Re: GDM Language list...

2009-06-12 Thread Ankitkumar Rameshchandra Patel
Jens Petersen wrote: The YumLangpackPlugin Feature that I am planning to propose for F12 may help with this providing langpack-support metapackages. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/YumLangpackPlugin About the gdm menu itself I chatted to Ankit earlier in the week and came up with this

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Adam Miller
I have read a lot of people voice their opinion on what they think to be a flaw in the benchmark. How about we as a group put together a documented benchmark process along with justification as to why those methods were chosen to reflect real world scenarios and from there send it to reviewers

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

2009-06-12 Thread Luke Macken
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:54:19PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Christoph Wickertchristoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote: need it because things need to be predictable for package maintainers. Some updates are processed after a day, others not for two weeks.

Re: Fedora PPC console=? to get serial console

2009-06-12 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:34:25PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.com wrote: (Posting here because the fedora-ppc list is a bit overrun with spam http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/fedora-ppc/ ) Does anyone know what

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Christoph Höger
Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 19:55 +1000 schrieb Eric Springer: 2009/6/12 Christoph Höger choe...@cs.tu-berlin.de: Could you explain why mp3 (or ogg) encoding is not a real world benchmark? I do this quite often. Because they are comparing file system on what is a CPU bound test. Notice

Re: Fedora PPC console=? to get serial console

2009-06-12 Thread James Laska
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 10:59 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:34:25PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.com wrote: (Posting here because the fedora-ppc list is a bit overrun with spam

Re: unable to include capability.h

2009-06-12 Thread Kyle McMartin
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:48:15PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: In file included from /usr/include/sys/capability.h:23, from myinclude.c:1: /usr/include/stdint.h:41: error: conflicting types for ?int64_t? /usr/include/linux/types.h:98: note: previous declaration of ?int64_t? was here

Re: unable to include capability.h

2009-06-12 Thread Ondřej Vašík
Daniel P. Berrange wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:48:15PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: Is there a trick for that or is it a bug ? Adding #include sys/types.h seems to fix it, so I reckon its a bug in libcap-devel's header files. Actually already reported and closed rawhide, so it

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Thorsten Leemhuis
On 12.06.2009 13:33, Christoph Höger wrote: Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 19:55 +1000 schrieb Eric Springer: 2009/6/12 Christoph Höger choe...@cs.tu-berlin.de: Could you explain why mp3 (or ogg) encoding is not a real world benchmark? I do this quite often. Because they are comparing file

rpmconf - tool to handle rpmnew and rpmsave files

2009-06-12 Thread Miroslav Suchý
I've been tired for some time of watching rpmnew and rpmsave files. I've been looking for some tool, but did not find any, so I wrote my own. http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rpmconf/rpmconf Before I spend more times on this script, I would like to hear your opinion. Do you find it useful? Did

Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64

2009-06-12 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
All the packages with my name against them should be fixed now. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Emerging Technologies, Red Hat http://et.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 75 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#)

Re: unable to include capability.h

2009-06-12 Thread Daniel Lezcano
Kyle McMartin wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 01:48:15PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: In file included from /usr/include/sys/capability.h:23, from myinclude.c:1: /usr/include/stdint.h:41: error: conflicting types for ?int64_t? /usr/include/linux/types.h:98: note: previous declaration of

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Harald Hoyer
On 06/11/2009 10:41 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: Eric Sandeen wrote: I don't know much about apache but I bet a default ./configure winds up with different builds depending on the build environment, which in this case is probably dictated by whatever the default generic OS intall contains.

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

2009-06-12 Thread Seth Vidal
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009, Luke Macken wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 08:54:19PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Christoph Wickertchristoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote: need it because things need to be predictable for package maintainers. Some updates are processed

Re: unable to include capability.h

2009-06-12 Thread Kyle McMartin
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:02:39PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: Grumf ! that's annoying :( Thank you very much for your quick answer ! :) As I only need the CAP_SYS_BOOT, I will define it manually in the source code and will remove the include, that's ugly but anyway... :/ As I

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Kyle McMartin
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:03:58PM +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote: Nice find! Maybe we can run the real world test suite (benchmark) before the next release and try to straighten out such odds. Most of the benchmark results they post are not showing scientific results, only when something is

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

2009-06-12 Thread Kevin Kofler
Josh Boyer wrote: No. It simply is not possible. See my (and Luke's) email on how long a single push takes. Seth says the 22-hour run is a bug. If a run can be done in ~8 hours, that means an automated update procedure could do about 3 per day. But of course, if it takes one day, then let's

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread James Hubbard
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:11 AM, Thorsten Leemhuisfed...@leemhuis.info wrote: IOW: a lot of those phoronix articles that contain benchmarks could be half as long or even shorter if you rip out the results that are of no value and replace them by No unexpected side effects could be found when

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

2009-06-12 Thread Josh Boyer
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:14 AM, Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Josh Boyer wrote: No.  It simply is not possible.  See my (and Luke's) email on how long a single push takes. Seth says the 22-hour run is a bug. If a run can be done in ~8 hours, that means an automated update

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Kevin Kofler
Eric Springer wrote: Especially considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as it can. I think we should rather do an informative press campaign on the lines of Why Phoronix benchmarks are utter bullsh*t.

Re: unable to include capability.h

2009-06-12 Thread Daniel Lezcano
Kyle McMartin wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:02:39PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: Grumf ! that's annoying :( Thank you very much for your quick answer ! :) As I only need the CAP_SYS_BOOT, I will define it manually in the source code and will remove the include, that's ugly but

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Casey Dahlin
On 06/12/2009 09:24 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Eric Springer wrote: Especially considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as it can. I think we should rather do an informative press campaign on the lines of

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 06/12/2009 06:42 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote: It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit. Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but there is always going to be a per-syscall overhead to this kind of thing. A few extra usec a syscall adds

Re: unable to include capability.h

2009-06-12 Thread Kyle McMartin
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 03:24:45PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: Correct. I tried with different distro lenny, ubuntu 8.04, fedora 10, opensuse 11 and I hadn't this problem. It was a local Fedora patch that tickled it with recent kernels, Karsten has sorted it out (but too late for Fedora 11

system-config-firewall picking up slack where firestarter fell off

2009-06-12 Thread Adam Miller
I'm retired firestarter, I picked it up recently as it was orphaned but as we are moving towards PolicyKit and there's no upstream to assist with the port and after a discussion we had here on the list I decided it was time to retire it. Now, with that being said, I have some users on the

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Kevin Kofler
Casey Dahlin wrote: Because they gave us a bad grade and now we're butthurt and we're taking our ball and going home so there? Because that's what everyone's going to hear, even if its not what we say. If they love hearing bullsh*t, they should just go use a distro for bullsh*t lovers, like

Re: unable to include capability.h

2009-06-12 Thread Bill Crawford
Kyle McMartin wrote: ... Someone else suggested including sys/types.h first, which should work around it. That's what GNU coreutils did... (a change in the include ordering broke it.) I'm surprised the man page for cap_get_flag etc don't show an include of sys/types.h before sys/capability.h

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

2009-06-12 Thread Christoph Wickert
Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 05:34 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler: Christoph Wickert wrote: IMO this is something we should discuss on this list. We need to find a fine balance between pushing updates in time to make maintainers happy and not too many updates for the users. Maybe something like

Re: GDM Language list...

2009-06-12 Thread Bill Nottingham
Jens Petersen (peter...@redhat.com) said: - Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote: Well, there are languages we would support fine that don't have a specific language-support group (most anything that uses a Latin-1 like charset, and no specific input method.) Moreover, the groups

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

2009-06-12 Thread Kevin Kofler
Christoph Wickert wrote: In most cases the biggest part (consuming time and cpu cycles) of the updates is not installing them but everything else like checking for new packages, downloading the metadata, calculating dependencies, downloading the packages and running the transaction test.

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 06/12/2009 06:42 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote: It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit. Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but there is always going to be a per-syscall

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 06/12/2009 09:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 06/12/2009 06:42 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote: It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit. Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

2009-06-12 Thread Toshio Kuratomi
On 06/12/2009 08:14 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Freitag, den 12.06.2009, 05:34 +0200 schrieb Kevin Kofler: I don't see what it buys our users if they get one big update over 2 small ones. In most cases the biggest part (consuming time and cpu cycles) of the updates is not installing

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Chris Adams
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com said: On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost? ...and how does one disable it, so the people doing the benchmarks can confirm that's the cause? At the

Re: rpmconf - tool to handle rpmnew and rpmsave files

2009-06-12 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:30 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: I've been tired for some time of watching rpmnew and rpmsave files. I've been looking for some tool, but did not find any, so I wrote my own. http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rpmconf/rpmconf Before I spend more times on this script,

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Xose Vazquez Perez
Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Is there a benefit to running audit by default? Is it worth the cost? ...and how does one disable it, so the people doing the benchmarks can confirm that's the cause? put selinux=0 audit=0 in kernel line at

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 06/12/2009 09:35 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: put selinux=0 audit=0 in kernel line at /boot/grub/grub.conf then reboot $ dmesg | egrep -i audit|selinux Kernel command line: ro root=UUID=c99c0f86-6ebc-4e0f-91ee-4a6ae7ae6aa9 vga=791 selinux=0 audit=0 audit: disabled (until reboot)

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Joe Nall
On Jun 12, 2009, at 11:11 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 06/12/2009 09:35 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: put selinux=0 audit=0 in kernel line at /boot/grub/grub.conf then reboot $ dmesg | egrep -i audit|selinux Kernel command line: ro root=UUID=c99c0f86-6ebc-4e0f-91ee-4a6ae7ae6aa9 vga=791

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Jeff Spaleta
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Casey Dahlincdah...@redhat.com wrote: Because they gave us a bad grade and now we're butthurt and we're taking our ball and going home so there? Because that's what everyone's going to hear, even if its not what we say. What I have a problem with is the lack

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

2009-06-12 Thread sankarshan
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:10 PM, Mike McGrathmmcgr...@redhat.com wrote: Can anyone with F11 installed look at what is in their /etc/fedora-release and tell me which one you have, and how you installed?  Also what version of fedora-release you have. $ cat /etc/fedora-release Fedora release 11

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

2009-06-12 Thread Michael Cronenworth
Mike McGrath wrote: Can anyone with F11 installed look at what is in their /etc/fedora-release and tell me which one you have, and how you installed? Also what version of fedora-release you have. F10 to F11 system using preupgrade here. $ cat /etc/fedora-release Fedora release 11

Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64

2009-06-12 Thread Ville Skyttä
On Thursday 11 June 2009, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le mercredi 10 juin 2009 à 17:06 -0500, Matt Domsch a écrit : Fedora Rawhide-in-Mock Build Results for x86_64 using the first rawhide of the Fedora 12 development cycle, cut on 6/8/2008. Full logs at

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

2009-06-12 Thread Michael Cronenworth
Michael Cronenworth wrote: F10 to F11 system using preupgrade here. $ cat /etc/fedora-release Fedora release 11 (Leonidas) $ rpm -q fedora-release fedora-release-11-1.noarch When I brought up smolt the OS is Fedora 11 Leonidas so is this a smolt issue? It seems smolt is under stress

Re: rpmconf - tool to handle rpmnew and rpmsave files

2009-06-12 Thread Frank Murphy
On 12/06/09 17:00, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:30 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: I've been tired for some time of watching rpmnew and rpmsave files. I've been looking for some tool, but did not find any, so I wrote my own. http://miroslav.suchy.cz/fedora/rpmconf/rpmconf

Re: Plan for tomorrow's (20090612) FESCo meeting

2009-06-12 Thread Jarod Wilson
On Thursday 11 June 2009 17:04:03 Jon Stanley wrote: Here's a list of topics for tomorrow's FESCo meeting, taking place in #fedora-meeting on freenode at 17:00UTC. 160 Announce EOL date for F-9 162 Milestone Adjustment Proposal 161 Proposal for fedora-release version-release naming

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Casey Dahlin
On 06/12/2009 12:44 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: I don't have a problem getting a bad grade. I do have a general problem with people who publish unexpected behavior regressions but don't actually use the open development process to drive feedback directly to developers. If we deserve a black eye

Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread Bastien Nocera
Heya, I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one went away. The only purpose of the bluetooth initscript is now to switch HID proxy

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread Kyle McMartin
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:39PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one went away. The only

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread drago01
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Kyle McMartink...@mcmartin.ca wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:39PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a Bluetooth adapter

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread Bastien Nocera
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 20:20 +0200, drago01 wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Kyle McMartink...@mcmartin.ca wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:39PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread drago01
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Bastien Nocerabnoc...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 20:20 +0200, drago01 wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:11 PM, Kyle McMartink...@mcmartin.ca wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:39PM +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: I've added a patch to bluetoothd in

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread Rahul Sundaram
On 06/12/2009 11:35 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: Heya, I've added a patch to bluetoothd in F-12 to support being started via udev, on-demand. bluetoothd will now only start up when you have a Bluetooth adapter plugged, and will exit 30 seconds after the last one went away. Can you add these

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Fri, 12.06.09 19:26, Bastien Nocera (bnoc...@redhat.com) wrote: Every time there's an add action for a Bluetooth device, udev will run bluetoothd --udev. bluetoothd will fail with an error if D-Bus isn't started (on bootup), and the udev coldplug (done in udev-post) will run the rule

Problem with the fedorapeople.org website

2009-06-12 Thread Patrick MONNERAT
Hi list, Yesterday, when I pointed my browser to http://monnerat.fedorapeople.org/, I got a directory index. Today, the output is: Forbidden You don't have permission to access / on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to

FESCo meeting summary for 2009-06-12

2009-06-12 Thread Jon Stanley
Here's the minutes and IRC log of today's FESCo meeting Minutes: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/fedora-meeting/2009/fedora-meeting.2009-06-12-17.01.html Log: http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/fedora/fedora-meeting/2009/fedora-meeting.2009-06-12-17.01.log.html -- fedora-devel-list mailing list

Re: Problem with the fedorapeople.org website

2009-06-12 Thread Ricky Zhou
On 2009-06-12 08:46:48 PM, Patrick MONNERAT wrote: I did not change anything to my public_html path permissions. I can still access files in this directory, like http://monnerat.fedorapeople.org/php-captchaphp.spec I do not have a .htaccess file (neither did I yesterday!) I do not have an

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread Bastien Nocera
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:39 -0400, Colin Walters wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:26 PM, Bastien Nocerabnoc...@redhat.com wrote: bluetoothd will exit itself after 30 seconds when no adapters are present. There's a potential race if the udev add event happens in between the time the time

Re: Heads up: bluetoothd on-demand startup

2009-06-12 Thread Lennart Poettering
On Fri, 12.06.09 20:10, Bastien Nocera (bnoc...@redhat.com) wrote: This could be fixed by first releasing the service name synchronously, then processing all queued requests and only then closing/exiting. Hmm, will bluetoothd also be started via bus activation? If so, it wuld probably

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Paul W. Frields
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:55:56PM +1000, Eric Springer wrote: I agree with the sentiment that phoronix reviews are lazy, poor, etc -- but that doesn't mean nothing is revealed by them. Especially considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make conclusions about Fedora, we should

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Chris Ball
Hi, Our Apache results on the Phoronix tests, AIUI, are from an Apache they compiled, which is not what most people are going to use. Do similar results occur when you compare the installed Apaches instead, or does the discrepancy go away? There's also no mention of whether they

Re: Strange /etc/fedora-release and smolt help

2009-06-12 Thread Mathieu Bridon (bochecha)
I'm trying to figure out whats going on here so I'm off to the list. Smolts.org is reporting people checking in with both: Fedora 11 Leonidas and Fedora release 11 (Leonidas) Can anyone with F11 installed look at what is in their /etc/fedora-release and tell me which one you have, and

EPEL Bug Day

2009-06-12 Thread Michael Stahnke
The EPEL SIG team is asking for your participation at the first EPEL Bug Day. Please step up and help make EPEL a successful supplement to Enterprise Linux. When: July 11, 2009 00:00 UTC - 23:59 UTC. Goal: Squash (close) as many bugs as possible with proper solutions. More Information: *

Re: mount shows dm-* instead og dev/mapper/*

2009-06-12 Thread Laurent Jacquot
Hello, I forgot to give my conf. I run a fully updated fedora 10 [r...@jack ~]# uname -a Linux jack.lutty.net 2.6.27.24-170.2.68.fc10.i686 #1 SMP Wed May 20 23:10:16 EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linu If nobody has a clue about that, I will bug Zilla, probably under

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Gilboa Davara
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Eric Springer wrote: Especially considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as it can. I think we should rather do an informative press campaign on

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Gilboa Davara
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 15:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Eric Springer wrote: Especially considering how many people will use these benchmarks to make conclusions about Fedora, we should make sure it presents as best as it can.

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 00:47 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: I know its a pipe dream...the laypress taking a proactive interest in seeing problems resolved instead of just talking about them. I don't think it's ever going to happen. The laypress should just die, people need to go directly to

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: You don't like Phoronix' benchmark? Why? What should they have done differently? Have you ever contacted Phoronix (E.g. Using their forums) and tried to resolve these issues? Did they refuse? They should use distribution-compiled

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 17:25 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:55:56PM +1000, Eric Springer wrote: I agree with the sentiment that phoronix reviews are lazy, poor, etc -- but that doesn't mean nothing is revealed by them. Especially considering how many people will use

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: Kevin, I must admit that I didn't expect such childish reaction from someone like you. BTW, I suspect that Kevin's position has a lot to do with the response KDE 4 got in the press...which is understandable. -- Adam Williamson Fedora

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Gregory Maxwell
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Rahul Sundaramsunda...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On 06/12/2009 06:42 PM, Kyle McMartin wrote: It's almost certainly attributable to the default install using audit. Roland and various others have done a lot of work improving things, but there is always going to

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Gilboa Davara
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:08 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: Kevin, I must admit that I didn't expect such childish reaction from someone like you. BTW, I suspect that Kevin's position has a lot to do with the response KDE 4 got

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Gilboa Davara
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:05 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 04:33 +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote: You don't like Phoronix' benchmark? Why? What should they have done differently? Have you ever contacted Phoronix (E.g. Using their forums) and tried to resolve these issues?

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Kevin Kofler
Gilboa Davara wrote: Might I remind everyone here that Phoronix was the first to offer a comprehensive benchmark suite to the OSS world. On the other hand, they actively hurt Free Software by continuously providing free advertising for the latest and greatest graphics hardware with only

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009-06-12 Thread Adam Williamson
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 05:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: and no, glxgears is not a benchmark! Indeed, glxgears really sucks as as a benchmark, Phoronix's benchmark suite (as imperfect as it is) is definitely more useful. I keep meaning to file a feature request for glxgears - remove the FPS

rpms/perl-Config-Auto/devel import.log, NONE, 1.1 perl-Config-Auto.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

2009-06-12 Thread Emmanuel Seyman
Author: eseyman Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-Auto/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv5709/devel Modified Files: .cvsignore sources Added Files: import.log perl-Config-Auto.spec Log Message: Initial import. --- NEW FILE import.log ---

rpms/perl-Config-Auto/F-11 import.log, NONE, 1.1 perl-Config-Auto.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

2009-06-12 Thread Emmanuel Seyman
Author: eseyman Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-Auto/F-11 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv6495/F-11 Modified Files: .cvsignore sources Added Files: import.log perl-Config-Auto.spec Log Message: Initial import. --- NEW FILE import.log ---

rpms/perl-Config-Auto/F-10 import.log, NONE, 1.1 perl-Config-Auto.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

2009-06-12 Thread Emmanuel Seyman
Author: eseyman Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Config-Auto/F-10 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv7062/F-10 Modified Files: .cvsignore sources Added Files: import.log perl-Config-Auto.spec Log Message: Initial import. --- NEW FILE import.log ---

rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/devel import.log, NONE, 1.1 perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

2009-06-12 Thread Emmanuel Seyman
Author: eseyman Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv12180/devel Modified Files: .cvsignore sources Added Files: import.log perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec Log Message: Initial import. --- NEW

rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/F-11 import.log, NONE, 1.1 perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

2009-06-12 Thread Emmanuel Seyman
Author: eseyman Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/F-11 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv12862/F-11 Modified Files: .cvsignore sources Added Files: import.log perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec Log Message: Initial import. --- NEW FILE

rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/F-10 import.log, NONE, 1.1 perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec, NONE, 1.1 .cvsignore, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.1, 1.2

2009-06-12 Thread Emmanuel Seyman
Author: eseyman Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch/F-10 In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv13634/F-10 Modified Files: .cvsignore sources Added Files: import.log perl-Exception-Class-TryCatch.spec Log Message: Initial import. --- NEW FILE

[Bug 503765] perl-File-Find-Rule is not available in EPEL4

2009-06-12 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503765 --- Comment #4 from Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org 2009-06-12 03:54:45 EDT --- My main point of interest is also EL5,

[Bug 505576] New: perl-PAR-Packer not built with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS

2009-06-12 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: perl-PAR-Packer not built with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505576 Summary: perl-PAR-Packer not built with $RPM_OPT_FLAGS

Heads up: perl readline $! no longer broken

2009-06-12 Thread Stepan Kasal
Hello, a long standing perl bug was recently fixed in Fedora. Namely, perl-5.10.0-69 from Jun 3 fixes bug #221113, a.k.a. http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=39060 The problem was that $! was incorrectly set to Bad file descriptor, even though EOF was reached without any error. The

Re: Heads up: perl readline $! no longer broken

2009-06-12 Thread Iain Arnell
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 5:16 PM, Stepan Kasalska...@redhat.com wrote: Hello,  a long standing perl bug was recently fixed in Fedora. [snip] This is whet Iain Arnell had to do a few moments ago. This commit made it clear to me that I have to write this announcement.  Sorry, Iain and sorry to

[Bug 431559] Circular build dependency

2009-06-12 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=431559 Ed Avis e...@membled.com changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 489228] Keyboard does not work in perl-Tk programs

2009-06-12 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489228 --- Comment #13 from Patrick Laughton j...@jima.tk 2009-06-12 14:39:12 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=347645) --

[Bug 489228] Keyboard does not work in perl-Tk programs

2009-06-12 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=489228 Patrick Laughton j...@jima.tk changed: What|Removed |Added

[Bug 491536] cssh is broken

2009-06-12 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491536 --- Comment #9 from Patrick Laughton j...@jima.tk 2009-06-12 14:55:44 EDT --- This seems to be the same problem as

rpms/perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch/devel .cvsignore, 1.2, 1.3 perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch.spec, 1.1, 1.2 sources, 1.2, 1.3

2009-06-12 Thread Chris Weyl
Author: cweyl Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch/devel In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv21869 Modified Files: .cvsignore perl-DBIx-Class-DateTime-Epoch.spec sources Log Message: * Wed Jun 03 2009 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.05-1 -

[Bug 491536] cssh is broken

2009-06-12 Thread bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491536 --- Comment #11 from Patrick Laughton j...@jima.tk 2009-06-12 23:51:31 EDT --- Okay, going back to comment #7 and

Re: Can anyone volunteer to help with a Python 2.5 / Python 2.4 code issue?

2009-06-12 Thread Kyle VanderBeek
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.comwrote: On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 22:19 -0700, Kyle VanderBeek wrote: Tell Brennan he can swing by my place in Potrero Hill to do the upload. I have great internet access. :-) It's done now :). git should be in sync with the