On 26 September 2010 09:25, Piscium grok...@gmail.com wrote:
My question is this: what should be the name of the configuration file
for Intel 32 bits architecture?
config-x86 or
config-i386 or
config-i686 or
one of the above followed by -generic?
My custom kernel seems to be running as
On Saturday, September 25, 2010 09:03:08 pm Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:58:39 +0200
Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
Not a very latest thing but more like - more useful thing. Because
some useful user experience changes could lead to better user
experience even
Compose started at Mon Sep 27 08:15:36 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
ImageMagick-6.6.4.1-14.fc15.i686 requires libgs.so.8
ImageMagick-6.6.4.1-14.fc15.x86_64 requires libgs.so.8()(64bit)
Hi all,
I plan to update update poppler in rawhide (Fedora 15) to new
development version 0.15 next week (at Monday, October 4th). Changes
against 0.14.x are:
core:
* Remove exception support
* Improve creation of Annotations
* Fix failure to parse PDF with
Hi everyone!
The Fedora s390x team[1] is happy to announce the first installable
Fedora on IBM System Z (aka s390x) since Fedora 6!
It's been a long time in the making, but after several Fedora releases
since we started getting everything up into shape again we've finally
reached a point
Now plz send me a Z series and I'll take care about the updates :-P
-of
Phil Knirsch pknir...@redhat.com schrieb:
Hi everyone!
The Fedora s390x team[1] is happy to announce the first installable
Fedora on IBM System Z (aka s390x) since Fedora 6!
It's been a long time in the making, but after
Start End Name
Tue 28-Sep Tue 28-Sep Beta Release Public Availability
Fri 01-Oct Fri 01-Oct Final Blocker Meeting (f14blocker) #2
Fri 08-Oct Fri 08-Oct Final Blocker Meeting (f14blocker) #3
Mon 11-Oct Mon 11-Oct Submit Installer Builds for Final TC Compose
Mon 11-Oct Fri
2010/9/27 Phil Knirsch pknir...@redhat.com:
Hi everyone!
The Fedora s390x team[1] is happy to announce the first installable
Fedora on IBM System Z (aka s390x) since Fedora 6!
Awesome!
/me still hopes that he'll see Fedora-PPC for F-14 :)
--
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
--
devel
On Sat, 2010-09-25 at 15:13 +0200, Till Maas 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
Compose started at Mon Sep 27 13:15:27 UTC 2010
Broken deps for x86_64
--
antlr3-python-3.1.2-7.fc14.noarch requires python(abi) = 0:2.6
evolution-couchdb-0.4.92-1.fc14.x86_64 requires
libedata-book-1.2.so.2()(64bit)
Ok, I made some screen shots. It's a bit easier to understand if you
see it actually working. They should still give you a idea.
Looking at the PackageDB tags, filtering for the Office and Qt tags:
http://fedorapeople.org/~ffesti/screenshots/PackageDBTags.gif
Filtering for the GNOME menu tag
All three of my newly released GNOME 2.32.0 projects failed to build
on koji (f14) today:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2491737name=build.log
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2491754name=build.log
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
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
It's not some random day - it's when you actually accept an update! It's
not
easy to estimate impact of update - but banning completely is not a solution
neither.
We do not give nearly enough information in our updates for the user to
make any
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 22:26, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
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.
... lots
Monday, October 4, is the wiki freeze for the GA release notes. If
there is something you want to see in the release notes now is your last
chance.
The release notes draft content can be found at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Documentation_Beats
This page links to a wiki page for each area in
Horst H. von Brand vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl wrote:
As of yesterday there simply is no way to get WiFi (iwlagn here) to
work. Restarting NetworkManager, avahi-daemon, udevd, dbus has no
effect. Restrarting nm-applet does nothing, no response to iwconfig ow iw.
The configuration for the wired
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 13:30:31 -0400
Horst H. von Brand vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl wrote:
Horst H. von Brand vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl wrote:
As of yesterday there simply is no way to get WiFi (iwlagn here) to
work. Restarting NetworkManager, avahi-daemon, udevd, dbus has no
effect. Restrarting
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:26:46 -0400
Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
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.
I
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:19:51 +0200
Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
It's not some random day - it's when you actually accept an update!
It's not easy to estimate impact of update - but banning completely
is not a solution neither.
Well, most people either:
a) apply all updates as
The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
continue to promote i686 installs over x86_64, the result being that
only a third of fedora users are on x86_64.
When will the Fedora project begin recommending x86_64 as the
preferred option on the relevant hardware?
--
devel
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 13:48 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
continue to promote i686 installs over x86_64, the result being that
only a third of fedora users are on x86_64.
When will the Fedora project begin recommending
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 13:48, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
continue to promote i686 installs over x86_64, the result being that
only a third of fedora users are on x86_64.
When will the Fedora project begin
On 09/27/2010 06:53 PM, seth vidal wrote:
i686 will run on x86_64 and i686 machines and on the overwhelming
majority of hw someone will happen to have.
x86_64 will not.
until i686 is uncommon (which is still not yet) I think we should keep
the default i686.
Most (if not all) Atom-based
[1] attica -- Implementation of the Open Collaboration Services API
[2] automoc -- Automatic moc for Qt 4
[3] bip -- IRC Bouncer
[4] kbluetooth -- The KDE Bluetooth Framework
[5] kdebluetooth -- The KDE Bluetooth Framework
[6] shared-desktop-ontologies -- Shared ontologies needed for semantic
2010/9/27 Athmane Madjoudj athma...@gmail.com:
On 09/27/2010 06:53 PM, seth vidal wrote:
i686 will run on x86_64 and i686 machines and on the overwhelming
majority of hw someone will happen to have.
x86_64 will not.
until i686 is uncommon (which is still not yet) I think we should keep
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 08:15:46PM +0200, Lorenzo Villani wrote:
[1] attica -- Implementation of the Open Collaboration Services API
[2] automoc -- Automatic moc for Qt 4
[3] bip -- IRC Bouncer
Adopted bip.
[4] kbluetooth -- The KDE Bluetooth Framework
[5] kdebluetooth -- The KDE Bluetooth
All three of my newly released GNOME 2.32.0 projects failed to build
on koji (f14) today:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2491737name=build.log
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2491754name=build.log
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 13:48, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
continue to promote i686 installs over x86_64, the result being that
only
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 9:45 AM, darrell pfeifer darrel...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 09:30, Tom London seli...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 8:21 PM, darrell pfeifer darrel...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 11:55, Owen Taylor otay...@redhat.com
On 27/09/10 20:12, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
snip
If you're not swapping x86_64 bringing increased performance is easily
demonstrated, and has been previously demonstrated here... if there is
any doubt on this point I'd be glad to run some more benchmarks to
demonstrate it.
For me inept brain.
On 27 September 2010 19:58, Jaroslav Skarvada jskar...@redhat.com wrote:
The character class must be inside bracketed expression, thus double
brackets, please see man grep. The new grep-2.7 checks for this common fault:
Right, but you could argue it's a regression as the behavior changed.
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 15:12, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 13:48, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 September 2010 19:58, Jaroslav Skarvada jskar...@redhat.com wrote:
The character class must be inside bracketed expression, thus double
brackets, please see man grep. The new grep-2.7 checks for this common fault:
Right, but you could argue
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:53:09 +0200, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 13:48 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
When will the Fedora project begin recommending x86_64 as the
preferred option on the relevant hardware?
i686 will run on x86_64 and i686 machines and on the overwhelming
commit 9fe003849d49c84494ea75baf1dbac037cb0ad2d
Merge: d170ecc 8274a33
Author: Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org
Date: Mon Sep 27 21:55:04 2010 +0200
Merge branch 'master' into el6
perl-Test-Unit-Runner-Xml.spec |8 +++-
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
--
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 21:50:21 +0200,
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 19:53:09 +0200, seth vidal wrote:
On Mon, 2010-09-27 at 13:48 -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
When will the Fedora project begin recommending x86_64 as the
preferred option on the
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 3:26 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/09/10 20:12, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
snip
If you're not swapping x86_64 bringing increased performance is easily
demonstrated, and has been previously demonstrated here... if there is
any doubt on this point I'd be
Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 September 2010 19:58, Jaroslav Skarvada jskar...@redhat.com wrote:
The character class must be inside bracketed expression, thus double
brackets, please see man grep. The new grep-2.7 checks for
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
continue to promote i686 installs over x86_64, the result being that
only a third of fedora users are on x86_64.
When will the Fedora project begin recommending x86_64 as the
On 27 September 2010 21:04, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
Unless this change was made in f14. That is not acceptable for f14 at this
stage.
I'm using dist-f14.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) said:
The Fedora web resources (e.g. http://fedoraproject.org/get-fedora )
continue to promote i686 installs over x86_64, the result being that
only a third of fedora users are on x86_64.
When will the Fedora project begin recommending x86_64 as the
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
FWIW, we have two measurements of x86_64 vs i686.
Smolt:
65% i686
35% x86_64
mirrors.fedoraproject.org:
70% i686
30% x86_64
Right— it's clear that i686 is far more commonly installed
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 19:30UTC (3:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
= Followups =
#topic Updates policy
#351 Create a policy for updates - status report on implementation
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/351
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
package:
On 09/27/2010 09:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
Right— it's clear that i686 is far more commonly installed today but a
non-trivial part of that must be due to the fact that the x86_64 links
are hidden. The smolt cpu stats (mhz, number of cores, vendors)
suggests that a significant portion
Michael Schwendt (mschwe...@gmail.com) said:
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 22:15:48 +0200,
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:58:26 +0200, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 21:50:21 +0200, Jan Kratochvil
jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
F14+ livecd-tools have now /usr/bin/mkbiarch for
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 22:15:48 +0200,
Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:58:26 +0200, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 21:50:21 +0200, Jan Kratochvil
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote:
I would expect that the i686 install will remain the most common so
long as that is what the Fedora project promotes.
I wouldn't. We can actually look a little deeper at some of the
download stats and take the concept
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 23:00:45 +0200,
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
The x86_64 vs. i686 thing aside ... IMO the CD size limit does more
harm than good and should have been lifted a while ago.
The CD size limit is self imposed by the Spins that choose to do so.
The 4 GiB size limit is
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 23:00:45 +0200,
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
The x86_64 vs. i686 thing aside ... IMO the CD size limit does more
harm than good and should have been lifted a while ago.
The CD size limit is
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 23:35:43 +0200,
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 11:32 PM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 23:00:45 +0200,
drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
The x86_64 vs. i686 thing aside ... IMO the CD size limit does more
On Fri, 2010-09-24 at 16:22 -0400, James Laska wrote:
In practice this is a formalization of existing procedure - until F14
Beta, QA and releng did much the same process but entirely informally,
we just kept lists of bugs we'd take fixes for either in our heads or in
the RC creation trac
Hello there,
I'm having the following error with some of my packages (iverilog and
perl-Verilog-Perl) since last week, even after updating my certs.
$ fedpkg import
/home/chitlesh/rpmbuild/SRPMS/iverilog-0.9.20100928-1.el6.src.rpm
Uploading: d004408ea595b13780c4c036f8188b66 verilog-0.9.3.tar.gz
Package perl-Module-Build in Fedora devel is now owned by mmaslano
To make changes to this package see:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/perl-Module-Build
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Module-Build:
9dbbbed68e80e28a9e9f3ab5512a6dab Module-Build-0.3607.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
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=577669
Bug 577669 depends on bug 580447, which changed state.
Bug 580447 Summary: Review Request: perl-Module-Build - Build and
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Syntax-Highlight-Perl6:
445373f5805512c1643079ff84fd0fa6 Syntax-Highlight-Perl6-0.87.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit f70b002e497d9ba8446492a754ae8e712b761399
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Mon Sep 27 10:12:04 2010 +0200
0.87 bump
Remove merged patch.
.gitignore |1 +
...hlight-Perl6-0.86-Install-script-hilitep6.patch | 24
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-threads-shared:
59e5882c75033835d44d0ab3bfc02c60 threads-shared-1.33.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 62fb8ea927e4ac2c76d848e6cf84eedaf680ec82
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Mon Sep 27 10:23:35 2010 +0200
1.33 import
.gitignore |1 +
perl-threads-shared.spec | 63 ++
sources |1 +
3
commit 6cf64fcbace08ccfdafbf042588b121b14101eda
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Mon Sep 27 11:00:45 2010 +0200
1.0015 bump
.gitignore |1 +
perl-App-cpanminus.spec |5 -
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
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=637375
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-App-cpanminus:
61581df059c48d1aea03e8f1e919df27 App-cpanminus-1.0015.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
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=637375
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
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=633737
Bug 633737 depends on bug 636545, which changed state.
Bug 636545 Summary: threads-shared-1.33 bump
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=357641
Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Summary of changes:
b3ffb1c... Fix typo that causes a failure to update the common directo (*)
d62cc57... - rebuild against perl 5.10.1 (*)
badd2c5... - Mass rebuild with perl-5.12.0 (*)
8274a33... dist-git conversion (*)
9fe0038... Merge branch 'master' into el6
(*) This commit
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=357641
Xavier Bachelot xav...@bachelot.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
package:
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
package:
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
package:
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
package:
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
==
package:
On 09/27/2010 10:51 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Michael Schwendt (mschwe...@gmail.com) said:
The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
==
The results in this summary consider Test Updates!
76 matches
Mail list logo
