Re: systemd (Was Re: tmpfs for strategic directories)
On 6/1/2010 5:45 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: Guys, nobody wants to take away configuration options. You can edit the .service files too, and readjust things. You can even plug in shell scripts here and there and wherever it suits you. There are not plans to make configuration of systemd depndent on gcc or gdb. That is completely made up. Lennart Experience in Fedora says that radical changes, even when they achieve their goals, come at a cost. Let us say that we accept your main premises: systemd will be much faster, much more reliable, and a better expenditure of system resources. What we haven't seen from you is a list of what will be lost. 1) Is there anything that currently works which will suddenly stop working? (I am reminded of the cups discussion) 2) Are there tools that will be needed that don't exist yet (or worse, won't exist when systemd is rolled out). 3) Has there been a trial phase with system admins who don't frequent this list or your blog? They are likely to have needs that you haven't anticipated. 4) Is systemd compatible with the functionality of a rescue disk? (I am fishing because I don't know what to expect) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Problem with elipse in Fedora 13
On 5/31/2010 5:08 PM, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto wrote: Em 31-05-2010 09:33, Andrew Overholt escreveu: Hi Casimiro, I've got the following problem with eclipse after update to F13: upon launch it freezes at initial banner uses about 80% of CPU time. Please file a bug at bugzilla.redhat.com and we can work through it there. Thanks, Andrew Hello, Apparently I have the problem solved. First of all, the listing had all that modules because when eclipse refused to start I assumed something was lacking and behave just like a n00b (yum install eclipse-* kind of thing). So, it happened prior of having all those modules installed. Anyways, what I did was to uninstall eclipse everything related, to remove .eclipse and workspace (inherited from F12), re-install eclipse and bring back old content. And it worked. Apparently it was a problem with what was before what was updated. As error cannot be reproduced there's little sense in filling a bug. yes there is a reason to file the bug report. The upgrade should have been seamless. Something like this has happened to many people on many eclipse updates. Maybe there is something in your scenario that would give the maintainer a clue. At worst, the bug will be closed as insufficient information. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Res: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On 5/4/2010 12:57 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: Testing takes time, lets give up? Seriously? Pushes happen about once every 24 hours, do you really say it'll take longer than 24 hours to get a couple people to test the issue and confirm that your fix does indeed fix the issue, and doesn't seem to create any other immediately noticeable issues? At the risk of putting words into Kevin's mouth, I think that you just made his point. I'd be very surprised if Kevin couldn't get x number of people to say yes to a fix that he considered urgent. This might confirm that the fix had its expected consequence, but I think that he already knew that or he wouldn't be trying to push it to stable. It wouldn't say much for stability or edge cases, only a good regression suite would give confidence on that score. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 4/25/2010 8:37 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote: On Sun, 2010-04-25 at 10:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: I don't see how using Mozilla trademarks provides significant benefit to Fedora. It seems to mostly benefit Mozilla. I don't see why we should be breaking our rules to help them. I think you are grossly misjudging the relative visibility and importance of the Firefox and Fedora brands... nobody knows what Fedora is, while most computer users will have at least heard about Firefox. I disagree with your criteria. The visibility in of itself is not relevant; its consequences are. The important criteria, in my eyes, are: 1) Does the Mozilla name attract users to Fedora or keep them with Fedora once they have tasted it? 2) Would Fedora lose users if it dropped the trademarked name? 3) Does Fedora lose users by having unpatched versions of Firefox etc.? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Hard drive spec change
On 3/18/2010 9:47 PM, Robert Nichols wrote: The default pseudo-geometry will still be 63 sectors/track unless you change it, and by default a partition's start-of-data is forced to the beginning of a track. Making the sectors larger doesn't change that. Warning: this question is asked without any knowledge about the subject. Does it really make sense that the number of sectors/track is independent of the size of a sector? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Update question: some user data
On 3/6/2010 9:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those, right? What do people make of this? I think that the poll misses an important distinction. People running f11 are very likely to have a different opinion than people running f12. The responders should indicate which system they are using. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: duplicate f13 package announcements
On 3/4/2010 5:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 08:54:28AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote: M A Young wrote: I don't know if this has already been raised but I notice on the package-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org list that several Fedora 13 packages keep getting announced, for example, by checking the archives I see that fedora-release-13-0.6 has been announced 6 times in March and a further 7 times in February. I suspect there is a glitch in the package management system somewhere. Michael Young It's happening for 3 F12 packages as well. I mentioned it in a ticket for another issue: https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2328 Bodhi bug. Hopefully being fixed today. josh https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=567878 has received 10 notifications that anaconda-13.32-1.fc13 has been pushed to stable. The latest one significantly later than this message. Either the bug isn't fixed or this is a different, albeit similar bug. Unless of course this is just a timing bug; the old bodhi produced the last build. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)
On 3/1/2010 10:44 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: One problem of updates-testing is - it takes so much time to be pushed and then mirrored. More rawhide approach should be used here. Users who are really interested in testing usually downloads from Koji directly. It is not so simple. When I am working with a maintainer to solve a problem, of course I will pull from Koji. But I don't track Koji. I scan testing to see if it has something that interests me. Otherwise I stay with stable. So updates-testing is useful for anything that I want cutting edge and the delay doesn't bother me because I wasn't waiting for the update. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: best practice for packing programs that use strlcpy()?
On 1/29/2010 4:50 AM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 01/28/2010 09:32 PM, Eric Smith wrote: What is considered the best practice for packaging a program that uses strlcpy()? Besides patching it to not use strlcpy? :) Is there a reason (from a programming point of view) to avoid strlcpy/strlcat? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
