On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why
In perl we have to often update package to fix one thing, but
this update needs higher version of different package, so we
are forced to update package even in older releases.
Chris and Ralf explained our reasons well in previous posts.
There are more worthless updates, so you should send some
On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change anything at
all!
This I
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.
On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 08:05:23 Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change anything
at all!
This I believe to be the
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 09:40:15 Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:53:40 -0800, Jesse wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 02:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
That's a fair point, but there are significantly fewer people around to
fix critical issues should they arise on a weekend, and after working 5
weekdays, some
Paul Wouters p...@xelerance.com writes:
The tor upstream has filed that as bug report as well.
... and understand my reasons not to activate logging
That is not true. It just decided not to pick a fight over that while
more pressing bugs required you to fix them.
ok; sorry that I thought
On 03/03/2010 10:17 AM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best
James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org writes:
You are joking, right? I mean apart from the fact that there is a
_huge_ difference between requiring mount and libX* ...
please do not blame me for redhat-lsb packaging...
the _kernel_ requires the package initscripts is installed.
initscripts
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:57:56 -0500, Toshio wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.
Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at writes:
Upstart does not have a good way yet to disable/enable service so you
have to edit /etc/init/tor.conf resp. /etc/event.d/tor manually.
Which is one of the reasons why you aren't supposed to use native
Upstarts scripts yet!
it's a somehow strange
Le Mer 3 mars 2010 05:49, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
Jesse Keating wrote:
did a poor job in stating our goals for the operating system, and just
hoped that our maintainers would see things the way we saw them.
Why should they see them that way rather than the right way? ;-)
Please stop
Chen Lei supercy...@163.com writes:
BTW, /var/lib/tor-data seems not used at all, maybe this directory
should not be included in tor-core?
thx; was a leftover from GeoIP stuff which was removed due to anonymity
reasons. It will be fixed in the next packages.
Enrico
--
devel mailing list
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
What kind of tests need to be done always manually? The only ones I can
think are tests for the appearance of applications or tests that require
specific hardware. But in the general case, I
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:33:40AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
You keep saying that 7 days is enough but I haven't seen you provide
_any_ evidence to support it. Noting that it will often take 3-4 days
before a package in testing can be seen by all users. So maybe you are
So there is an easy
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
[..]
BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
[..]
Well, update to latest release (every 6
Author: pghmcfc
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-RRD-Simple/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27937
Modified Files:
perl-RRD-Simple.spec
Added Files:
RRD-Simple-1.44-pod.patch
Log Message:
* Wed Mar 3 2010 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org - 1.44-5
- Change
On 03/03/2010 08:38 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
So maybe you are under the impression that all the users who would test
your package are anxiously waiting for your packages to be available?
For those packages where regressions actually matter to people, they
definitely are. People keep asking
2010/3/3 Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:52:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in
cleaning up the mess, not making it worse b/c fesco HAS to be
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:54:57AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:53:40 -0800, Jesse wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 02:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
That's a fair point, but there are significantly fewer people around to
fix critical issues
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want them as
well for people who want it in F-11, i give it to them. Why should i
force someone to upgrade every 6 month? Or even worse to rawhide as
mentioned in
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:51, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bridon
boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i
On 3 March 2010 18:03, Thomas Janssen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
[..]
BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
[..]
Well, update to latest
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2010/3/3 Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:52:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in
cleaning up the
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Seth Vidal wrote:
And stages non-critical/important updates so our QA team can test and
check them over more thoroughly and align testing goals and days to help
foster and create a more active and involved testing infrastructure.
Congratulations for
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
So far, I haven't seen any indication of such a team being in existance
(c.f. dnssec-conf, kernel) nor am I aware of any means for testing such
perl-modules (perl-modules typically are equipped with a testsuite).
The real testing is performed by
Compose started at Wed Mar 3 08:15:10 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires libboost_serialization-mt.so.5
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569568
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2010-03-03
09:31:59 EST ---
perl-RRD-Simple-1.44-5.fc13 has
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 15:16:05 Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org said:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org
wrote:
My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
issues, or security
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Mathieu Bridon
boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:51, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bridon
boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org said:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
issues, or
Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org said:
If you want RHEL, use it.
People keep saying this, as if the opposite of updates every day is
release every 3 years. Those are two extremes, and there is a lot of
space in between.
On my mirror, updates/12 is approaching the
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen thom...@fedoraproject.org said:
If you want RHEL, use it.
People keep saying this, as if the opposite of updates every day is
release every 3 years. Those are two extremes, and there is a
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
James Antill wrote:
This isn't a hard problem, 3.0 should then be marked as a security
update.
But the case we're discussing is that 3.0 was pushed long before it was
known that it happens to fix a security vulnerability. We're not
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 23:57 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that's what happens in Fedora at present, just that
- given a single update stream in which it's perfectly fine for
'security' updates to build on 'feature' updates - it's impossible to
cherry pick only security
Enrico Scholz wrote:
please do not blame me for redhat-lsb packaging...
You're not being blamed for the redhat-lsb packaging but for requiring
redhat-lsb in the first place. That package is not supposed to be required
by Fedora packages.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
Seth Vidal wrote:
If you can't understand it, perhaps you should reconsider your role on a
technical committee like fesco.
I understood your sentence, that doesn't make it any less jargon.
* And most importantly, even if we were to accept that it could lead to
better QA (which I doubt),
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 09:45 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
working just fine, thank you very much! We
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
attention.
+1
I really don't see why we should treat previous stable as a second-class
citizen. It's supported,
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
different?
What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further
members of FPB and FESCO) to be gradually running
Also tsocks now are in the repo of fedora, so maybe you can include the tor
stuffs related to tsocks.
Another question is why you use tor-lsb instead of normal initscript , a
tor-sysvinit subpackage may be more suitable for fedora.
Thomas Janssen wrote:
The problem is that the end-user has no idea what rawhide means. Why
not let them know. I said already a few times, give people new to
fedora (fresh installation) something like openSUSE has. A tour trough
Fedora, and educate them there. It pops up automatically if you
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
Are there even any metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
with
On 03/02/2010 08:42 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
On 03/02/2010 06:15 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
X11 is particularly dangerous for this kind of changes, given how low
it is in the software stack and how some code necessarily looks like
(hardware drivers in particular are always
Rakesh Pandit wrote:
Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) and you will get latest
and greatest anyway.
With a wait of up to 6 months. That's way too long. That leaves Rawhide,
which isn't suitable for production use. So no option left.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
On 3/3/2010 2:27, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
attention.
Right now Fedora releases are either Supported or Unsupported. [1]
If we want to
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:08 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
So why we can't use it as our advantage and fill this gap?
We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
months) and updates for those
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Thomas Janssen wrote:
But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
decided what will happen will have to live with it.
Well, there you see how dumb i am. That i
Chris Adams wrote:
Some packagers are turning Fedora into a rolling-update package
collection instead of a coherent distribution.
[snip]
If Fedora is going to be a rolling update package collection (despite
what Kevin tries to claim about some mythical semi-rolling, that's
what we are
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Thomas Janssen wrote:
But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
decided what will happen will have to live with it.
Well, there
Till Maas wrote:
How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
only updates repo enabled by default.
That's essentially what Adam Williamson and Doug Ledford (both inspired by
Mandriva) already
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:09 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:02:51AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
If we had less updates, that changed less things and required more
testing before pushing them to users ... this would be entirely
possible.
Less updates mean more changes
On 3/3/2010 2:51, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
only updates repo enabled by default.
Splitting the
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:16 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
Erm, dont take it personally please, but, have you ever used a
different distro? One example is openSUSE (yes, i use it on some boxen
here) does exactly that. What's with Debian stable? And i bet even
ubuntu is like that.
Neither
* Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 17:41] :
Really? And that shows me the QT version now? I must miss something.
If they ask about F12 KDE, who knows.
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 03/03/2010 04:51 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
For me personally the type of update I'd like to see slowed down is the
pure enhancement update or new package updates, ones that do nothing but
swallow up the latest upstream build or scm snapshot to add new
features.
#1 on your personal list
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:57:53AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
Neither OpenSUSE nor Ubuntu are as quick to pick up new technologies and
run with them into a stable release. Quite often they pick things
up /after/ Fedora has done a release with them and worked through all
the hard problems.
On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
2010/3/3 Seth Vidalskvi...@fedoraproject.org:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should
James Antill wrote:
I would assume you could just change the updateinfo for the the current
update to mark it as security, this is a tiny amount of extra work on
the packager side ... but without it all the work to create the security
types on updates is worthless.
We can't change Bodhi
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:50:22AM -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
On 3/3/2010 2:51, Till Maas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
another repo like updates-stable that follows your
On Tuesday 02 March 2010 11:58:06 Pierre-Yves wrote:
We could imagine a monthly reminder if you are interested.
A once a month reminder is perfect. :-)
Best regards,
Pierre
--
José Abílio
___
r-devel mailing list
r-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:45:02PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:37:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
actually works (i.e. if it doesn't lead to maintainers only caring about
the
conservative stream).
Packagers would then have the choice, I think this can only be
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 18:27, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
James Antill wrote:
I would assume you could just change the updateinfo for the the current
update to mark it as security, this is a tiny amount of extra work on
the packager side ... but without it all the work to
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:16:05AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
I
James Antill wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:38 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
People who use updates-testing under the current system are signing up to
doing testing. Under your proposal, they'd be forced to sign up to get
any current updates.
Get current updates = so they can be tested!
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released
POV)
F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current version
with latest but stable software. You can't force users to use F14 (aka
rawhide) to be
Chen Lei wrote:
Another question is why you use tor-lsb instead of normal initscript , a
tor-sysvinit subpackage may be more suitable for fedora.
Right, but actually tor should simply include the normal SysV-style
initscripts (with initscripts dependencies, not lsb-core ones) inside the
Le mercredi 03 mars 2010 à 16:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
If KDE wants to be on an equal footing with GNOME (another of your
repeated complains) it needs to learn synchronizing with distro releases
like GNOME (and kernel, and xorg did).
I don't see this as
On 03/03/2010 07:03 PM, James Antill wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 18:06 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
And what about tickets, closed with FIXED UPSTREAM w/o actually
applying fix to a package?
Those items
Seth Vidal wrote:
Those items will be released in the next release of yum or in the next
fedora release.
That can be quite a long time. Providing bugfixes to our stable releases is
important! I won't complain if you do upstream releases regularly and
systematically push them as updates, but
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 11:58 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
I added a proposal to this page to codify my thoughts.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_Lifecycle_Proposals
I do like this proposal, and I like where you were going by defining why
it is we do releases, and what it means to
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 18:27, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
We can't change Bodhi metadata after the fact at this time. Bodhi admins
might be able to do it, but maintainers definitely aren't.
Where's the RFE ticket?
I've never felt the need. This is the
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Thomas Janssen wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
months) and updates for those releases
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
This is only working for you because KDE is a high-visibility project
and can mobilize resources even outside the distro normal schedule. The
other packages you talk of could benefit if QA was cheap and plentiful
but QA is not cheap and plentiful and pretending we do not
Bill Nottingham wrote:
When there's no policy, and the user has to guess whether or not they
need to do this for every package on their system, however, you have
a mess.
The idea is that our updates, even version upgrades, Just Work. We don't and
shouldn't push stuff which is known to regress
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released
POV) F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current
version with latest but stable software. You can't force users to use F14
(aka
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 7:49 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Thomas Janssen (thom...@fedoraproject.org) said:
When there's no policy, and the user has to guess whether or not they
need to do this for every package on their system, however, you have
a mess.
Well, except
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
* Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 17:41] :
Really? And that shows me the QT version now? I must miss something.
If they ask about F12 KDE, who knows.
Usually, the first question I ask is Do you have all updates installed? If
the answer is no, I ask them to install the
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Don't give up the fight yet!
I also see that things are not looking good, but we need to fight this to
the bitter end, or we'll forever feel guilty about having done nothing to
try to prevent Fedora from getting ruined.
With that
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Usually, the first question I ask is Do you have all updates installed? If
the answer is no, I ask them to install the updates and won't answer any
question until they do. I'm not going to waste my time trying to debug
already
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 01:00:54PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released
POV)
F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current
version
with latest but
Till Maas wrote:
Bug avoiding regressions at all costs is what some are willing to take.
With the repo split there can be at least better co-operation as e.g.
splitting the distribution. At least for me as a FOSS believer getting
upstream bugfixes fast (especially if I submitted them upstream)
On 03/03/2010 01:17 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Mathieu Bridon wrote:
In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
what we see as a better deal for them.
I think wanting to decide for your users is a
Matt Domsch wrote:
The _only_ reason to name something with a 'version' or a 'release' is
to provide a set point for consistency, either in people's minds
(marketing), or to provide a technical baseline for interoperability.
If we continue to take the technical baselines, and move them ad-hoc,
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:07:27AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
Are there even any metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
bug that can
Juha Tuomala wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
You're distorting the Fedora model to accommodate KDE roadmaps.
No, this goes far beyond KDE. KDE roadmaps are just one strong argument
for doing things this way. Many more packages benefit or would benefit
from version upgrades
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:58:23AM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:16:05AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org
wrote:
My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
issues, or
Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Usually, the first question I ask is Do you have all updates installed?
If the answer is no, I ask them to install the updates and won't answer
any question until they do. I'm not going to waste my time trying to
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Enrico Scholz wrote:
The tor upstream has filed that as bug report as well.
... and understand my reasons not to activate logging
That is not true. It just decided not to pick a fight over that while
more pressing bugs required you to fix them.
ok; sorry that I thought
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:04:21PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
As far as I understood, there is no need to backport security fixes. One
could just copy the package with the security fix with all needed
dependencies to the stable repo imho.
I think people are going to
Okay. This has gone on long enough. The signal is gone from the
following threads:
* FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call forfeedback)
* Worthless updates
* Refining the update queues/process
Accordingly, I'm marking those threads as Hall-Monitored. Please stop
posting
Mike McGrath wrote:
Their release cycles, on release day, are already older then our releases.
That's the unique role we fill. Well we used to. Now we don't fill any
particular role at all.
Wrong, we fill the role of providing version upgrades in stable releases.
This also has the side
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Chris Adams wrote:
By the same token, if you want rolling update releases, feel free to do
it in your own private repo. See how well that argument works?
No i don't. I'm using a mainstream distribution and thus I expect to
get them. Just like the upstream has intended
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:08:22PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
Bug avoiding regressions at all costs is what some are willing to take.
With the repo split there can be at least better co-operation as e.g.
splitting the distribution. At least for me as a FOSS believer getting
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
