On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> you're an experienced user? You're comfortable knowing what does and what
> does not require a reboot? Then why are you using PK?
>
> Disable pk and do the updates directly via yum.
>
> Bam - no more requests to reboot.
This is a completely bo
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I do not intend to jump to GCC 4.5 for F13, that would mean I and others
> would have to spend almost all our time on that already by now, while there
> is still a lot of work on GCC 4.4 bugfixing.
> GCC 4.4-RH contains several GCC 4.5 new fe
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/30/2009 07:29 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> One presumes that such auditing is expensive, lengthy, and not often to
>> be repeated. Committing to undertaking a full code audit on every update
>> would seem to be a little unreasonable of a
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:00 AM, nodata wrote:
> I'd like to suggest an enhancement for Fedora 13: nothing should ever steal
> focus from the window I am typing in. If I am typing in a shell window, or
> in a word processor, or an e-mail, nothing should ever take keyboard focus
> away from that wi
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 11:23 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote:
>> There is no case where I want a new window or popup to take focus. Makes
>> for an easy algorithm. (hitting r in mutt is not a problem :)
>
> There is no case where _you_ want this,
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>
>> Peter Lemenkov (lemen...@gmail.com) said: ... what exactly are you trying
>> to accomplish?
>>
>> Make it legal to ship MP3 code? Sorry, those are patented in Europe as
>> well.
>>
>>
>
> Patents are *currently* i
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
[snip]
> the way there though. It's NOT good that they're hardcoding a browser check
> for only Firefox though,
Don't worry, plenty of people have pointed out that it isn't the way to go.
HTML 5 video provides the right tools for querying for su
2009/6/8 Kelly Miller :
> Thanks to Apple, that isn't going to be happening. Apple's pushing for the
> required default video codec to be the aforementioned nonfree MPEG4/H.264
> codec, and they don't seem to care whether it can be shipped by anybody
> else.
Perhaps pedantry but for the sake of a
On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Nokia argued against it for patent worries. Probably worried
> that if it did get done, some patent troll would come out of
> the woodwork with some obscure patent and sue all OGG the
> distributors.
If you're going to play the numbers the MPEG
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM, 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 o
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
[snip]
> - Faster and more consistent FP math by using SSE2 registers
I doubt having consistently lower FP precision is anything many users
are asking for. The few that do can usually take care of themselves.
> - Allows for autovectorization
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Not that it matters for Fedora, but I doubt many people are paying
>> $whatever_the_price_of_RHEL_is to run on a 6, 7, 10-year old machine. And
>> RHEL 5 only supports (base) i686 or gre
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
>> I doubt having consistently lower FP precision is anything many users
>> are asking for. The few that do can usually take care of themselves.
>
> And yet you say we sh
2009/6/16 梁穗隆 :
[snip]
> So I suggest that Fedora 12 change 32-bit x86 arch to i686+SSE, not
> i686+SSE2.
Before someone picks up this particular suggestion and runs with it:
SSE is not complete enough to replace x87. You don't get the kind of
gain from SSE only that you can get from SSE2. The p
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Steven M. Parrish wrote:
[snip]
> I would instead propose that instead of killing off i586 that instead we make
> i686+SSE2 a new primary arch. This will allow us to not only optimize Fedora
> for i686+SSE2 but still maintain a viable arch i586 for not only the XO-
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Given the loud feedback, I've updated the proposal at:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F12X86Support
>
> The revised proposal:
>
> - Build all packages for i686 (this requires cmov)
> - Optimize for Atom
>
> Why?
>
> - We do
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Clemens Eisserer wrote:
>> 1) Optimizing for P4 is ... messy
>> 2) If you're using C2D, etc., you can already use the 64-bit distro.
> So why not stay with generic, where most users would benefit.
>
> Sure I could use 64-bit, as could all the others using 32-bit on
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 6:40 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote:
> Now that .1 is out, is there anything in particular stopping F-11 from
> having this kernel?
Worth mentioning— .30 makes a non-backwards-compatible BTRFS format change.
So if you go .30 on a BTRFS system you can't go back.
(though, I suppose
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
[snip]
> So, if Frobnitz Inc. distributed Mono, and then filed suit against
> Microsoft for infringing one of Frobnitz' patents in the Microsoft C#
> implementation, they would lose the right to distribute Mono [1].
[snip]
> In other words, it's
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
> So I think most of us in this discussion probably don't actually understand
> SECMARK. I sure didn't. I think I might now, sort of. The SELinux policy
> just says contexts, and it doesn't say anything about the port numbers.
> The point of
On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 11:31 AM, Steve Grubb wrote:
> On Friday 31 July 2009 04:42:12 am Frank Murphy wrote:
>> I think what is meant, it that the app is useless, without either
>> web\media input. Which the user should not have to do to take full
>> advantage of it.
>
> I think this is a bit like
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Tom spot Callaway said:
>> On 08/05/2009 02:38 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
>> >Apropos, what's the license in case a GPL package links against OpenSSL?
>> >GPL with exceptions or what? Or is it even allowed?
>>
>> So, in this spec
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Stephen Smalley wrote:
> If you want something more akin to privilege bracketing within a
> program, then a closer analog in SELinux would be setcon(3) to switch to
> a more restricted domain. But in general our goal is to enforce
> security goals at the system lev
The F12 feature still indicates the switch to Empathy as a default IM
client in Fedora.
However, the talk page for the feature
(https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/Empathy) raises material
concerns that the switch to Empathy would result in an insufficiently
justified loss of functionalit
On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Rahul
Sundaram wrote:
> On 08/16/2009 01:05 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> The F12 feature still indicates the switch to Empathy as a default IM
>> client in Fedora.
>>
>> However, the talk page for the feature
>> (https://fed
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-08-16 at 18:02 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
>> But since other people may not care about that (i.e. Empathy
>> developers mock people who want confidentiality, i.e.
>> http://resiak.livejournal.com/
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Mathieu Bridon
(bochecha) wrote:
>> I understand the urge to ship empathy because it's included in gnome
>> -- but let's be honest: if the two clients were judged side-by-side
>> and rated, there's not a chance in hell empathy would win. : )
>
> ... and yet some of
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Adam Miller wrote:
> Hey all,
> I packaged up this app I stumbled upon called minitube
> (http://flavio.tordini.org/minitube) but it seems a bit unstable and I
> don't really want to toss it up to a package review until its stable
> enough to be shipped but I want
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:53 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 9:46 PM, 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 Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> I read the wiki page[1] on Fedora's effort to consolidate all the
> crypto libraries. Quite an ambitious task! FWN [2] reported on the
> rather large discussion back in '07, but I didn't see any resolution.
> Is this still a goal for Fedora? The
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:42 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Steve Dickson said:
>> On the server (Which is suggested):
>> * Add the following entry to the /etc/exports file:
>> / *(ro,fsid=0) Note: 'fsid=0' is explained in the exports(5) man pages.
>
> The "suggested solution"
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Steve Dickson wrote:
> On a pre F-12 Server:
> 2) Added the '/ *(ro,fsid=0)' entry to the /etc/exportsfile and
> reset the exports with 'exportfs -arv' (see exports(5) for details).
*Please* stop recommending this to people.
This is a myopic configuration
I noticed that http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora appears to be
strongly promoting i386 Fedora over x86_64. Is this intentional or an
oversight?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Josephine Tannhäuser
wrote:
> 2009/11/18, Gregory Maxwell :
>> I noticed that http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora appears to be
>> strongly promoting i386 Fedora over x86_64. Is this intentional or an
>> oversight?
> I think this is a
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> I think that's too subjective though. I'd be more in favor of a simple,
How is this subjective? At one time it was the norm that you had to
justify a SUID 0 binary. Packagekit is basically allowing the same
thing through other means. It shou
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 9:13 PM, King InuYasha wrote:
> Except, that could be false advertising. In most cases, where CPU
> computation is not used heavily, 64-bit is actually SLOWER than the 32-bit
> counterpart. Optimizations are narrowing the gap, but it still remains
> true.
You might want to
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> We have a server spin, and it's boot.iso/netinst.iso. And no, I am not
> joking. Servers are installed by starting with the smallest possible
> package set to get the system booted and on the network, then adding the
> specific functionali
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 12:33 -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> ...add what you want, and have PolicyKit pulled in as a dependency.
>> When this discussion came up I tried doing a yum erase PolicyKit on
>> one of my system
On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Conrad Meyer wrote:
> On the contrary. On the typical single user system, it's just as bad if an
> attacker can steal / delete / modify the user's files as it is if the attacker
> can modify / delete system files. Privilege escalation isn't needed to delete
> ever
2009/11/20 Pádraig Brady :
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> You're making the assumption that the change was made to save space. It
>> wasn't. I can't find the original thread right now, but it's part of a
>> cleanup on configuration tools. Upstream felt it no longer necessary to
>> expose this
>
> Wow
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
> Kevin Kofler writes:
>>> I never tick those boxes. I'd like to know how to get rid of them
>>> entirely.
>> Upgrade to F12 (with the latest PackageKit update), there's no such checkbox
>> in F12's PolicyKit.
> This is good.
>
> Also we s
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 11/23/2009 01:24 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>> I haven't tried the the fast user switching in fedora... Hopefully it is
>> using some kernel mode secure path to prevent users from stealing each others
>> credent
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:43 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> This is precisely the dialog that has been removed from F12 and is not
> planned to be returned.
My understanding was that this was removed because collecting the root password
during a user session is insecure because there could be a sniff
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Sure, I don't disagree, but I think we can take spots list and use it
> for the 'guest account'. Then you start picking things off the list as
> you move up the stack to 'university computer lab user (is that really
> much different from gue
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Having said that - is everyone agreeing that it's fine for each spin SIG
> to be entirely in charge of defining and implementing security policy
[snip]
Different spins having different security makes sense, especially if the
differences ar
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:26 AM, Roopesh Majeti
wrote:
> Hi All,
> Iam new to this fedora world.. a small question on the below discussion:
> It is mentioned that having, zero in the third argument is legitimate use
> cases. Can somebody direct me to such a use case, as i feel, giving memset a
> z
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> That's one side, the other side is:
> * Larger demands on RAM (x86_64 is more demanding on memory
> requirements).
Even if it were a full doubling (which is the absolute worst case
possible), it would only be pushing the effective cost of
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> and then you have to do that as well for updates. :(
Not if you don't have a separate updates repo, no?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Paul Jakma wrote:
> If I put you in front of 2 identical machines, one running 32bit
> and one 64bit software, would you be able to tell which one was
> which, from the interactive performance of common applications? I'd
> be willing to bet that for the vast majori
49 matches
Mail list logo
