Re: Bug 618349 : Can I get some input please?
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 4:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 09:28:55PM -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote: Bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=618349 The bug is blocking my ability, or at least my willingness to upgrade to F14. I would appreciate some assistance so that I can finally do the upgrade. It would really help if you'd summarize the bug in the subject line, so that everyone reading this email doesn't have to click through to BZ. The problem was that my Windows guest was blue-screening with the then latest 'seabion-bin' package bin in fedora-updates I have since posting this message here found out that there is a new update to the package that isn't bad. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane t...@redhat.com wrote: Michel Alexandre Salim fed...@michelsylvain.info writes: Note: I don't think Mark was proposing to do the packaging work himself. But it'd be great if whoever picks this up (Michał, are you a packager?) could reply to this thread, thus avoiding duplication of work and attract potential reviewers once the new package is ready. I see no point whatsoever in a separate postgresql9 package. The regular postgresql package will be up to 9.0.x in F-15. If you feel a need to run a bleeding edge database in F-14, it'll doubtless be built as an RPM by upstream as soon as F-14 is stable --- see http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux regards, tom lane So a 6 month wait at best? -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim fed...@michelsylvain.info wrote: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 15:13:42 -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote: No, I'm not advocating PgSQL 9 for F14, however, it shouldn't be so far-fetched that Fedora could have any software at any time. A Fedora update policy is being hashed out, and even before that, the consensus is really against introducing major updates in stable releases. It's not really anything goes as your statement seems to imply. A parallel update is a major update requiring a 6 month wait in Fedora now? -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora backports repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)
2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com: 2010/9/21 Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com: As the concept of using third party repositories (both as packagers and as users) grows, this interdependence will grow. Ok, so maybe it's time to setup Fedora backports repo for these that wants new and shiny Firefox 4, PostgreSQL 9 or whatever with big number. What exactly is the fear here with these updates? Are there many desktop users who do NOT want the latest released Firefox? Are there many people using Fedora as their OS for their database server? -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora backports repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:58:53 -0400, you wrote: 2010/9/20 Micha? Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com: Ok, so maybe it's time to setup Fedora backports repo for these that wants new and shiny Firefox 4, PostgreSQL 9 or whatever with big number. What exactly is the fear here with these updates? Are there many desktop users who do NOT want the latest released Firefox? Are there many people using Fedora as their OS for their database server? What if you are using a Firefox extension that hasn't been ported to the latest release yet? You don't update Firefox till the extension comes out. What if you have decided that Fedora is an easier path to a server rather than attempting to backport a lot of packages because the current release of RHEL/CentOS is 3 years old and doesn't have what you need in term of framework or language? The same thing suggested here for new packages. What if you are a college that has deployed Fedora to use for your students coursework, and an upgrade to a language/database/etc breaks things mid-semester? You test updates before you deploy them. Fedora is used in a lot of different ways. Sure, but I thought Fedora was all about pushing new, free software. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora backports repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)
I apologize for interrupting this tread. I shall take my leave. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Linux and application installing
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 3:01 AM, FlorianFesti ffe...@redhat.com wrote: On 09/16/2010 09:05 PM, Colin Walters wrote: (I don't have a strong opinion on whether the data format is RPM or repodata myself; maybe just a slight preference for the latter; the most important thing in my mind is to come to rough consensus and working code, and actually ship something) It is probably easier to add that information directly to the packages. Rpmbuild could inspect *.desktop file and produce Provides: from it or add a new tag. That way there'd be a distribution independent format and way to retrieve this data and the Fedora infrastructure doesn't have to deal with the generation on its own. Can someone please elaborate a bit what pieces of information are really needed? The .desktop files as a whole? Wouldn't that require the tool to download every package just to get the embedded information. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Linux and application installing
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 6:28 PM, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Ubuntu recently got high praise from LWN for Software Center in 10.10 betas. It doesn't use PackageKit at all AFAICS (no PackageKit packages are installed in my VM). It integrates tightly with apt (you know, like showing package history ... like yumex does). Also their package install/remove tool is not gpk-application, and their update tool is not gpk-update-viewer. I had mentioned earlier that Canonical is pushing their Software Center as a big feature, I don't see them replacing it with something cross-distro any time soon. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Linux and application installing
On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 14:17 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: Sure, I understand where you're coming from. As you see from app-install schema version 1 it really was least common denominator. But version 2, which is in progress now, features application screenshot previews (that ubuntu wanted) and application ratings (which we all wanted). Having an extensible format allows us to add the features in a cross-distro way without re-inventing schemas and UI. First off, I think this is a great idea and very much needed, thanks for working on it. On the cross-distro front, is Canonical / Ubuntu officially involved in this and expecting to move to it in future, or are you just working 'unofficially' with some Ubuntu community people and if anything it'll wind up being an unofficial alternative for Ubuntu users? I don't follow Canonical's news, but I believe that they have their own tool for this which is a big deal feature for their next release. So I'm not sure they would ever adopt this. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Linux and application installing
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:39 AM, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-07 at 15:42 +0100, Richard Hughes wrote: On 7 September 2010 15:23, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Are you having any discussions about applications like postfix, or is version 2 going to be just GUI stuff? Postfix is not an application. Applications have translated desktop files and icons. This is your definition of application, and IMNSHO not a good one. This is goes along with the only definition of application that I am aware of. Postifx is a system service. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 09:58 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: On 08/30/2010 10:50 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote: The attention to freedom is not unique. The attention to upstream is invisible to users. But it is why I want to *develop* for Fedora. You cut out the rest of Arthur's email, where he says exactly the same thing. This isn't a point scoring exercise, please read entire emails before you spot a piece you think you disagree with and try to win by contradicting it. Thank you for mentioning this, I was simply not going to respond to Mr. Poplawski. Maybe I was too long winded, or failed to communicate my point: a stable (bug fix only updates, slow feature release), strongly FOSS, strongly upstream seems to be what some (I am not going to make assumptions about numbers) want. I see two problems with this: 1) the nature of such a distro would make it attractive to a smaller percentage of the Linux community 2) the only aspect of that that would be unique is the commitment to upstream -- something which will be appreciated by few I'm not saying that any aspect of such a mission would be bad, just that it would be very niche. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 3:56 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:26:27PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote: Maybe I was too long winded, or failed to communicate my point: a stable (bug fix only updates, slow feature release), strongly FOSS, strongly upstream seems to be what some (I am not going to make assumptions about numbers) want. I see two problems with this: Where, keep in mind, slow is defined as twice a year, right? Yes. 1) the nature of such a distro would make it attractive to a smaller percentage of the Linux community Do you have a basis for this claim? I think it's the opposite. The basis is logic. Users who want stable, slow environments do so primarily because the want simpler to setup and maintain systems. Those users also don't want to install other unsupported repositories for full drivers, codecs, font engines, media, players ect which they then have to install unassisted. 2) the only aspect of that that would be unique is the commitment to upstream -- something which will be appreciated by few I don't think that's fair at all. Fedora is unique in a lot of ways, and a waterfall of updates isn't essential to that uniqueness. List those ways please, aside from the relationship with Red Hat/CentOS. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-08-31 at 15:56 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 01:26:27PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote: Maybe I was too long winded, or failed to communicate my point: a stable (bug fix only updates, slow feature release), strongly FOSS, strongly upstream seems to be what some (I am not going to make assumptions about numbers) want. I see two problems with this: Where, keep in mind, slow is defined as twice a year, right? 1) the nature of such a distro would make it attractive to a smaller percentage of the Linux community Do you have a basis for this claim? I think it's the opposite. 2) the only aspect of that that would be unique is the commitment to upstream -- something which will be appreciated by few I don't think that's fair at all. Fedora is unique in a lot of ways, and a waterfall of updates isn't essential to that uniqueness. Arthur's idea was better expressed in his original mail. His point was that a Fedora aiming at the niche described (by Jesse) would differ from Ubuntu solely in its more rigorous interpretation of 'freedom' and its attention to upstream, which experience seems to show are not things the majority of people who go for the Ubuntu niche care much about. I think this is a pretty reasonable thesis - note how popular non-free software is with Ubuntu users, how many people use Mint (which is essentially Ubuntu with even more non-free stuff added), and how few people use/used the more-strictly-free Ubuntu variations that have existed. As he put it, I am suggesting that the mission you would like is contradictory: not that it cannot happen, but in that it represents an intersection of people that is very small. The niche described is a kind of mix of attributes that appeal to entirely different types of users/contributors. Exactly, the key idea is The niche described is a kind of mix of attributes that appeal to entirely different types of users/contributors. It is an admirable goal to push for, even it it may nto reflect my own desires. However, I believe that it may be analogous to selling vegan dishes at a butcher shop. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Jesse Keating wrote: The cynic in me would expect that the people who want something different than the fire hose we have now are silently leaving, and those that are left are going to say they like the deluge of updates. You say that as if it were a negative thing. To me it is. It's you and people like you that want to shove a ton of updates down the throats of our stable release users (including changes that alter behavior and sonames etc...) that have ruined the Fedora I helped to build. I want my Fedora back, I don't want what you're creating. I have been using Fedora forever, and I have the exact opposite sentiment. I find that updates and too slow in coming. I feel that there are other distros for stable, slow releases. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Jesse Keating wrote: The cynic in me would expect that the people who want something different than the fire hose we have now are silently leaving, and those that are left are going to say they like the deluge of updates. You say that as if it were a negative thing. To me it is. It's you and people like you that want to shove a ton of updates down the throats of our stable release users (including changes that alter behavior and sonames etc...) that have ruined the Fedora I helped to build. I want my Fedora back, I don't want what you're creating. Interesting here is that one can say Leave the project if you don't like what we do (already done in the direction of Kevin Kofler) but the offer doesn't count for everybody. Not saying you should leave, for sure not. I think you're valuable for the project. The same counts by the way as well for Kevin and everyone else not sharing your opinion. It's actually very positive, it means we have found our niche and set some very specific expectations in our user base! We should stick to that and not suddenly turn around half-turn. We've found our niche, but chasing away our previous niche (and having less users show up in our tracking mechanism for it) What previous niche? Being a fast paced, bleeding edge distro -- what I always expected. - Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 08/28/2010 09:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Jesse Keating wrote: The cynic in me would expect that the people who want something different than the fire hose we have now are silently leaving, and those that are left are going to say they like the deluge of updates. You say that as if it were a negative thing. To me it is. It's you and people like you that want to shove a ton of updates down the throats of our stable release users (including changes that alter behavior and sonames etc...) that have ruined the Fedora I helped to build. I want my Fedora back, I don't want what you're creating. Interesting here is that one can say Leave the project if you don't like what we do (already done in the direction of Kevin Kofler) but the offer doesn't count for everybody. Not saying you should leave, for sure not. I think you're valuable for the project. The same counts by the way as well for Kevin and everyone else not sharing your opinion. It's actually very positive, it means we have found our niche and set some very specific expectations in our user base! We should stick to that and not suddenly turn around half-turn. We've found our niche, but chasing away our previous niche (and having less users show up in our tracking mechanism for it) What previous niche? We had a distro that was pretty general purpose, worked for servers and desktops and even laptops. We had a predictable schedule. We had new technology thanks to rawhide. We had timely bugfixes that didn't sacrifice stability, as in things didn't change out from under you on a stable release. We had an ecosystem of third parties that would build up stacks of newer things should a user be adventurous. We had a fresh release quite often that could be relied upon for at least a year. We had a culture of not just throwing crap over the wall at our users, which included ourselves. We had accountability when things did go awry and a honest effort to disrupt the users of our stable releases as little as possible. We also we're a very free distro avoiding nonfree stuff, and we worked well with upstreams. We we're easy to configure, easy to update, easy to install whether a single system or 400 systems in a lab. We we're easy to administrate in the same scenarios. This was fairly unique and what drew a lot of people to the project. Is this still unique? -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 5:01 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote: Once upon a time, Sven Lankes s...@lank.es said: Also - and this is a question that I have asked myself and others a couple of times - if you could implement Fedora the way you want: What unique selling points are left for Fedora? Fedora is Ubuntu with rpm sounds about as bad as Fedora is broken most of the time (not that I feel it is). I guess I've never been concerned about unique selling points. Why should it be Fedora is Ubuntu with RPM, instead of Ubuntu is Fedora with DEB? IIRC Fedora came first (and certainly RHL came before Ubuntu, although Debian was little before RHL). Because people seem to identify Ubuntu with what is being described. Why do we need to be concerned about being similar to or different from Ubuntu? Well for one, if there is nothing different mission wise between Fedora and Ubuntu, but Ubuntu gets more attention from desktop users, then people might as well just all use Ubuntu. I'm not sure that there is room for a Coke vs. Pepsi in Linux distros. A fruit juice vs. soda seems more useful. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:10 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote: On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 23:56 -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:11:06 +0200, you wrote: A typical developer wants the dependencies of the software they are working on to be _very_ up to date - probably not the upstream development version, but the upstream maintenance version with _all_ current bug fixes. Waiting 6 months for a bug fix does not make sense - at that point the developer would be tempted to build the new version locally. While I admit I haven't followed things very closely, I don't believe anyone is saying don't issue bugfixes. What is being said is don't upgrade versions just because something newer and shinier comes along in the middle of a release. So in other words, dependency 1.6 to 1.6.1 is okay as it is likely a bug fix, but 1.6 to 1.8 is not okay because it is a new release. 6 months for new features in a fast paced distro? You know, compared to almost any other Operating System out there, 6 months is warp speed. I'd rather have fewer features in my stable install that worked just right, then get shiny new things and deal with some brokenness in return at a defined point in the future. So far the only brokeness I have had in all of F13 is with `seabios-bin`. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/10 8:56 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote: On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 10:09 PM, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 30 Aug 2010 23:11:06 +0200, you wrote: A typical developer wants the dependencies of the software they are working on to be _very_ up to date - probably not the upstream development version, but the upstream maintenance version with _all_ current bug fixes. Waiting 6 months for a bug fix does not make sense - at that point the developer would be tempted to build the new version locally. While I admit I haven't followed things very closely, I don't believe anyone is saying don't issue bugfixes. What is being said is don't upgrade versions just because something newer and shinier comes along in the middle of a release. So in other words, dependency 1.6 to 1.6.1 is okay as it is likely a bug fix, but 1.6 to 1.8 is not okay because it is a new release. 6 months for new features in a fast paced distro? New features hit rawhide all the time, with no waiting period. So developers are going to put new features into rawhide knowing that they will never make it to updates? The fact that we can get a reasonably stable release out every 6 months including all these new features is pretty fast paced and amazing. I seem to remember new features coming faster before. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/10 1:33 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote: Is this still unique? I believe it is, particularly with our attention to freedom and upstream relationships, and our connection to arguably /the/ premiere enterprise Linux offering. The attention to freedom is not unique. The attention to upstream is invisible to users. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 1:11 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/10 9:50 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote: On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 8/30/10 1:33 PM, Arthur Pemberton wrote: Is this still unique? I believe it is, particularly with our attention to freedom and upstream relationships, and our connection to arguably /the/ premiere enterprise Linux offering. The attention to freedom is not unique. The attention to upstream is invisible to users. We want to not just be compelling to users, but we want to be compelling to developers as well. Our attention to freedom /when combined/ with all our other aspects does make a unique picture. Not ever bit is going to be interesting to a casual user, or a upstream developer. But each can find something useful in what we do. So here's what I understand to be what you are suggesting as a mission: a strongly free Linux distro, with only bug fix updates between releases, with an attention to tracking upstream. Strongly free and tracking upstream is something developers would appreciate, however bug fix only updates are often contrary to what developers want and outlier users like myself. Bug-fix updates benefit general users but general users often don't like to bare with the additional complexity gained by being so adherent to FOSS philosophy. I am suggesting that the mission you would like is contradictory: not that it cannot happen, but in that it represents an intersection of people that is very small. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Search Engine Proposal
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Manuel Escudero jmlev...@gmail.com wrote: AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN... http://start.fedoraproject.org/ is using a Google Search Box... YOU DON'T HAVE THE CODE TO PLAY WITH IT OR ANYTHING... With Fedora's engine I'm giving you the chance of having something more opensource and also more specific and useful for the fedora users... I think McGrath has already mentioned that the current start page is only in because of its age. I am not sure how utilizing Google Search makes anything more open source. Its just using a web service. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: drop default MTA for Fedora 15
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 6:04 AM, David Woodhouse dw...@infradead.org wrote: On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 18:09 -0500, Chris Adams wrote: What more do you want an MTA to do at install? It was decided a long time ago that the MTA shouldn't listen for remote SMTP connections by default. Pretty much any other thing I can think of (such as delivering root mail to a non-root user or smarthosting, possibly with authentication setup) requires manual configuration in any case. ... which could perhaps be done in firstboot. It could ask for the email address to use for outbound mail from 'root', and the SMTP server details for a smarthost. There has been a bug on this since 2005: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=135592 -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: drop default MTA for Fedora 15
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:04 AM, Ben Boeckel maths...@gmail.com wrote: Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote: sendmail has always worked out of the box for some things, including sending mail from local programs to remote email addresses I thought this was a speed trip to spamhaus' lists (the `localhost' part I've found). I had to get my machine off of it when I failed to setup KMail to use SMTP back in F7 or so. Exactly. The best solution along this is installation of esmtp/ssmtp. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Orphaned package: system-config-display
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 19:59 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Jackson wrote: Static configuration should be something you can do from the dynamic configuration tool. gnome-display-properties should have a set as default button. Uh… 1. Not everyone uses GNOME. Demonstrably true, but I don't see how it's relevant. You suggested `gnome-display-properties`, which is a gnome tool with gnome package dependencies. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: drop default MTA for Fedora 15
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 01:14 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 08/27/2010 12:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: That wasn't the question. The question was what is the benefit of not having one. Is it simply that it saves 1.6MB of disk space? If so, uh, woop? I think, that reverses the responsibility. If anything is installed by default, *that* needs a very good justification. For one thing, it isn't just about space, I don't want any services running on my system that I don't need and I don't want to take care of updates including security fixes for those software either. I think that makes sense if we're talking about adding a default, but taking one out - especially something that's been default in all Unix-y OSes for ever - is a different case. sendmail currently serves little to no use on a fedora desktop by default. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: drop default MTA for Fedora 15
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 16:00 -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote: I think that makes sense if we're talking about adding a default, but taking one out - especially something that's been default in all Unix-y OSes for ever - is a different case. sendmail currently serves little to no use on a fedora desktop by default. We're going in circles. I already said that I think the best fix for this is to replace sendmail with an MTA which works 'out of the box'. For what purpose? It has never worked in all of Fedora's existence -- no one expects it to just work. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Orphaned package: system-config-display
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 03:59:06PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 19:59 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: 1. Not everyone uses GNOME. Demonstrably true, but I don't see how it's relevant. You suggested `gnome-display-properties`, which is a gnome tool with gnome package dependencies. system-config-display depends on gtk, so it's all a matter of degree. No, I would never mention Gtk as a dep. Installing: control-center Installing for dependencies: at-spi gnome-menus gnome-panel-libs gnome-settings-daemon libgail-gnome libgnomekb -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: drop default MTA for Fedora 15
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:26 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 05:25:18PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote: We're going in circles. I already said that I think the best fix for this is to replace sendmail with an MTA which works 'out of the box'. For what purpose? It has never worked in all of Fedora's existence -- no one expects it to just work. Useful information is being generated and then lost. That shouldn't happen. This is not a sudden realization, there are bugs open about this for multiple releases. Why wait till there is even less need for it to want to fix it? -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: drop default MTA for Fedora 15
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org wrote: On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 05:31:58PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote: Useful information is being generated and then lost. That shouldn't happen. This is not a sudden realization, there are bugs open about this for multiple releases. Why wait till there is even less need for it to want to fix it? Why not fix it eventually? Well for one, no one was interested in the bug reports now. So I'm really surprised that there is any resistance to removing it now. Even for sending email to remote email addresses, randomly sending emails from non fully qualified domains is just barely useful. -- Fedora 13 (www.pembo13.com) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
