don't want to give
promises we can't keep, or leave them in a bind.
This has been
Jeroen van Meeuwen, Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:30:46 +0200:
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:13:14 +0200, Julian Aloofi
To be honest, I think environments that work like that won't use Fedora
anyway if it wasn't supported for at least three, let's say two and a
half, years.
Having to agree with your
On 05/07/09 07:20, Matej Cepl wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen, Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:30:46 +0200:
snip
The problem I have with this whole project is that nobody explained me
well, why you folks interested in this don't join CentOS project? NIH?
Matěj
Possibly because CentOS is not Fedora.
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 06:20:38 + (UTC), Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com
wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen, Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:30:46 +0200:
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:13:14 +0200, Julian Aloofi
To be honest, I think environments that work like that won't use Fedora
anyway if it wasn't supported for at
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 12:03:05PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of approximately
three years -not a steady release cycle of three years but that's what it
turns out to be. This disqualifies the distribution(s) as desktop Linux
On 07/05/2009 12:12 PM, Jos Vos wrote:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 12:03:05PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of approximately
three years -not a steady release cycle of three years but that's what it
turns out to be. This disqualifies the
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 12:03 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of approximately
three years -not a steady release cycle of three years but that's what it
turns out to be. This disqualifies the distribution(s) as desktop Linux
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 5:39 AM, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 12:03 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of
approximately
three years -not a steady release cycle of three years but that's what it
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Jos Vosj...@xos.nl wrote:
I don't completely agree that desktops tend to need to run the latest and
greatest (when we're talking about business desktops), but desktops
I don't agree with that position either - note my work laptop, which
unfortunately runs
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:39:44 +0100, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org
wrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 12:03 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of
approximately
three years -not a steady release cycle of three years but that's what
it
On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwenkana...@kanarip.com wrote:
The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of approximately
three years -not a steady release cycle of three years but that's what it
turns out to be. This disqualifies the distribution(s) as desktop
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 22:13 +0100, Christopher Brown wrote:
2009/7/4 Jeroen van Meeuwen kana...@kanarip.com:
I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora 12,
mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
You can find more details at
Hi.
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:58:52 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote
I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
Is it that time of the year again?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 00:22 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:58:52 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote
I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
Is it that time of the year again?
Geez, I was going to
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Brian Pepple bpep...@fedoraproject.orgwrote:
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 00:22 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:58:52 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote
I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
12, mysteriously called
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 00:22:41 +0200, Ralf Ertzinger fed...@camperquake.de
wrote:
Hi.
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:58:52 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote
I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
Is it that time of the year
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle reads:
Say a desktop environment runs Fedora 9 today, then within a month
after Fedora 11 is released, the user can choose to either upgrade to
Fedora 10 (N+1), or Fedora 11 (N+2). This is not considered a suitable
amount of time for
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:13:14 +0200, Julian Aloofi
julian.fedorali...@googlemail.com wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle reads:
Say a desktop environment runs Fedora 9 today, then within a month
after Fedora 11 is released, the user can choose to either upgrade to
71 matches
Mail list logo
