As per the Fedora 16 schedule [1], Fedora 16 Beta Release Candidate 2
(RC2) is now available for testing. Please see the following pages for
download links (including delta ISOs) and testing instructions. In
general, official live images arrive a few hours after the install
images: see the links be
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 07:42:55PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > It's a bad design because it asserts something (grub versions are
> > compatible with each other) that isn't true (they're not).
> I've stated this once already, but since you glossed over it. It does
On Fri, 23 Sep 2011 16:20:43 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> If you want to help test 16.19, tflink is working on a boot.iso and
> I'm uploading a live image, both of which include the newer anaconda.
> We'll mail when those are available. Please don't bother with any
> more testing of the updates
- Original Message -
> It's a bad design because it asserts something (grub versions are
> compatible with each other) that isn't true (they're not).
I've stated this once already, but since you glossed over it. It does not
assert that grub versions are compatible, it asserts that the st
- Original Message -
> Doug,
>
> = If Autoqa is currently slow it is mainly because what developers
> who
> are working on it are also tasked with doing other things.
I made no reference or allusion to it being slow because people were slacking.
I myself have more to do than I have time
On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 11:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 11:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hey, folks. So, as most of you probably know, one of the big bugs that's
> > been holding up the Beta is
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738964 - various issues
Hi Denis,
On Sunday, 04 September 2011 at 16:59, Denis Arnaud wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I just came onto a tricky dependency issue, and thought it could be of
> interest to the list.
> emacs requires libotf.so.0, which is the library handling Open Type Fonts
> (OTF), provided by the libotf package.
> W
> Am I right in saying that AutoQA is basically mired in the muck and
> going nowhere at the moment?
>
> --
> Doug Ledford
Our progress is very slow at the moment, correct. We will happily welcome some
help. We don't have many tasks that you could do in a free afternoon, however.
A free week o
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 14:31, Doug Ledford wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> The setup inside Red Hat cannot be (directly) copied outside at this
>> time. Instead the autoQA project was started to re-create it as an
>> open source project. That's where effort should continue.
>
> Am I ri
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:28:30PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > it's
> > used because of a bad design,
>
>
> It's not a bad design, it's the *right* design. Being able to rescue
> a guest that can't boot without resorting to a rescue cd boot of the
> guest vm is
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:54:35PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> I'm upgrading GitPython from 0.2x to 0.3 in rawhide. There are some changes
> that require consumers to do some minor porting, briefly outlined at
> http://packages.python.org/GitPython/0.3.2/whatsnew.html#guided-upgrade
>
> I don
- Original Message -
> The setup inside Red Hat cannot be (directly) copied outside at this
> time. Instead the autoQA project was started to re-create it as an
> open source project. That's where effort should continue.
Am I right in saying that AutoQA is basically mired in the muck and
- Original Message -
> it's
> used because of a bad design,
It's not a bad design, it's the *right* design. Being able to rescue a guest
that can't boot without resorting to a rescue cd boot of the guest vm is a
worthwhile goal and this is part of that. The two alternative designs (gue
I'm upgrading GitPython from 0.2x to 0.3 in rawhide. There are some changes
that require consumers to do some minor porting, briefly outlined at
http://packages.python.org/GitPython/0.3.2/whatsnew.html#guided-upgrade
I don't know who all consumes GitPython, I know I do for rpkg/fedpkg.
I bring
On Fri, 2011-09-23 at 11:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Hey, folks. So, as most of you probably know, one of the big bugs that's
> been holding up the Beta is
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738964 - various issues
> related to bootloader installation with the wrinkles of grub2 an
Hey, folks. So, as most of you probably know, one of the big bugs that's
been holding up the Beta is
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738964 - various issues
related to bootloader installation with the wrinkles of grub2 and GPT
disk labels.
There are now not one but *two* updates images
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:03:49PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > >> So, there's a meta-point here: we currently 'require' Beta releases to
> > >> boot as guests on Xen hosts:
> > >>
> > >> "The release must boot successfully as a virtual guest in a situation
> > >> where the virtual host
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 03:08:41PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:47:57PM +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 06:59:57PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 03:46:31PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > > > On
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 06:59:57PM -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 03:46:31PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > On 09/21/2011 01:03 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > So, there's a meta-point here: we currently 'require' Beta releases to
> > boot as gue
On 09/23/2011 07:54 AM, Doug Ledford wrote:
> - Original Message -
>> You're basically arguing that we should never remove any software
>> from Fedora
>> in case it's used in a virtual machine hosted on a Fedora machine.
>>
>> This is not a workable scenario.
>
> OMG Peter, can you intentio
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:39:46 -0600,
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 06:47, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > I was hoping to be able to work on a forked version of chess and have it
> > replace chess in Fedora, but I haven't had time to learn enough about
> > ogre to do this,
- Original Message -
> You're basically arguing that we should never remove any software
> from Fedora
> in case it's used in a virtual machine hosted on a Fedora machine.
>
> This is not a workable scenario.
OMG Peter, can you intentionally conflate any more molehills into mountains?
D
22 matches
Mail list logo
