Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Brandon Lozza wrote: I think an exception should be made for Chromium too. No. Just no. The exceptions for Firefox need to stop NOW, i.e. no new ones should be granted and the ones that have already been granted repealed/discontinued. Giving yet another package a free pass is going in the entirely wrong direction. (That said, I really don't see why Firefox gets a free pass while Chromium doesn't.) Having a more secure browser would benefit the main repositories. We already have Konqueror which is more secure than either Firefox or Chromium. (There have been much fewer security vulnerabilities in KHTML than either Gecko or WebKit. All the WebKit issues have been checked for reproducibility in KHTML and most weren't reproducible.) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Perhaps the Upstream we should be working with instead should be Debian (Iceweasel)? I'm compiling Iceweasel right now and i'm going to attempt to plug it into the system xulrunner, lol. It's the same version anyways so I don't see why the branding being changed will introduce new bugs and I'm not using debians security patches. I'll update on this and if it works i'll look into modifying the firefox spec to use this instead. However i'm kind of a noob at packaging and probably can't maintain this forever. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2010-10-05)
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Bruno Wolff III wrote: There was also talk about whether or not it would be allowed for there to be a separate Iceweasel package in Fedora. This might be done to test the feasibility of maintaining it. There were mixed feelings about this amoung FESCO. This is essentially not feasible because most of the disputed patches are in xulrunner, and a hypothetical separate Iceweasel package would share xulrunner with Firefox, unless we have even more bundled libraries. I also don't see what we have to gain from shipping both. So it's really an either-or situation. IMHO, the version which is not compliant with our guidelines needs to go away, period. We need to stop treating Mozilla specially, it needs to be held by the same rules as any other upstream. If they don't cooperate, it's the maintainer's job to fix things or orphan it. If nobody picks it up when orphaned, it should be retired like any other package. Firefox is NOT an essential package, the GNOME spin could just ship Epiphany (GNOME's default browser) instead, and other desktop spins ALREADY ship the respective desktop's default instead of Firefox! Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel It doesn't help when a majority of voting FESCo members are biased Firefox users who seem to hate the idea of Iceweasel (based on what I gather from their meeting notes). There seem to be some preconceptions about what happens when you remove the branding. No conclusive data can be provided to indicate how much users Firefox brings the distro. I also don't appreciate the comment at the meeting about non contributing members on the mailing list complaining about this issue. It's an argument often used to ignore people with valid arguments who also don't happen to have a computer science degree. Some of us advocate Fedora and that in itself is a contribution. Fedora consists of volunteers in many areas, not all of them make packages or write code. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 01:39 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: Er, really? I don't see where I offered any insult or un-excellent-ness. I just meant it as a vaguely humorous way of wondering why Kevin was replying to an email I sent over a week ago in a discussion which I thought had pretty much finished already. Because I don't have the time to sit on mailing lists 24/7. I guess the logical conclusion, given your output level, is that you have time to write email but not read it. - ajax -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Given his output level we'll soon have KDE 4.5 in F13, hes a busy individual. I believe it was my mention of Iceweasel in irc that brought this to his attention. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com wrote: - remove any features Michal How do you guys update Gnome then? ;) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:43:16 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote: On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote: - remove any features Gnome is known for removing features, it was a joke. Perhaps you're confusing me with someone else. I have nothing to do with Gnome. But did Gnome ever remove features within a Fedora release? I don't think so. Michal Not confusing anything, was just making a Gnome joke. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]
On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at Freedom - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply do not fit into this philosophy. If we don't protect the Fedora trademark, anyone can produce anything and call it 'Fedora'. Including something which doesn't fit into our philosophy of freedom at all. It's really pretty simple: we can only define goals and values and blahblah for 'the Fedora project' as long as we actually retain control over 'the Fedora project' (that's we as in the Fedora community, not Red Hat, BTW) and we can only do that if we control the name 'Fedora'. If anyone can make anything and call it 'Fedora', how are people to know what comes from the Fedora project and is backed by its values, and what doesn't? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel What are you guys going to do if someone does it anyway in a country where Redhat hasn't registered the Fedora trademark, or countries where another country already owns the Fedora trademark. Do you think spammers are going to host in the good old US of A? Bad argument. Strawman arguments make bad policy change decisions. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: trademarks [was: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs]
I think an exception should be made for Chromium too. Having a more secure browser would benefit the main repositories. On 10/7/10, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at Freedom - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply do not fit into this philosophy. If we don't protect the Fedora trademark, anyone can produce anything and call it 'Fedora'. Including something which doesn't fit into our philosophy of freedom at all. It's really pretty simple: we can only define goals and values and blahblah for 'the Fedora project' as long as we actually retain control over 'the Fedora project' (that's we as in the Fedora community, not Red Hat, BTW) and we can only do that if we control the name 'Fedora'. If anyone can make anything and call it 'Fedora', how are people to know what comes from the Fedora project and is backed by its values, and what doesn't? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel What are you guys going to do if someone does it anyway in a country where Redhat hasn't registered the Fedora trademark, or countries where another country already owns the Fedora trademark. Do you think spammers are going to host in the good old US of A? Bad argument. Strawman arguments make bad policy change decisions. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Summary/Minutes for today's FESCo meeting (2010-10-05)
On 10/5/10, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: === #fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-10-05) === Meeting started by nirik at 19:30:01 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-10-05/fesco.2010-10-05-19.30.log.html Meeting summary --- * init process (nirik, 19:30:01) * mclasen will not be able to attend today due to a backhoe incident. (nirik, 19:30:48) * cwicket will also be unable to attend. (nirik, 19:30:59) * kylem is also unable to attend. (nirik, 19:31:13) * #473 new meeting time (redux) (nirik, 19:33:54) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/473 (nirik, 19:33:54) * ACTION: make sure cwickert is updated, revisit next week. (nirik, 19:46:09) * reminder: you can vote in tickets if unable to attend the meeting. (nirik, 19:46:22) * Updates policy / Vision implementation status (nirik, 19:46:48) * ideas wanted to improve stable N-1 wording/distinction. (nirik, 19:57:04) * LINK: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs -- only shows formatting rules, so some recommendations for their content might be nice. (gholms, 20:08:46) * AGREED: will asking testers/qa to be on the lookout for things not following the update_policy and notify us via a ticket for further discussion. (nirik, 20:09:54) * AGREED: will see if FPC is willing/able to expand on the changelog guidelines. (nirik, 20:12:47) * #472 About Mozilla's decision to not allow using the system's libvpx (nirik, 20:14:40) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/472 (nirik, 20:14:40) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/472 (nirik, 20:30:41) * AGREED: will vote on proposals in ticket. (nirik, 21:05:11) * Open Floor (nirik, 21:05:43) * LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4149 (gholms, 21:07:13) Meeting ended at 21:18:39 UTC. Action Items * make sure cwickert is updated, revisit next week. Action Items, by person --- * cwickert * make sure cwickert is updated, revisit next week. * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --- * nirik (145) * pjones (69) * mjg59 (56) * notting (39) * gholms (31) * ajax (23) * hicham (22) * abadger1999 (17) * spot (10) * Oxf13 (10) * zodbot (8) * mdomsch (8) * mcepl (1) * rdieter (1) * SMParrish (0) * kylem (0) * mclasen (0) * cwickert (0) -- 19:30:01 nirik #startmeeting FESCO (2010-10-05) 19:30:01 zodbot Meeting started Tue Oct 5 19:30:01 2010 UTC. The chair is nirik. Information about MeetBot at http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot. 19:30:01 zodbot Useful Commands: #action #agreed #halp #info #idea #link #topic. 19:30:01 nirik #meetingname fesco 19:30:01 zodbot The meeting name has been set to 'fesco' 19:30:01 nirik #chair mclasen notting nirik SMParrish kylem ajax pjones cwickert mjg59 19:30:01 nirik #topic init process 19:30:01 zodbot Current chairs: SMParrish ajax cwickert kylem mclasen mjg59 nirik notting pjones 19:30:06 * notting is here 19:30:36 * ajax waves 19:30:48 nirik #info mclasen will not be able to attend today due to a backhoe incident. 19:30:56 * pjones throws a trout at ajax 19:30:59 nirik #info cwicket will also be unable to attend. 19:31:12 gholms A backhoe incident? Ouch. 19:31:13 nirik #info kylem is also unable to attend. 19:31:21 nirik gholms: took out his home internet it seems. 19:31:30 gholms Ok, that's not *so* bad. 19:31:52 notting and kylem will not be here 19:32:19 nirik SMParrish: / mjg59: you guys here? 19:33:15 mjg59 Afternoon 19:33:27 nirik Hello. :) Thats 5. 19:33:45 nirik Shall we start with meeting time? 19:33:54 nirik #topic #473 new meeting time (redux) 19:33:54 nirik https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/473 19:34:09 nirik has everyone updated their http://whenisgood.net/ee8prq/results/z5binx entry? 19:34:15 ajax i have 19:34:25 * nirik 's didn't really change any 19:35:04 nirik so, currently we have 0 times everyone can attend. ;) 19:35:18 pjones yeah :/ 19:35:22 nirik a few times with 1 person left out, but everyone else... 19:35:31 pjones and excluding one person doesn't really help that much 19:36:11 nirik I guess we need to confirm that everyone updated before we do anything else? 19:36:24 notting although one of the times where mclasen is the only holdout his update info says will become available in a couple of weeks 19:37:01 nirik oh? 19:37:12 mjg59 Wait. I'm suddenly worried by the timezones here. 19:37:15 nirik wed 1-2? 19:37:17 pjones So can we move to that time and then hope that he can make do responding to trac until then? sounds not that great. 19:37:27 nirik mjg59: yeah, the site is confusing. 19:37:28 pjones mjg59: yeah, the site's representation of timezones is weird. 19:37:30 notting nirik: 2-3 your time.
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On 10/6/10, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote: I won't comment on the trademark issue (because that's just pure lunacy), but let me comment here they don't accept my patches, so they are non- free. That's just nonsense ... Yes it is, that's not the issue. They aren't letting us distribute it ourselves, unless its brand is removed or we don't make those changes. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: On 10/05/2010 12:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:08 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote: That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you change the name, in which case you may loose brand recognition. Imagine if Linus forbid people from calling their OS Linux if they didn't use the binaries provided by him. that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are obliged to allow you to access and modify their code. They are not obliged to allow you to benefit from their reputation. Close source school of thinking - Trademarks exist to protect an enterprise's product and to close out copyiers. FLOSS exists to enable people to share. It doesn't make any sense to say 'I think this product needs to be modified but I wish to be able to represent my modified product as being the same thing as the original product in order to benefit from the reputation attached to the original product'. The overwhelming majority of FLOSS project think differently. They are proud of others picking up their works and to redistribute it. Or differently: GCC, KDE, QT, GNOME etc. all benefit from them not applying trademark restrictions, but from being used (in modified versions) on dozens of OSes, distributions etc. That said, Fedora's leadership is proud of having pushed Fedora into isolation. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Richard Stallman got back to me I think this is a problem, and FSF people are now studying the extent of similar restrictions. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are obliged to allow you to access and modify their code. They are not obliged to allow you to benefit from their reputation. It doesn't make any sense to say 'I think this product needs to be modified but I wish to be able to represent my modified product as being the same thing as the original product in order to benefit from the reputation attached to the original product'. -- Trademarks defeat the purpose of it being free software. They impose restrictions. You have to remove MoFo's artwork and perform a name change or you're required to get permission from Mozilla to redistribute a modified binary. That's not free. At the same time does that logically effect the produced binary if we don't use the Firefox branding? I don't think the artwork and branding makes it any faster or more standards compliant or compatible with plugins. It would instantly remove the restrictions that make it unmaintainable. Adam Williamson Looks like RMS agrees too on the trademark issue. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote: We knew that this would happen. We would lose some people. When a project like us goes basically directionless for years it picks up people who have different ideas about what they want to create and where they want to go with it. When direction starts to happen, some of these people will find that they are not in line with where the project is going. This is one of the reasons why we make it so easy to take what we do and build from it or take it in a different direction. We welcome that. I've thought about it a lot and after looking at the competition i'm probably just going to stick it out and fork what I don't like. Thanks to Git, this will be super easy to maintain in my spare time. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question
that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never
bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do now:
* Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not
simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹)
The issue at hand is that Mozilla will not give permission to use
system libs instead of bundled libs while calling it Firefox.
It wouldn't be the first (albeit it likely would be the biggest) fork
where we also still ship the original (dd{,_}rescue comes to my mind),
hence I'd assume the packaging guidelines do not forbid something like
that. Or do they?
It really wouldn't be a fork at all. From what I can tell it's a build
flag that can be enabled or disabled and automatically takes out the
trademark and copyright artwork. People just don't want to remove the
branding because they presume they know how end users think.
knurd
Brandon
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: You have to remove MoFo's artwork and perform a name change or you're required to get permission from Mozilla to redistribute a modified binary. That's not free. Yes, it is. In a sense that you're free to do whatever Mozilla says, then yes, it's free. Practically speaking, it would add an extra burden to the maintainers, who already do not have enough resources to deal with all the issues. Again, the reason we don't carry non-upstream patches in Firefox has nothing to do with the branding issue. It's because we don't have the resources to maintain non-upstream patches in Firefox. Extra burden to do their assigned jobs? It's Fedora policy not to include bundled libraries. They should already be removing bundled libraries, and replacing those requirements with system libraries. Just like with ALL OF THE OTHER PACKAGES which do not violate policy. This isn't extra, its minimum. The only extra work they need to do is maybe think of a name to call it instead of Firefox, and then implementing the compile time switch. No forking, and it won't be hard to stay with upstream because you're not forking you're just renaming and making it use system libraries. Spot does this _by himself_ with Chromium, which is a lot more advanced/complex than Firefox (Google is known well for forking and bundling libs). They would then, according to fulfill policy, have to remove the trademark code that is restricting them from using system libs in Firefox instead of bundled libs. Or grant an exceptiion, but why do they get red carpet treatment when they are being so uncooperative? Looks like RMS agrees too on the trademark issue. It would help if you quoted what he actually wrote, rather than paraphrasing it. (You may also want to note that the GPLv3, whose drafting process happened long after the trademark issue was public currency for debate, places no restrictions on trademarking free software.) Sure but I hope its not spam: Delivered-To: bran...@pwnage.ca Received: by 10.239.131.66 with SMTP id 2cs6683hbm; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 02:55:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.45.142 with SMTP id e14mr8020171qaf.117.1286272534057; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: r...@gnu.org Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [140.186.70.10]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id u2si11294263qcq.19.2010.10.05.02.55.33; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 02:55:34 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of r...@gnu.org designates 140.186.70.10 as permitted sender) client-ip=140.186.70.10; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of r...@gnu.org designates 140.186.70.10 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=...@gnu.org Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from r...@gnu.org) id 1P34FB-0003dw-0z; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 05:55:33 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 From: Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org To: Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca In-reply-to: aanlkti=whj55xtdwfpfxylzuuccyrgqdjwedlkdsv...@mail.gmail.com (message from Brandon Lozza on Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:26:34 -0400) Subject: Re: Trademarks make software nonfree? Reply-to: r...@gnu.org References: aanlkti=whj55xtdwfpfxylzuuccyrgqdjwedlkdsv...@mail.gmail.com Message-Id: e1p34fb-0003dw...@fencepost.gnu.org Date: Tue, 05 Oct 2010 05:55:33 -0400 I was wondering if Mozilla's trademark on the name Firefox makes the software non free. According to Mozilla you can't redistribute your own product called Firefox if you make changes to the source code, unless you want to violate trademark law. I think this is a problem, and FSF people are now studying the extent of similar restrictions. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/05/2010 06:26 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question
that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never
bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do now:
* Why haven't those that want iceweasel and icedove in Fedora not
simply invested some time and got them integrated into the repository?(¹)
It wouldn't be the first (albeit it likely would be the biggest) fork
where we also still ship the original (dd{,_}rescue comes to my mind),
hence I'd assume the packaging guidelines do not forbid something like
that. Or do they?
No but that would involve actual work rather than merely making the
claim that software licensed under GPL/MPL is non-free if it doesn't
allow the use of a name when patches are applied to it.
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I don't blanket label everything with open code as free software.
Some stuff bundles things which make it non-free. Code open-ness !=
free. You can call Firefox open source if you want, but it's not free
software.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: el Fedora shouldn't include software it doesn't have the resources to maintain. Fedora doesn't have resources to fork it. Not the same thing at all. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Debian doesn't fork it either, Iceweasel is Firefox without the trademark and non-free copyright artwork. They are then allowed to make security fixes to protect their users. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free software? Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that interpretation. Rahul I'm sure they will. Trademark restrictions violate one of the four freedoms and if you want I can ask Richard Stallman directly if this trademark rule makes software non-free. Actually I'll just go ahead and do it just to prove a point. If I wanted to Fork Fedora, and I called it Fedora, i'd soon see a letter from Redhat legal. I'm not free to use the name. Thus, if I fork Fedora I am required by trademark law to rename it or be in violation. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: We have been through this before. If you take Fedora and modify it, you are not allowed to use the Fedora name either. Trademark cannot be ever free as in freedom. Rahul Exactly the point I brought up Rahul, thanks for your irrelevance. If you want to fork Fedora, you can't call it Fedora because Redhat will sue you for trademark violations just the same as Mozilla would if you distributed a modified version of Firefox. Fedora is free software until you use the trademark and aren't Redhat. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote: It would be really helpful if instead of calling programs unmaintainable and similar non-sense you would research a bit what really is the problem ... take a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ buglist.cgi?cmdtype=doremremaction=runnamedcmd=all%20NEW%20abrt% 20crashessharer_id=74116 ... that's 1473 NEW untriaged abrt bugs. There is absolutely no permission required. I saw plenty of patches which were accepted upstream and just few which were rejected with always clearly stated reasons (not that I agree with all of those reasons, but again before calling Firefox proprietary product, it would be nice to educate yourself). Concerning CLOSED/UPSTREAM resolution ... again, I am not happy with it myself, but instead of calling MoFo proprietary a bit of patches (this time on bugs https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400598, https:// bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=294608, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ show_bug.cgi?id=356853, and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi? id=569371) would be helpful. How is your Perlfoo? See what I wrote on this theme before (http://article.gmane.org/ gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/79936/) and feel free to provide patches for some better solution of the situation. I can assure you, that well written patches will be welcomed upstream. Maybe you want to maintain iceweasel co. in Fedora? Good luck, but not for me, thanks. At least with iceweasel, those bugs you pointed out can be fixed by Fedora and not have to wait months in the queue over at Mozilla, if they even bother accepting them. Iceweasel would also allow us to use openSUSE's KDE patchset for deep integration, something Mozilla says violates trademark law by patching and distributing. NON FREE In fact this free pass mozilla firefox gets should apply to Chromium too. At least in Chromium's case, Spot IS ALLOWED to make it use system libs. He doesn't have to ask the mother-ship permission. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote: It would be really helpful if instead of calling programs unmaintainable and similar non-sense you would research a bit what really is the problem ... take a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ buglist.cgi?cmdtype=doremremaction=runnamedcmd=all%20NEW%20abrt% 20crashessharer_id=74116 ... that's 1473 NEW untriaged abrt bugs. There is absolutely no permission required. I saw plenty of patches which were accepted upstream and just few which were rejected with always clearly stated reasons (not that I agree with all of those reasons, but again before calling Firefox proprietary product, it would be nice to educate yourself). Concerning CLOSED/UPSTREAM resolution ... again, I am not happy with it myself, but instead of calling MoFo proprietary a bit of patches (this time on bugs https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=400598, https:// bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=294608, https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/ show_bug.cgi?id=356853, and https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi? id=569371) would be helpful. How is your Perlfoo? See what I wrote on this theme before (http://article.gmane.org/ gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/79936/) and feel free to provide patches for some better solution of the situation. I can assure you, that well written patches will be welcomed upstream. Maybe you want to maintain iceweasel co. in Fedora? Good luck, but not for me, thanks. At least with iceweasel, those bugs you pointed out can be fixed by Fedora and not have to wait months in the queue over at Mozilla, if they even bother accepting them. Iceweasel would also allow us to use openSUSE's KDE patchset for deep integration, something Mozilla says violates trademark law by patching and distributing. NON FREE -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free software? Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that interpretation. Rahul I'm sure they will. Trademark restrictions violate one of the four freedoms and if you want I can ask Richard Stallman directly if this trademark rule makes software non-free. Actually I'll just go ahead and do it just to prove a point. Sure. I have asked and know the answer but go ahead. Rahul GNU Icecat doesn't tell you something? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free software? Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that interpretation. Rahul I'm sure they will. Trademark restrictions violate one of the four freedoms and if you want I can ask Richard Stallman directly if this trademark rule makes software non-free. Actually I'll just go ahead and do it just to prove a point. Sure. I have asked and know the answer but go ahead. Rahul The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). And the freedom Trademark law prevents in Firefox's case: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3)[SIC]. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes[SIC]. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: GNU Icecat doesn't tell you something? You said you are going to ask FSF. How about you just ask them if the presence of a trademark is enough to call software non-free and come back. Icecat was forked for other reasons (ie) for plugins. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel If the owner of the trademark doesn't grant a license that is compatible with a free software license, then the software is non free. Linus doesn't go around telling people they can't redistribute a modified linux kernel. His only restriction on the linux trademark is that it is used to label things that use the linux kernel. Mozilla specifically forbids redistributing modified binaries which violates freedom #3 (the 4th freedom) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote: No need to call it “political reasons” (on the side of MoFo) ... nowhere in the definition of free software is written, that upstream has to accept your patches. It may happen upstream (any upstream) disagrees with your patch, you may not agree with them, but in the end it is their decision and if you don't agree you can either suck it up or fork. Both alternatives are still freely open for you (and Fedora as whole) in MoFo case as well (just to make this clear). However, Mozilla says that distributing a modified product with their name violates Trademark law. Fedora would have to change its name, just like Debian did with Iceweasel. Just like CentOS does with the RHEL source. Just like Scientific Linux, Oracle Enterprise Linux, countless others based on products with trademarks. The Mozilla trademark makes Firefox non-free, but anything based on it that gets a name change _IS_ FREE as in Freedom. It IS Political. As-is, they can't modify Firefox and distribute it. They just send patches and wait for Mozilla to fix it. If there is any political reason, then it is Fedora/RH policy to oblige with upstream trademark terms and to keep our Firefox/Thunderbird/ XULRunner as close to the upstream as possible to save us work maintaining our patches and not go Iceweasel way. Fedora already does this and it's unacceptable. That's why we say Firefox is non free because under the name Firefox we are NOT FREE to distribute our changes. The only thing I would like to ask all participants in this thread is to keep things in the perspective ... Firefox is mostly working more or less well (yes, I know more than most participants in this thread how many bugs there are present). If you really want to help, may I suggest those 1400 abrt bugs? I would really really welcome any help anybody can spare, and I am willing to share freely whatever experience (and tools) I have in dealing with them. The only thing that will happen with the 1400 abrt bugs is that Mozilla will be asked to fix them while we wait for them to be a little less busy adding directx 3d support and other windows exclusive features. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/04/2010 06:50 PM, Florent Le Coz wrote: On 04/10/10 14:52, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Trademark cannot be ever free as in freedom. That's why Fedora should not ship Firefox, but Iceweasel, or Icecat, or Minefield, or anything else that is not trademarked and isn't impossible to patch without mozilla's consent. Ignoring upstream and patching without consent is only feasible if you have the amount of resources to do a good job with that. Fedora doesn't have that. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora shouldn't include software it doesn't have the resources to maintain. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Florent Le Coz lo...@louiz.org wrote: On 04/10/10 15:23, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Ignoring upstream and patching without consent is only feasible if you have the amount of resources to do a good job with that. Fedora doesn't have that. Rahul I'm not talking about ignoring upstream. You can still work with them (reporting bug, sending fixes to upstream) while not using their trademark, no? Fedora could then fix the software when upstream refuses to take the patches we send them… -- Florent Le Coz -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel I don't see why we can't do this. Rahul has mentioned before that it's all about the name Firefox, they want the brand in Fedora. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn denni...@conversis.de wrote: On 10/04/2010 03:34 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundarammethe...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free software? Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that interpretation. Rahul I'm sure they will. Trademark restrictions violate one of the four freedoms and if you want I can ask Richard Stallman directly if this trademark rule makes software non-free. Actually I'll just go ahead and do it just to prove a point. Sure. I have asked and know the answer but go ahead. Rahul The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). And the freedom Trademark law prevents in Firefox's case: The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3)[SIC]. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes[SIC]. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Notice how the last clause misses using the same name? You are perfectly free to distribute modified versions as long as you don't call them Firefox. That's what the Iceweasel people decided to do. So all freedoms are intact. Regards, Dennis -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you change the name, in which case you may loose brand recognition. Imagine if Linus forbid people from calling their OS Linux if they didn't use the binaries provided by him. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you change the name, in which case you may loose brand recognition. Imagine if Linus forbid people from calling their OS Linux if they didn't use the binaries provided by him. Free software can require that you can change the name for any modifications you make and it still qualifies as free software. If you are in doubt and want to ask FSF, go ahead. Before you continue with this discussion, I strongly suggest you do that. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel I've already asked Richard Stallman and I am awaiting his reply but let's just go through a thought exercise. Let's say I recompile Firefox and make a bunch of my own changes and REFUSE to change the name. How long do you think it'll take for Mozilla's lawyers to start threatening me with trademark lawsuits? Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual property with specific restrictions on what you're allowed to do with it. This is the same as what ID software does with its games. You can have the source code for Wolfenstein and Enemy Territory, but that's just the code. The code is free software. The name, the artwork, the graphics, music and story are all under copyright and are not licensed to everyone for distribution. This is the same with Firefox, the code is free, but the name, the graphics are copyright and are the intellectual property of MoFo, and not anyone else. They say you can't distribute modified binaries. How do you get Freedom #3 then? If they used GPLv3, they would be required to license their trademarks to us and THEN it would be free software. I'll refrain from replying further on until I have a reply from Richard, but you're totally wrong and your love for Firefox is blinding your principals (if you have any). You would STILL HAVE the exact SAME firefox if we compiled firefox with the compile time flag that removes branding. The branding is kept, i'm told, simply to attract users. Leaving a piece of poorly maintained software to attract users is silly. And if you or anyone else think Iceweasel is somehow inferior, you need your brain checked. You don't understand logic. Firefox, is ONLY free software when it does not include the intellectual property that is non free. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:24:30 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote: Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual property with specific restrictions on what you're allowed to do with it. Did you use the term intellectual property in your query to Richard too? :-) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#IntellectualProperty Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Just to those with thick skulls -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: Brandon Lozza wrote: Let's say I recompile Firefox and make a bunch of my own changes and REFUSE to change the name. How long do you think it'll take for Mozilla's lawyers to start threatening me with trademark lawsuits? In that case, Red Hat lawyers should be visiting you soon. Fedora is a trademark of... Red Hat. :) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Not in Canada, actually :P either trademark -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 20:56:21 -0400, you wrote: Fedora is just going to end up having a million repos for all the software that will not be updated for six months. And that makes us look silly. Windows doesn't have repositories for users who want the latest firefox, they just download it and install it. How exactly is the Windows experience different? Windows - explicity download from mozilla (aka repository) and install. Your example Fedora - download from special Firefox repository and install Seems the same to me. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel I'm just telling you guys that people are going to jump ship as you alienate people to cater to these end users who fear change. I'm out, i'll be finding another distro. Thanks for the great work on Fedora though, perhaps I'll come back when the policies become sane again. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote: Look, I realise you are passionate about KDE, and want the best KDE experience in Fedora. But most people are not developers, they instead are using their desktop environment of choice to get regular, everyday things done with office software, web browsers, email, and sometime even custom software. They want predictability, which means only having to make changes to how they do things when they are prepared for the changes, which occurs when they upgrade Fedora. Thus the best KDE experience you can give them is one of stability, where KDE helps them do their work instead of being work. I'm not a developer at all. I'm a hardened power user and I got sick and tired of not having the latest version of a particular application and that led me to Fedora Linux. I'm a quick learner and these disruptive changes often work out increasing my productivity. I understand this profile doesn't fit everyone but Fedora will end up losing the more advanced end users in its effort to grab more of the less advanced end users who are fearful of change and/or gave up their pursuit of knowledge. Fedora is just going to end up having a million repos for all the software that will not be updated for six months. And that makes us look silly. Windows doesn't have repositories for users who want the latest firefox, they just download it and install it. No bullshit required. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:01 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: It shouldn't be. Never be afraid of learning, even in the tightest of situations. It is good for your brain. It helps with analytical thinking. Once constant learning becomes part of your life, you really don't get bothered with UI changes. Promoting not learning will drive the community lazy. I think the educational system all over the world forces people to acknowledge learning as burden. This is not good for humanity. I don't believe that Fedora should follow this road of lazyness. I don't know if you are serious but it is not a question of lazyness. Users don't want to be disrupted to what they are used to, just because they did a few updates. New release can introduce major changes and users will be more tolerant of that. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel The user has to tolerate some change. We can't cater to people who never upgrade which seems to be what is taking place. Especially with the fact that our end of life happens sooner, users must already expect a constant stream of updates. If they want more stability they should be using RHEL, CentOS or Scientific Linux, Debian Stable, Ubuntu LTS which do put the focus on non disruptiveness. Each release of KDE comes with bug fixes, security fixes and new features. Plus combine the fact that KDE right now is evolving at a rapid rate thanks to all of the new developers that the 4.x series has attracted. Not having the latest makes it difficult for a KDE developer to test their stuff and make sure it keeps working with the latest KDE. Fedora isn't just a home to Gnome development, which as a framework never seems to change so they won't have the same opinion as the KDE people. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
What does matter to Fedora is having an updates policy that is designed to minimize disruption to users during a release is pointless if a significant part of Fedora - KDE - is going to be allowed to ignore the updates policy and deliberately introduce visible to the user changes in the middle of a release. Most of us KDE users want deliberate visible changes to the user. That's the point in having the latest version. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:41:38 +0200, you wrote: On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:53:49 -0400 Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: It would be nice to list it somewhere as an exception, to avoid panics :) Well, I personally do not want to say: Hey, anytime you like down the road, you get an exception to push a new major version. Have fun. Well, reading FESCo meeting, it was that we're allowed to do one major update to Fn due to the different release-cycles of Fedora and KDE. Bad enough that we need exceptions to do our expected work and be able to be the working official KDE part of Fedora. Perhaps then you should approach KDE and ask them why they are so distribution unfriendly with their release schedule. As far as I can tell (based on the 4.5 release date, scheduled 4.6 release date, and the general objections raised by the Fedora KDE people) KDE is following a 6 month schedule, but timed such as it falls in the middle of the releases of the major biannual distributions, and doesn't fit the 8-month schedule of openSUSE at all. If KDE really wants to get their latest and greatest into the hands of their users as soon as possible then they should be more distribution friendly. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Currently openSUSE is regarded as the KDE distro of choice if you want the latest and i've been trying to change that because Fedora usually has the latest upstream release. The difference between the two is that openSUSE maintains two stable repositories and one has to be manually installed, the other is default. With openSUSE 11.3 KDE 4.5 sat in a factory repo and then got pushed to release just last week afaik. However users manually need to install the 4.5 repo, and they manually have to switch from factory to the 4.5 release repo. Once 4.5 is pushed to F13, Fedora will once again be the most superior KDE distro. Users don't have to manually upgrade. That's a huge +1 What I mean by better? Well every 6-8 months I test out different distributions and see if its worth switching to another one. Over the past year i've tried Arch, openSUSE, Mandriva, Kubuntu, Slackware and PC-BSD 8.1, Gentoo, Calculate, Sidux, and more. The thing I noticed most about these is a lot of them released with old versions of KDE. A lot of them never bothered to update their users to the latest. openSUSE is the best alternative to Fedora, for the reasons listed above and its creeping past us. They were one of the first distros to carry GCC 4.5 besides Arch. They are doing a lot of things I considered made Fedora better than the rest. Not shipping stale software, the use of delta rpms, shipping the latest kernel, gcc, xorg, kde. If we can't at least keep up we can't be the BEST KDE distro. We can't even share the title. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote: On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:48:34AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote: Say you ship with 50 bugs in a package. As you update it through the lifetime of a release, that number should decrease more or less monotonically. The bugs that take longest to fix are presumably the hardest ones to fix, and thus the ones that either require significant rewrites (and become out of scope for an update release), or won't get fixed at all. So it's really just describing what _happens_ naturally if you don't rebase all the time. The bug number will probably decrease, but this does not meant that the lifetime of a release is long enough to fix them all or even to find them all. E.g. if 5 bugs are fixed every month, you will still have the same rate of updates for 10 months, unless you just delay updates even if the bugs could already be fixed. And also usually not all bugs are known when at the beginning of the release. Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel It seems like the policy would kill the use of an upgraded KDE (4.5 to 4.6) because KDE almost always makes UI changes. For advocacy reasons I could no longer brag about how Fedora always has the latest upstream KDE. I could no longer tell people Fedora was the best KDE distro either. I'm not trolling, these are valid things I bring up when I try to talk people into trying Fedora who might have been using Mandriva, Kubuntu or openSUSE. Specifically i'm looking at the one example: Abiword releases a new version that adds compatibility with WordStar 4.0 documents. It also completely updates the user interface to use pie menus. This would be a feature enhancement with a major user experience change, and would not be allowed. rewrite it for a standard kde update KDE releases a new version (4.6) that adds OpenGL compositing. It also completely updates the user interface to change the way the notification area works. This would be a feature enhancement with a major user experience change, and would not be allowed. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
It would be nice to list it somewhere as an exception, to avoid panics :) On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu wrote: Brandon Lozza wrote: It seems like the policy would kill the use of an upgraded KDE (4.5 to 4.6) because KDE almost always makes UI changes. The kde-sig asked FESCo to consider up to 1 KDE version upgrade per release, and this was generally well-received during the last FESCo meeting, so no reason to panic. References, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Update_policy -- Rex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
Wasn't this exception allowed for KDE at Fesco? Considering that a typical KDE upgrade contains bug fixes, security fixes as well as new features and UI changes. On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:53:49 -0400 Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: It would be nice to list it somewhere as an exception, to avoid panics :) Well, I personally do not want to say: Hey, anytime you like down the road, you get an exception to push a new major version. Have fun. We still need to see what all is in the update, what the pros and cons are, etc. I could add an example showing this however. :) Let me do that. kevin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: REVIEW/RFC: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Updates_Policy_Draft
I can't tell people Fedora is the best if it's not carrying the latest upstream KDE, its just not possible. I'm constantly recruiting new users. I'm in regular contact with the team of people who run Techrights. If a new release of KDE comes out, this is what happens currently 1) Kubuntu adds a backports PPA. Stable users do not get the latest KDE. 2) openSUSE will have it in their KDE Factory Repo, and it will turn into a release Repo later (not stable). Stable users do not get the latest KDE. 3) Mandriva will have official packages on kde.org but they aren't pushed as updates. Stable users do not get the latest KDE. 4) Fedora will have it entirely unofficially as a third party repo for a few weeks, it will also be in the official repo in updates-testing and then in updates. Stable users DO get the latest KDE. This makes Fedora BETTER than the rest. If we delegate the latest KDE to backports like everyone else, how does that make Fedora better? And we do want to be better than everyone else if we want to compete with Apple and Microsoft. On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: Wasn't this exception allowed for KDE at Fesco? Considering that a typical KDE upgrade contains bug fixes, security fixes as well as new features and UI changes. On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:53:49 -0400 Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: It would be nice to list it somewhere as an exception, to avoid panics :) Well, I personally do not want to say: Hey, anytime you like down the road, you get an exception to push a new major version. Have fun. We still need to see what all is in the update, what the pros and cons are, etc. I could add an example showing this however. :) Let me do that. kevin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora backports repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)
Er, whut? I didn't post anything advocating people use Rawhide for day-to-day purposes. I wouldn't suggest such a thing. All I said was that I haven't noticed the speed difference between debug and non-debug kernels, because I haven't. I know it's measurably present, but it doesn't affect any of my typical usage visibly. People are recommending it for people who want the latest software. Which isn't what Rawhide is for (based on all information I've read and know about it). We seem to have users who want less updates and no changes. We also have users who want to be on the forefront of change. I think everyone could be helped by making it easier to use repos for non savvy users. It would keep the main repo focused on stable software for users who are afraid of change. The alternate repos would be available for the more adventurous users or developers. Rawhide is for testers and developers. I don't think anyone sane uses Rawhide for 'production use' or even 'general purpose use' unless testing. Some people also pointed out another interesting tidbit and that is proprietary video drivers. Some of us use them and want to be able to use them. We wouldn't be using a rawhide kernel if it won't load the modules. I assume users of proprietary kernel drivers would have to set it up in f13 with rpmfusion and nvidia-akmod first before upgrading to rawhide. -- 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 Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:06 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 09:58:53PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote: 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? Maybe we should turn this around and ask why more people don't use Rawhide. Well use rawhide for anything else than testing and/or developing the new release just do not fly. Some of the reasons I can think of: 1) To high rate of changes / breakage 2) No signed packages 3) Slower kernel 4) To much of manual fixing required 5) To many broken deps, which might prevent applying updates and security fixes 6) Some others that I can't think of right now might be a consequence of the above or something else So please stop proposing rawhide for productive systems (or even database servers *shrug*). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel That's why I propose an easy way to install additional repos. I can't see a non tech savvy user installing the chromium browser on fedora, to be brutally honest. It's annoying having to hold their hand and walk them through it. I don't see why the user can't double click the repo file and have some application do the work for them. Or even have a place where they can input a URL for the repo and some program adds it to the database. Expecting the user to copy the .repo file into the yum repos directory is extremely non intuitive and to be perfectly honest I'm tech savvy and I can't be bothered to remember the path name for that directory. If people want Fedbuntu, at least copy this feature. Every other distro has an easy way for the user to add third party repositories using a tool. Perhaps an add button inside kpackagekit? It does have the ability to disable and enable repos. -- 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 Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: I should add that whether this testing happens in Koji or in AutoQA isn't material. AutoQA is probably better. *Provided* that if the basic sanity tests fail they must prevent the packages from going into the Rawhide compose. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Having an rpm add a repo file doesn't automatically solve the problem for 100% of the repos out there. That leaves delegates the repo work to the package maintainer. All because we don't want to copy Ubuntu's GOOD ideas, just their BAD ones (like stale software updates vision). As I said I'm not a programmer or I would do this myself. I don't want Fedora to keep being behind openSUSE. Worst case scenario we'll see a fork over the updates vision. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora backports repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)
something like sidux, but fedora based im thinking stable f14 with the goodies stable vision blocks because people want stale software, and i'd rather not use rawhide or opensuse On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote: I should add that whether this testing happens in Koji or in AutoQA isn't material. AutoQA is probably better. *Provided* that if the basic sanity tests fail they must prevent the packages from going into the Rawhide compose. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora now supports 80 OCaml packages (the OPEN alternative to F#) http://cocan.org/getting_started_with_ocaml_on_red_hat_and_fedora -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Having an rpm add a repo file doesn't automatically solve the problem for 100% of the repos out there. That leaves delegates the repo work to the package maintainer. All because we don't want to copy Ubuntu's GOOD ideas, just their BAD ones (like stale software updates vision). As I said I'm not a programmer or I would do this myself. I don't want Fedora to keep being behind openSUSE. Worst case scenario we'll see a fork over the updates vision. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora backports repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)
One thing I wanted to point out. Windows users get to install the latest Firefox, KDE, and other apps without having to wait for a new Windows release. If users had to wait for Windows 8 to get the latest Firefox, things would be messy. I don't understand what the fear is of doing this on GNU/Linux. On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 13:49 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:51:03 +0200, Michał wrote: Setting up official backport repo will avoid repos fragmentation. Keeping all cool updates in one place appears to be a reasonable idea. Am I right? Wait a minute! You need to define fragmentation here. It seems you refer to the geographical location of repos only. More important is the fragmentation caused by increasing the number of repos, especially if they create additional targets to build for. Considering how APIs/ABIs and stable packages are broken regularly, I don't think Fedora Packagers could handle the increased maintenance requirements added by a backports repo. Whether official or not, just imagine what can happen if repo 1 upgrades repo 2, or vice versa, and unexpectedly. Better attempt at making the current dist release usable/deployable in production environments, and encourage more users to take a look at Rawhide and Alpha/Beta releases earlier. I think he meant the same thing as you. He wasn't using 'place' literally. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora backports repo? (Was Re: PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)
Is GNU/Linux supposed to be a mirror into software's past? On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: One thing I wanted to point out. Windows users get to install the latest Firefox, KDE, and other apps without having to wait for a new Windows release. If users had to wait for Windows 8 to get the latest Firefox, things would be messy. I don't understand what the fear is of doing this on GNU/Linux. On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 13:49 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:51:03 +0200, Michał wrote: Setting up official backport repo will avoid repos fragmentation. Keeping all cool updates in one place appears to be a reasonable idea. Am I right? Wait a minute! You need to define fragmentation here. It seems you refer to the geographical location of repos only. More important is the fragmentation caused by increasing the number of repos, especially if they create additional targets to build for. Considering how APIs/ABIs and stable packages are broken regularly, I don't think Fedora Packagers could handle the increased maintenance requirements added by a backports repo. Whether official or not, just imagine what can happen if repo 1 upgrades repo 2, or vice versa, and unexpectedly. Better attempt at making the current dist release usable/deployable in production environments, and encourage more users to take a look at Rawhide and Alpha/Beta releases earlier. I think he meant the same thing as you. He wasn't using 'place' literally. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- 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 7:40 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/21/2010 07:20 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote: One thing I wanted to point out. Windows users get to install the latest Firefox, KDE, and other apps without having to wait for a new Windows release. If users had to wait for Windows 8 to get the latest Firefox, things would be messy. I don't understand what the fear is of doing this on GNU/Linux. However, if for example Microsoft had a similar system and did package software for it. Their users would be up in arms for the latest firefox too and Microsoft wouldn't keep them on an old firefox version. Where is the logic in NOT having the latest software as long as it doesn't break file format compatibility? On windows the user can also install software without having to follow a complex procedure. They can try to grab the firefox source code, manually compile it in a few hours and install it. They can also grab a precompiled binary that may or may not be optimized for their distribution. On Windows its just double click, and on Linux with package management its only a few clicks away too. Look at openSUSE, GCC 4.5, came out before F13, no banning of LTO. If you want something better than stable for KDE you can one click install the factory KDE repo. You can one click install the trunk repo too. They even have two Chromium branches available for single click install (version 6 and 7). Perhaps a single click or easy method of installing a yum repo could be invented that is similar to the one in openSUSE. That would be a good start. I would personally rather use Fedora and not openSUSE too. Before I receive the cop out one liner 'just use suse then'. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)
If I have to wait for the next release of Fedora (14 for example) to get KDE 4.5 then it's looking like the stable updates vision has made Fedora incompatible with what I need. I will need to consider another distribution (OpenSUSE most likely, their GCC 4.5 also doesn't suck; LTO = enabled). After waiting 6 months for an upstream release, its a real bother to wait another 4-6 months for a Fedora release to incorporate it. Fedora used to be known for having the freshest software. F14 leaves much to be desired. I'm probably not the only one who will leave for greener pastures. On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote: Richard Hughes (hughsi...@gmail.com) said: On 14 September 2010 23:01, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: 21:33:35 nirik The other 2 items I had were: 21:33:56 nirik application installer issues 21:33:57 nirik https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 21:34:04 nirik and 21:34:05 nirik BuildIdBuild infrastructure 21:34:06 nirik https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2387 21:34:57 mclasen that needs more time, I'd say 21:35:08 nirik ok, will close out if no one has anything further... Well, that was enlightening. Do you think someone from FESCo could write something about https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=488968 in the bug, and make a decision please. Discussion on this was postponed due to a lack of time, nothing more. Please, come to next week's meeting. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora Notifications System.
1) I was the one who put a google wave link in the wiki, I tought it might be a good way of comunication because anyone with a Gmail account can acess to a wave and use it. If someone do not have a Gmail account he/she simply can use the IRC, can contact anyone that's helping via their wiki's and also can use this mailing list. I do not see any problem there. You might not see a problem but there are people here who have an irrational fear of Google, yet use stuff that could be considered more evil. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Javascript JIT in web browsers
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Léon Keijser keij...@stone-it.com wrote: On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 03:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: The lesser of 2 evils is no solution. Only NO evil at all will keep the user's freedom. Users should NEVER use proprietary software, be it as JavaScript or using a proprietary protocol. Shouldn't users be free to make that decision on their own? :) Shouldn't companies be free to spy on us and rip us off? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora Notifications System.
You are requesting people participate in discussions via Google Wave. This is problematic for two reasons: a) Google Wave is dead b) Noone wants to use Google Wave. See a) Rahul a) you're a troll b) you're a troll -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Javascript JIT in web browsers
Well, that's not what HTML, nor the underlying HTTP, was designed for. I don't see it as being an appropriate platform for software at all. (And I don't see plugins such as Flash as being the solution either. I believe this needs a completely different protocol, e.g. NX is something going in that direction.) As always Kevin I agree with you. These people don't understand basic OSI network layers; rather obvious textbook stuff. And IMHO, as a Free Software distribution, we should do all we can to promote Free Software installed on the end user's machine where he/she has full control (freedom!) over the software rather than remote services, web or otherwise. If we tolerate any non free software then what's the point? Why not just run Windows or OSX? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Javascript JIT in web browsers
I've already seen websites exploit firefox tabs and they made use of my gmail account to send spam. Why should we make firefox easier to exploit? On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:07 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: drago01 wrote: The times where javascript is only used for some fancy effects are long over ... welcome to 2010 ;) Some web sites are indeed abusing JavaScript. Why should we promote this behavior? It is a vehicle for proprietary software, where people often aren't even aware they're using non-Free code, or just ignore the issue. See also http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html . A web site is not and should not be an application, an application is not and should not be a web site. There is a difference between a website and web *application*. Besides who is stopping me (or anyone else) from writing a free software web app that uses Javascript? People have been and are doing that all the time. By your logic we should ban gcc, java, mono, python, perl, bash ... as one can use them to create and/or run non free software. Also you may be aware that javascript has its uses *outside* of the web too (just like you can write apps in python you can do it in JS; and having a JIT that speeds them up is definitely a plus). The problem is fixable there is a patch that is being discussed upstream to fix the issue and allow selinux memory protection it is just not merged yet. Using a JIT is not a security risk by itself. Workarounds which make SELinux happy are still not as secure as sticking to a pure bytecode interpreter. Exploit code can still write to the memory to be executed, with ANY JIT, as this is how a JIT works. It's just that the writing has to happen through a different address space window as the execution, making the JIT harder, but not impossible, to exploit. So IMHO the right fix is to disable the JIT altogether. This is *not* a fix. You can't solve problems by disabling features and pretending they do not exists. But the proposed patch would still be better than the crappy solution implemented now just to stick to upstream Yeah because forking a web browser which would end up with a more secure experience than joining forces with upstream with the expertize there and can deliver security fixes on time (which also apply to our version). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Javascript JIT in web browsers
By your logic we should ban gcc, java, mono, python, perl, bash ... as one can use them to create and/or run non free software. Also you may be aware that javascript has its uses *outside* of the web too (just like you can write apps in python you can do it in JS; and having a JIT that speeds them up is definitely a plus). I'm up for banning mono, and perhaps java now that Oracle is suing everyone -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 14 Alpha RC3 Available Now!
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.comwrote: Michał Piotrowski on 08/11/2010 09:28 AM wrote: I downloadedhttp:// alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/nightly-composes/desktop/desktop-x86_64-20100810.15.iso - it is too large to fit on the CD. This is the Green Age what are you doing wasting a CD? Mother earth frowns on you. Be kind and reuse your ISO by installing via the network. I'd recommend a USB drive but I think that is still broken. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Keep the greening politics to yourself please -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 14 Alpha RC3 Available Now!
2010/8/11 Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com 2010/8/11 Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: Michał Piotrowski on 08/11/2010 09:28 AM wrote: I downloadedhttp:// alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/nightly-composes/desktop/desktop-x86_64-20100810.15.iso - it is too large to fit on the CD. This is the Green Age what are you doing wasting a CD? Mother earth I love mother earth http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC5XgyrzSt0 :) frowns on you. Be kind and reuse your ISO by installing via the network. My network is too slow for net install of full desktop. I'm using CD-RW I'd recommend a USB drive but I think that is still broken. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Keep the greening politics to yourself please I think it's right to recall from time to time others about caring for the environment Regards, M -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Political discussion is EXTREMELY off topic and will cause flame wars. Environmental talk is politics, especially the stuff you're bringing up with video links. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Is PulseAudio dead?
Which is great and I understand that but systemd will basically cover the release time frame for F-13 and F-14 and in that timeframe the support and issues for PA are going unfixed or even un triaged. Not great for a core sub system. So maybe it would be a good idea to train up a few people that can do the boring trage so you can get on with the upstream PA and systemd stuff so that the average end user doesn't need to wait for the bottle neck of a single person because presumably with other distros using it Fedora isn't the only distro demanding your time. Instead of telling others what to do why don't you pick up the torch yourself and help out? Lennart is a busy man working on a volunteer project. You're certainly welcome to help out. I once asked why Google Go wasn't included with Fedora, and I was told to package it myself. The same logic applies: If you don't like it, help out and make this distro even better. You have plenty of time to complain about Lennart working on systemmd, how many of those minutes could've been used killing dupe bugs? PS: In the end, you get what you pay for. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox 4 for Fedora 14?
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Nicu Buculei nicu_fed...@nicubunu.ro wrote: On 07/28/2010 01:08 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: On 07/27/2010 10:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been released recently and I am wondering if we can go with it if it fits into the schedule. There are dozens of new features including WebM support that would be nice to have. -1 didn't the last time we started using a pre-release from Mozilla turn out pretty bad for us? That was Firefox 3.0 included as RC in Fedora 9, from an user perspective my memories about it are sweet... it was worse with Thunderbird 3, which was included in a release (F11) in Beta stage, and not even a late beta, it was something like Beta2, but AFAIK Firefox is expected to be RC around F14. And while Thunderbird 3 was included due to the slow development pace of the upstream (we used to have a very old Tb 2), Firefox 4 comes with at least a killer feature, WebM (IIRC, another killer feature is the new js engine) -- nicu :: http://nicubunu.ro :: http://nicubunu.blogspot.com/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Quite the contrary. The Linux kernel is trademarked. Linus isn't a jerk and doesn't prevent distros from patching it. Mozilla's trademark requirements violate Freedom #2 The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. We're NOT allowed to make changes (patches) without their permission. This is defacto non-free. I understand we work with upstream but that shouldn't prevent us from maintaining it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox 4 for Fedora 14?
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/28/2010 04:15 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: We're NOT allowed to make changes (patches) without their permission. This is defacto non-free. I understand we work with upstream but that shouldn't prevent us from maintaining it. We are maintaining it just fine. Licensing is offtopic for this thread and I recommend you talk to FSF and understand the view points on the issue of trademark guidelines. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel The FSF drafted up the four freedoms and it's not offtopic, we're discussing Firefox4 and the fact that we won't be able to make changes to it to fix it without their permission. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox 4 for Fedora 14?
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/28/2010 04:22 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote The FSF drafted up the four freedoms and it's not offtopic, we're discussing Firefox4 and the fact that we won't be able to make changes to it to fix it without their permission. There is no specific non-upstream change that Firefox maintainers in Fedora want to do and hence it is irrelevant to this thread which is merely about integration of Firefox in Fedora 14 which requires no patches. Wrong, users of the KDE spin would LOVE to have OpenSUSE's patches to integrate it _better_ with KDE. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox 4 for Fedora 14?
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/28/2010 05:47 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote: On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/28/2010 04:22 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote The FSF drafted up the four freedoms and it's not offtopic, we're discussing Firefox4 and the fact that we won't be able to make changes to it to fix it without their permission. There is no specific non-upstream change that Firefox maintainers in Fedora want to do and hence it is irrelevant to this thread which is merely about integration of Firefox in Fedora 14 which requires no patches. Wrong, users of the KDE spin would LOVE to have OpenSUSE's patches to integrate it _better_ with KDE. What does that have to do with this thread? As long as the patches are not upstream, Firefox in Fedora won't have it. Period. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel It does have to do with the thread; stop saying it doesn't. The point is, if we rely on upstream to fix the software then we SHOULD NOT ship BETA. There are technical (security, stability) reasons for this. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox 4 for Fedora 14?
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote: On 28/07/10 13:52, Mike McGrath wrote: snip Maybe as firefox4 available in updates-testing, but certainly not a core default package. +1 -- Regards, Frank Murphy UTF_8 Encoded Friend of Fedora -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel +1 It should be in updates-testing -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox 4 for Fedora 14?
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Martin Sourada martin.sour...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 09:57 +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote: On 07/28/2010 01:08 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: On 07/27/2010 10:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been released recently and I am wondering if we can go with it if it fits into the schedule. There are dozens of new features including WebM support that would be nice to have. -1 didn't the last time we started using a pre-release from Mozilla turn out pretty bad for us? That was Firefox 3.0 included as RC in Fedora 9, from an user perspective my memories about it are sweet... it was worse with Thunderbird 3, which was included in a release (F11) in Beta stage, and not even a late beta, it was something like Beta2, but AFAIK Firefox is expected to be RC around F14. And while Thunderbird 3 was included due to the slow development pace of the upstream (we used to have a very old Tb 2), Firefox 4 comes with at least a killer feature, WebM (IIRC, another killer feature is the new js engine) ...which is already present in all currently maintained fedora releases via webkitgtk (midori, epiphany, kazehakase, ...). Now, that is a *real killer feature*... I'm not sure about the js engine but something tells me it's still slower than webkit's or chromium's or opera's... Sorry, I'm -1 for FF4 in F14. It's second beta now and scheduled release is around F14 release, which is too late (not counting in account that they'll most likely slip with their release...). Martin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel There is also plugin compatibility . Newer != better -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox 4 for Fedora 14?
Doesn't our version already support WebM? On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been released recently and I am wondering if we can go with it if it fits into the schedule. There are dozens of new features including WebM support that would be nice to have. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox 4 for Fedora 14?
F11 or F12 had a beta version of firefox spot's chromium builds do support webm, it works great :) On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Athmane Madjoudj athma...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/27/2010 11:08 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Athmane Madjoudj wrote: On 07/27/2010 10:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi, Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been released recently and I am wondering if we can go with it if it fits into the schedule. There are dozens of new features including WebM support that would be nice to have. Rahul The final version of FF4 is scheduled at oct-nov 2010 and Fedora 14 at 26 Oct 2010 I think, it's OK to have ff4 in F14, and better is IMHO is to have a parallel installation, something like: firefox3-3.x.x firefox-4.x.x Sources: [1] https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases [2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/14/Schedule -1 didn't the last time we started using a pre-release from Mozilla turn out pretty bad for us? -Mike This remind me Thunderbird 3 beta in F11 -- Athmane Madjoudj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 14 branching and dist-git roll out
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 15:31 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 09:10:24AM -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
Hey all! It's that time again, we're gearing up to branch for Fedora 14
this coming Tuesday! There is a major twist this time around, we're
going to attempt a roll out of dist-git!
--snipped---
I'm just curious but would this allow someone to more easily fork the
distro? (think of stuff like Mint)
The ability to fork {packages|kernels|distros} is a good thing. It
keeps the software lively and keeps the purveyors of software honest.
I enjoyed reading Rick Moen's essay on the subject:
http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Licensing_and_Law/forking.html
Also, of course, one of the truisms about git is that it doesn't only
make it easier to *fork*: it makes it easier to *merge*. So even if the
change does let people fork Fedora more easily, it also lets us
incorporate their changes and bring them back into mainline more easily
too.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
And vice versa :)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 14 branching and dist-git roll out
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote: Hey all! It's that time again, we're gearing up to branch for Fedora 14 this coming Tuesday! There is a major twist this time around, we're going to attempt a roll out of dist-git! --snipped--- I'm just curious but would this allow someone to more easily fork the distro? (think of stuff like Mint) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Using LLVM for build package instead gcc, why not?
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Horst H. von Brand vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl wrote: Jonathan MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com wrote: LLVM itself could allow for much greater flexibility in programming language choice. It can allow for anyone to take any language and output it in bytecode, machine code, javavm code and so on. Sounds like that bastard technology, CIL -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: On 07/13/2010 11:55 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote: I'm going to keep a personal note of the apps which do perform faster and grab the src rpm's so that I can compile them myself with LTO. Jakub Jelinek said that LTO isn't really usable in 4.5. 'so that I can compile them myself with LTO.' :) It won't effect you guys, not doing anything official with it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14
A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce faster code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking into. For example I noticed a significant difference on the OpenSUSE distro when GCC was upgraded and they repackaged their software with it in their development version 11.3. Anecdotal for sure but everything seemed faster than the build before that change. Phoronix has also done some benchmarks with the Ubuntu distro to determine that GCC 4.5 produces faster code (in some areas). On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 3:43 AM, Jakub Jelinek ja...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 12:54:35PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 07/08/2010 12:48 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: F14 now has gcc-4.5-RH compiler instead of 4.4-RH. For the changes (especially user visible ones), see http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.5/changes.html Do you plan on doing a mass rebuild? I don't think it is necessary, at least not for the reason of a compiler upgrade. The mass rebuilds are usually done when we have some toolchain or rpm feature that we want to push into all packages. Jakub -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: gcc-4.5-RH in F14
On 7/8/10, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:31 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce
faster code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking
into. For example I noticed a significant difference on the OpenSUSE
distro when GCC was upgraded and they repackaged their software with
it in their development version 11.3. Anecdotal for sure but
everything seemed faster than the build before that change. Phoronix
Adam's Law Of Software Advances:
People On The Internet always believe that any particular incremental
change produces something faster than before ('Firefox 3.5.6 feels much
snappier than Firefox 3.5.5!'), but that everything is always slower
than it was in previous major versions / years ('Man, Firefox 3 is so
much slower than Firefox 1!')
(Appendix 1: the word 'snappier' is always used in this context.)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
gcc 4.5 with LTO is faster though, thats what is making opensuse faster
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feature, Fedora 14: Go Programming
ok :) On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim michael.silva...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/SRPMS http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/RPMS Working F13 packages are available if anyone wants to try or make comments on them. (Might not meet package guidelines yet) Create review requests, Cc: me on them and I'll help get them reviewed. This looks interesting. Cheers, -- Michel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feature, Fedora 14: Go Programming
you're in now Michel On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: ok :) On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim michael.silva...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/SRPMS http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/RPMS Working F13 packages are available if anyone wants to try or make comments on them. (Might not meet package guidelines yet) Create review requests, Cc: me on them and I'll help get them reviewed. This looks interesting. Cheers, -- Michel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feature, Fedora 14: Go Programming
http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/SRPMS http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/RPMS Working F13 packages are available if anyone wants to try or make comments on them. (Might not meet package guidelines yet) On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: I got it setup for the feature wrangler too On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_Programming https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_ProgrammingHere is the feature page On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pan...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/6/27 Brandon Lozza : No I have not actually, didn't know I had to. I saw some other feature requests here. Could you help me do this? [..] If you want to start this feature, here are helpful instructions (links - FAQs): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy -- Rakesh Pandit https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rakesh freedom, friends, features, first -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feature, Fedora 14: Go Programming
I got it setup for the feature wrangler too On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_Programming https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_ProgrammingHere is the feature page On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pan...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/6/27 Brandon Lozza : No I have not actually, didn't know I had to. I saw some other feature requests here. Could you help me do this? [..] If you want to start this feature, here are helpful instructions (links - FAQs): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy -- Rakesh Pandit https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rakesh freedom, friends, features, first -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feature, Fedora 14: Go Programming
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_Programming https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_ProgrammingHere is the feature page On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pan...@gmail.comwrote: 2010/6/27 Brandon Lozza : No I have not actually, didn't know I had to. I saw some other feature requests here. Could you help me do this? [..] If you want to start this feature, here are helpful instructions (links - FAQs): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy -- Rakesh Pandit https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rakesh freedom, friends, features, first -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rfc: python2.7 for F14
I know this might be slightly off topic because of python but: I would love to see a feature for GCC 4.5 if its not already assumed to be in F14 (OpenSUSE will have GCC 4.5 in 11.3 out soon) On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 08:40 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote: Am Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:34:02 -0400 schrieb David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com: On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 01:57 +0800, Chen Lei wrote: 2010/6/22 David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com: On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 13:19 -0400, Neal Becker wrote: I'm interested in python2.7 as a feature for F14. This will provide backports of some nice python3 features, but will work for those needing python2 environments. Many libraries are not available for python3 yet. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Python_2.7 I've been working on it (though have been on holiday for a week) I hope to have the latest upstream 2.7 release candidate in rawhide later this week. This will require a rebuild of all Python modules. -- Why not rebuild all python modules along with gcc 4.5? It may avoid of rebuild python-related packages twice? Is there a Fedora feature page for gcc 4.5? I briefly searched, but didn't find one. I'm not sure that building things twice is a waste: if there are bugs, having intermediate builds may help us determine whether the problem relates to the Python or the GCC revision bump. It may be simpler to do a full rebuild of anything with: Requires: python(abi) = 2.6 as soon as python 2.7 hits rawhide. Is there a good (automated) way of doing this? I guess yes: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_Rebuild_SOP It just needs to get modified to work on python(abi) = 2.6 only and not on all packages. Thanks, that's a great help - I hadn't seen that page. Looks like an excellent starting point. We need to look at all built (sub)packages with a requires of python(abi) = 2.6, figure out the set of src.rpms they come from, and we'll want to rebuild those once 2.7 is in f-14 in Koji. Dave -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: pidgin obsoleting itself
I think you guys are experiencing the infinite loop bug On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:07:16 +0200, Kevin wrote: It fails for a Yum install. I warn about such competing Obsoletes, because they strictly require the user to go the yum -y update ; yum install ... route everytime they want to install an additional package. Installing stuff on a non-updated system is playing with fire. The fire is added by Obsoletes, though. It should be common sense to update your system before doing any other package operation. Which is also my recommendation. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: bodhi statistics
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Luke Macken wrote: This report definitely conveys the shortcomings in our testing, however, it does show us improving with each release. For Fedora 13, we implemented the No Frozen Rawhide process with improved Critical Path policies, which were definitely a success. With these enhanced procedures, along with the upcoming implementation of AutoQA and the new Package update acceptance criteria (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_acceptance_criteria), I think we'll see these numbers drastically improve in the future. Only because those numbers are taylored towards that very process (they measure the exact same things that process is going to enforce) and do not reflect the actual quality of the packages in any way. You can make really anything a success by measuring the very symptoms of the process and calling them a metric of quality. The reasons for which Bodhi karma (especially in its current incarnation) is a completely broken indicator of quality have been pointed out in several past threads. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel I'll have to agree with Kevin. I can't how any of those numbers represent the quality of anything. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
