On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 19:43 -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
Ian Pilcher wrote:
Mike A. Harris wrote:
All proprietary drivers? ;o)
I can't help wondering...
What do you guys do when you want decent 3D performance?
Use the proprietary drivers ... :-)
That'll likely vary
On Mon, 2006-03-20 at 17:29 -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
Paul F. Johnson wrote:
Hi,
But let's get a clear roadmap down this time, what features are
essential for the next cycle?
A *much* reduced core size (5 CDs + rescue is getting a bit much) and
large reduction in the
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 13:15 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Can we please not remove the Group tag, it is actually quite usefull.
What we need to remove / loose is comps. Having all this info in a
centralized database is stupid. The spec files should tell which
group(s) the
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
On Miércoles 03 Junio 2009 05:09:49 Ralf Corsepius escribió:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Steve Grubb wrote:
I don't want to start a long thread, but just to ask a couple questions
for my own clarification. Does a maintainer's responsibilities end with
packaging bugs? IOW
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jun 2009 14:06:45 +0200, Ralf wrote:
I consider users (esp. bug reporters) not to be the dumb pigs eating
the hog wash they get for free, or clueless comsumer masses aborbing
anything they don't pay for with money, but them to be the foundation of
your work
Steven M. Parrish wrote:
Many people have mentioned that it is not right to ask the users to file their
bug reports upstream. I ask why not?
Let me summarize what I already wrote elsewhere in this thread:
* Users aren't necessarily developers.
* Users aren't necessarily interested in
Conrad Meyer wrote:
On Wednesday 03 June 2009 10:23:05 pm Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Let me try an analogy: How do you handle defects/malfunctions with your
car?
Did a bunch of hobbyists from around the world build your car by communicating
over the internet?
Have you ever seen an open source
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Steve Grubb wrote:
Not if its closed. How would I be notified that the fix is in Fedora? If
the bug is severe enough, shouldn't the upstream commit be applied to
Fedora's package and the package pushed out for testing? Is all this going
to happen if the bug is closed?
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I consider maintainers redirecting arbitrary reporters to upstreams to
be rude and hostile, because they are presuming the reporter to be
* interested in tracking down bugs
If you don't care about your bug, why are you reporting it in the first
place
David Tardon wrote:
On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 07:23:05AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Steven M. Parrish wrote:
Many people have mentioned that it is not right to ask the users to
file their bug reports upstream. I ask why not?
Let me summarize what I already wrote elsewhere in this thread
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Signing up for an upstream Bugzilla account takes at most 5 minutes,
... when being interested in an upstream ... wasting much more time on
investigating issues ...
There are other packages and packagers (noteworthy many of the @RH) who
exhibit
Jon Ciesla wrote:
I installed F-11 fedora-release* and did yum clean all ; yum update
I got YumRepo Error: All mirror URLs are not using ftp, http[s] or file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498720
This is a fully updated F-10 system. Manually filling in releasever and
basearch in
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) said:
*That's* what I mean by we don't really support i586 in any meaningful
manner.
You seem to be speaking in terms of You == RH.
No, period - I haven't seen anyone in the community say that they're
testing it on i586-class
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/26/2009 06:07 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Hi, I'm Scruffy, the Fedora Janitor.
Today (and likely, over the next few days/weeks), I'll be going through
and making minor changes to packages
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:42:57 +0200, Ralf wrote:
be fixing cases where the duplicate directory ownership is
acceptable, like much of the perl structure, so you don't have to worry
about that.
Well, ... he just has committed patches in which he does exactly the
opposite.
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Jun 29, 2009, at 16:05, Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/6/29 Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com:
Focus on rawhide will mean the next release will see the improvements :)
That means, that the next release will be untested, as usual. So why
create
Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As much fun as it is to make up stats on the spot, I would ask you to
show some proof that nobody uses rawhide.
The shape of Fedora 11 speaks for itself.
speaking of dramatic and negative.
Yes, my Fedora 11 _desktop_
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
This is seriously dubious for F9, since if it causes a problem there
is next to no time in which to fix it before F9 updates are turned
off. In general I struggle to believe that there is a compelling
need to rebase automake versions in our stable
Stepan Kasal wrote:
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 07:30:37AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Some software may need the new version to build.
Very unlikely.
There are people using the new features, like Jim Mayering, the
coreutils maintainer, and others. Building
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 12:50 +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote:
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 09:02 +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote:
Owen Taylor wrote:
I was rather surprised to see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/FEDORA-2009-6661
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
a) it will cause some moderate stir-up to those packages whose upstreams
are still abusing the autotools.
s/ab// ;-)
Why can't we just move to a better build system with higher focus on
backwards compatibility?
Because
a) the autotools
Jim Meyering wrote:
I try to accommodate progressiveness, when the benefit appears to
outweigh the risk.
ACK. The risk of an automake-1.10-automake-1.11 upgrade on Fedora is
close to zero and outweigh the effects of bug fixes having gone into
automake-1.11.
So far, I know of no
Peter Robinson wrote:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1449113
Unrelated to this issue, but please use make V=1 so we see the actual
build command lines in the build.log (see the thread about the new
automake).
With V=1
Peter Robinson wrote:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1449113
Unrelated to this issue, but please use make V=1 so we see the actual
build command lines in the build.log (see the thread about the new
automake).
With V=1
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
I'd like to update readline to the latest version 6.0. The problem is
that the license was changed to GPLv3+ and we have some GPLv2 packages
using readline.
A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a
compatible interface and is licensed under BSD,
Jussi Lehtola wrote:
Quoting Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de:
drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de
wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
A possible replacement is the editline library which provides a
compatible interface and is licensed under BSD
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 02:08:55PM +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote:
Stefan Assmann wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering why there's no $HOME/bin directory and $HOME/bin not
mentioned in the $PATH variable. Any particular reason not to have that
by default?
$HOME/bin is not on
Michal Hlavinka wrote:
Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 02:08:55PM +0200, Ondřej Vašík wrote:
Stefan Assmann wrote:
Hi all,
I was wondering why there's no $HOME/bin directory and $HOME/bin not
mentioned in the $PATH variable. Any particular reason not to have that
by default?
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Ralf Corsepius [13/07/2009 15:50] :
For ordinary users, prepending ~/bin to $PATH is the only approach e.g.
to replace vendor-supplied applications, the security risks are almost
non-existent.
You can also use bash aliases to override binary calls.
Sometimes
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:01:50 +0200, Ralf wrote:
You don't need to drop %dist for koji build inheritance to work.
It just looks much cleaner to inherit foo-1.0-1.noarch.rpm for all
newer targets
IFF current rpm is sufficiently compatible to the antique version of
rpm a
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:54:10 +0200, Ralf wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:01:50 +0200, Ralf wrote:
You don't need to drop %dist for koji build inheritance to work.
It just looks much cleaner to inherit foo-1.0-1.noarch.rpm for all
newer targets
On 07/26/2009 08:12 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-25 at 21:42 +0200, Farkas Levente wrote:
On 07/25/2009 08:56 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Fortunately I had read in this list that upgrading breaks Yum so I did a fresh
install instead, and only had to spend a few days getting all the
On 07/26/2009 10:40 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
It may be news to you, but a single negative result invalidates a whole
series of positive tests ;)
No, that means that they are bugs / problems but not that the feature
is
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
all of my system has a wrong openssl version
all these symptoms sound like your upgrade went horribly wrong. I've seen
preupgrade mash up a box by half upgrading like that. It's the main
reason
I don't think
On 07/26/2009 09:28 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
all of my system has a wrong openssl version
all these symptoms sound like your upgrade went horribly wrong. I've
seen preupgrade mash up a box
On 07/26/2009 09:34 PM, John Poelstra wrote:
Ralf Corsepius said the following on 07/26/2009 11:35 AM Pacific Time:
Are there bug numbers for these issues?
I filed some BZs for which I couldn't find as already filed by others
(some already were):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id
On 07/27/2009 07:33 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Björn Persson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
all of my system has a wrong openssl version
all
On 07/27/2009 11:26 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/27/2009 07:33 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Björn Persson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote
On 07/27/2009 11:25 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 7:21 AM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 07/26/2009 09:28 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/26/2009 02:37 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jul 2009, Alan Cox wrote:
all of my system has
On 07/27/2009 03:39 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Ralf Corsepius [27/07/2009 13:49] :
Your problem, if you are using a non-reboot persistant /tmp
Although data stored in /tmp may be deleted in a site-specific manner,
it is recommended that files and directories located in /tmp be deleted
On 07/27/2009 10:21 PM, Jeremy Katz wrote:
Regenerating the images is expensive -- it requires effort on the part
of the developers doing fixes, release engineering doing builds with the
fixes, QA testing the fixes, infrastructure (mirrors) carrying a
significant amount more bits[1], ...
Not
On 07/28/2009 01:19 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 06:27:00PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
That means that you can take revisor, pungi or livecd-tools in your
existing Fedora system
None of these are what I am looking for.
Ralf
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
On 07/28/2009 01:43 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 07/28/2009 12:54 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/28/2009 12:27 AM, Jeremy Katz wrote:
As it turns out, we ship all the tools to build the distribution the
exact way we do! And as David said, he's been working with Jeroen for
occasional
On 07/29/2009 12:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2009-07-27 at 13:43 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
With all due respect to fedoraunity and you. To me it is a serious
Fedora management and rel-eng mistake causing major harm to fedora's and
RH's reputation to not provide updated media, thus
On 07/29/2009 08:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 01:51 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 07/28/2009 01:19 AM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 06:27:00PM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
That means that you can take revisor, pungi or livecd-tools in your
existing
On 07/30/2009 01:40 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
I've now generated the first of the mass rebuild status pages.
http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/needed-f12-rebuilds.html
corsepiu:
OpenSceneGraph
Seems as if you modified the *.spec (traces in CVS), but haven't
launched any built (no traces
On 08/04/2009 02:01 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Tue, 2009-08-04 at 13:42 +0200, Mattias Ellert wrote:
What's the correct way to do this?
%global dconfigure %(rpm -E %%configure | sed 's!./configure!../configure!g')
%dconfigure
This works, but isn't it bad style to call rpm from within a
On 08/06/2009 10:39 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
After requesting status updates, including direct email to the feature
owners, the following feature pages do not have a current status or their
ability to tested during the Alpha is unclear based on the lack of
information provided or percentage of
On 08/06/2009 10:55 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 08/06/2009 02:14 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
IMO, this feature should be scratched, because the packages in question
are of immature nature (... and of low packaging quality from my POV).
Be specific. This is not enough information to influence
On 08/06/2009 12:32 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/06/2009 10:39 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
After requesting status updates, including direct email to the feature
owners, the following feature pages do not have a current status
On 08/06/2009 02:10 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 06.08.2009, 13:39 +0200 schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 08/06/2009 12:32 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/06/2009 10:39 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
After requesting status
On 08/06/2009 02:18 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
* IM (NSH) O, the packaging quality of the submitted packages is close to
being inacceptable low.
Can you be more verbose on that one?
3 Examples:
1. He is running the
On 08/06/2009 05:20 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 06.08.2009, 16:20 +0200 schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 08/06/2009 02:18 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
* IM (NSH) O, the packaging quality of the submitted packages
On 08/06/2009 05:16 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 06.08.2009, 16:14 +0200 schrieb Ralf Corsepius:
On 08/06/2009 02:10 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I asked you to write down the problems
you found in bz and CC me, but so far I haven't received a mail.
I haven't received any
On 08/06/2009 09:33 PM, Till Maas wrote:
Hiyas,
currently upstream release monitoring[0] bug filing is opt-in, which
means that it will be only performed for packages that have been activly
added by probably a maintainer of the package. There is at least one
maintainer that does not like having
On 08/06/2009 09:12 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Ralf Corsepius, Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:14:47 +0200:
I turned away from supporting Mr. Robinson, ignored his reviews and left
reviews to others
So you lost your right to slander him now.
Do you expect people to continue a review even when you'd have
On 08/07/2009 10:48 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 06:35:14AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/06/2009 09:33 PM, Till Maas wrote:
currently upstream release monitoring[0] bug filing is opt-in, which
means that it will be only performed for packages that have been activly
On 08/07/2009 04:19 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de writes:
On 08/06/2009 09:12 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
Do you expect people to continue a review even when you'd have to
decide against the best of your knowledge and conciousness?
Actually, yes, I do. Your job is not to
On 08/08/2009 07:25 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
lack of maintainer skills (e.g. running the autotools),
You are insulting maintainers for having a different opinion,
It's not a matter of opinions it's a matter of technical facts.
It doesn't matter how many people deny
On 08/08/2009 07:03 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 05:51 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
IMHO, the proper way is to express opinion, and even when disagreement
happens, approve review
== switch off your brains, morals, knowledge
Pardon, but you don't want how disgusting I find
On 08/08/2009 08:58 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Sat, 2009-08-08 at 18:34 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/08/2009 12:19 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
Hi,
why does %configure still use
--build=i686-pc-linux-gnu --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu
--target=i586-redhat-linux-gnu
in rawhide i386, shouldn't
On 08/10/2009 05:17 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
On 08/07/2009 02:54 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Pointing it out on a review and restoring to calling the
packages bad quality if people don't follow your controversial
recommendation isn't going to scale at all.
This is a good perspective, Ralf.
On 08/10/2009 08:48 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I am applying this approach to several of my Fedora packages (some of
which I know to suffer from such issues, e.g. Coin2), fixed some
packages (owned by others) this way, which had failed during the
F11-mass-rebuild, exactly
On 08/10/2009 09:01 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
On 08/10/2009 11:44 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
They are very easy to demonstrate. Commonly known cases are building
gcc, binutils, gdb, firefox etc.
Are these of the sort where a bug is reported, it's found that autotools
made a bad decision
On 08/10/2009 11:56 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 08/10/2009 09:01 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
Are these of the sort where a bug is reported, it's found that
autotools
made a bad decision, and then patching autotools fixed
On 08/12/2009 11:54 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
If this is enforced (and it may be good to add it to the
critical-path suggestion), updates will be reduced since when
there's little to write about, there's less justification for an
update in the first place.
Correct, such a step will add a
On 08/13/2009 10:41 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Correct, such a step will add a significant bureaucratic burdons to
maintainers.
As maintainers hate bureaucrazy and prefer investing time on dealing
with technical issues (such as bug fixes), this will likely introduce
On 08/13/2009 06:55 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
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
On 08/14/2009 07:32 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 05:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I strongly think Fedora would be better without Rahul and Kevin, two
persons I have learned to be doing a good job on certain subjects, but
to be a miscast on certain jobs and failure
Hi,
today's
yum update came along with this:
# yum update
...
Updating : blender-2.49b 1.fc11.x86_64
16/57
Unknown media type in type 'all/all'
Unknown media type in type 'all/allfiles'
Unknown media type in type 'uri/mms'
Unknown
On 10/10/2009 01:48 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Freitag, den 09.10.2009, 18:56 -0400 schrieb Neal Becker:
What if the generated docbook documents are different due to different
ids? Do we need to separate the docs into a noarch
On 10/11/2009 11:29 AM, Tim Lauridsen wrote:
On 10/11/2009 11:16 AM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On 10/11/2009 04:54 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It was ok to ship a beta release of thunderbird but updates shouldn't
cause such issues. If the fixes were necessary to push as updates then
it would have
On 10/14/2009 03:04 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Hello All!
Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This
module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel (at least, yet), and we
don't allow stand-alone kernel modules.
Whether or not this package can be allowed?
IMO: no.
On 10/14/2009 05:47 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
yum downgrade pkgname
it works fine for the simple-ish cases.
Is there a thunderbird-2.0 package for F11?
For me, all thunderbird-3.*'s in FC11 were simply too bugged to be
usable (The UI changes are not an issue for me - for me, TB3 is simply
too
On 10/14/2009 06:30 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:29:13PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/14/2009 03:04 PM, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
Hello All!
Imagine an application, which relies on a specific kernel module. This
module is not a part of stock Fedora kernel
On 11/14/2009 05:12 PM, Paul Howarth wrote:
Please make it stop.
+1 ...
... so far, I've received ca. 1200 of these mails and the figure is
still growing by the minute.
Ralf
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 11/14/2009 10:12 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009, Henrique Junior wrote:
+1
Are people +1'ing getting rid of the broken dependencies script
altogether? or +1'ing to predicting the future and stopping it before it
breaks?
No, it's raising hands to
a) draw attention of
On 11/17/2009 09:08 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Henrique Junior wrote on 16.11.2009 23:57:
I have a question that may sound a little stupid, but that came as I
write a short article about some Fedora's curiosities.
Why are our packages still using the tag f*c*X, f*c*Y, f*c*W since
Fedora does
On 11/16/2009 08:22 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Many of you received emails over the weekend and this morning regarding
broken deps in rawhide. If these emails mentioned that the deps were
broken on ppc or ppc64 they can be ignored. We are no longer producing
ppc/ppc64 as a primary arch, however
On 11/19/2009 07:14 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 18:45 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
You must not confuse moblin with netbooks, nettops or with i386/32bit
machines in general. The moblin desktop is addressing a completely
different audience.
Oh? That's not what I got from
On 11/20/2009 06:31 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/20/2009 08:22 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/19/2009 07:14 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 18:45 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
You must not confuse moblin with netbooks, nettops or with i386/32bit
machines in general
On 11/20/2009 09:02 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
On 11/19/2009 08:14 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 18:45 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
You must not confuse moblin with netbooks, nettops or with i386/32bit
machines in general. The moblin desktop is addressing a completely
different
On 11/20/2009 11:58 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
IMO, they are targetting MID devices, competing with Android, Smart phones
and similar.
Not at the moment they're not/
Then please explain what they are targetting.
So far, all of Moblin I have seen was them trying to turn a multi-user
On 11/23/2009 09:00 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 13:48 -0600, Chris Adams a écrit :
Once upon a time, Nicolas Mailhotnicolas.mail...@laposte.net said:
Le lundi 23 novembre 2009 à 09:51 -0700, Jerry James a écrit :
1) I'm going to nag you forever about a problem
On 11/25/2009 01:13 PM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
On 11/25/2009 08:38 AM, Nicu Buculei wrote:
Instead of this I would pretty much like to have the normal install DVD
being full (4GB, instead of 3.0-3.3GB as now), so when installing a
computer I have more content on local media and less stuff to
On 12/02/2009 03:39 PM, 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 configuring yum. It has never
On 12/02/2009 06:01 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 11:06:22AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
However, other than 'browsing manually for packages', I'm not really
sure what problem you are trying to solve by getting rid of the
updates repository. It would seem like this has quite a
On 12/02/2009 06:40 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 18:09 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
* It shifts costs from users to vendor
and from mirrors to master.
* It helps users who are using networked installs to spare bandwidth
(avoids downloading obsolete packages from Everything
On 12/02/2009 07:09 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
the merger of repos is already happening at the yum layer.
On the client's side - With a combined Everything+updates, this would
happen on the server side.
It's one of the aspects which made me said a combined
Everything+updates shifts costs from
On 12/03/2009 06:32 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Thu, 3 Dec 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/02/2009 07:09 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
the merger of repos is already happening at the yum layer.
On the client's side - With a combined Everything+updates, this would
happen on the server side.
It's
On 12/03/2009 07:22 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 06:24 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
People doing network installs can either add the updates repo to their
kickstart, or check the box in the anaconda UI, so that the updates
repos are considered at install time. No download
On 12/05/2009 06:22 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On Fri, December 4, 2009 9:20 pm, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/03/2009 07:22 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2009-12-03 at 06:24 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Yes, for people who are doing full featured networked installs w/
custom kickstart
On 12/08/2009 06:41 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Rallias UberNerd
robinstar1...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:39:16 -0600, Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at
wrote:
Bill McGonigle wrote:
Are you installing Fedora on the computer you're using now? [YES] [NO]
On 12/08/2009 09:26 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On Tuesday 08 December 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
* More packages (rpms) to cope with.
Only if you pollute your system with 32-bit multilibs. A pure x86_64 system
doesn't have any more packages than a 32-bit one.
Fedora
On 12/09/2009 02:05 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Dec 09, 2009 at 06:51:59 +0100,
Ralf Corsepiusrc040...@freenet.de wrote:
Seems to me, as if some people in Fedora's leadership don't want to
understand that being able to deploy Linux on old or recycled
hardware used to be one big
On 12/09/2009 04:14 PM, James Antill wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 15:26 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
So, yeh, if _you_ want to support slower machines
Well, I do not want to, I can't avoid to ...
... _you_ will have
to do the work, you might get help from the community but just ranting
On 12/09/2009 05:51 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 12/09/2009 04:14 PM, James Antill wrote:
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 15:26 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
So, yeh, if _you_ want to support slower machines
Well, I do not want to, I can't avoid
On 12/14/2009 10:27 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Dim 13 décembre 2009 22:35, Chris Adams a écrit :
As for the RAM overhead of 64 bit code vs. 32 bit code, I don't see it
much in the real world.
The worst case I've seen reported is when the RAM overhead managed to
annihilate register
On 12/16/2009 06:34 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, nodata wrote:
Am 2009-12-16 18:21, schrieb Seth Vidal:
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, nodata wrote:
we're talking about the experienced user who is comfortable knowing
what
does and does not need a reboot.
All I'm saying is - we've
On 12/29/2009 11:52 AM, Daniel Drake wrote:
Hi,
OLPC's security system uses libtomcrypt / tomsfastmath, both at the
Linux level and the firmware level.
OLPC has previously had a specific version of tomcrypt/tommath
profesionally audited for security reasons. So we obviously want to
stick with
1 - 100 of 251 matches
Mail list logo
