On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:37:07PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/22/2014 03:47 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 22 January 2014 12:09, Richard Hugheshughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a long way from what I'd like to see, but it's going up at about 1%
per
month, which is
On 22 January 2014 21:44, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Richard already wrote a plugin :)
https://github.com/GNOME/gnome-software/blob/e80d751ae0768a8969ff52e1cfc29a692a79bda0/src/plugins/gs-plugin-fedora-tagger.c
Clearly, an excellent idea, then. :)
Yes, it's all wired up and
On 23 January 2014 08:07, David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com wrote:
You seem to be operating under a delusion that, if someone's package is
forcibly dropped, (s)he will automatically seek comaintainership of
another package to fill the vacuum. That is not very likely. What is
likely, however, is
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:09:25PM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
Hi,
As the subject suggests, Fedora 22 will require applications to have a
long description to be shown in the software center. We're introducing
this change so that we can show a powerful application full of
high-quality
On 23 January 2014 08:34, David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com wrote:
I have noticed that there are applications on the list that have
NoDisplay=true in their desktop file, e.g., libreoffice-startcenter.
I've just downloaded libreoffice-4.2.0.2-2.fc21 and it has:
[Desktop Entry]
Version=1.0
On 01/23/2014 08:07 AM, David Tardon wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:37:07PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/22/2014 03:47 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 22 January 2014 12:09, Richard Hugheshughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a long way from what I'd like to see, but it's going up
Am 23.01.2014 10:23, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release
in half a decade Which poses security risk and bugs not being dealt
and bad end user experience if our end user base chooses to install it
have you ever considered software as
On 23 January 2014 10:12, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
have you ever considered software as done and no known bugs?
Okay, I'll bite.
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/apps/sound/mp3-utils/mp3info/
upstream may dead, upstream my be alive but nothing to do
the software does what
Am 23.01.2014 12:13, schrieb Richard Hughes:
On 23 January 2014 10:12, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
have you ever considered software as done and no known bugs?
Okay, I'll bite.
ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/apps/sound/mp3-utils/mp3info/
upstream may dead, upstream my be
Hi Thierry + @all,
I'd like to play with the new lib389 and try to split DirSrv in two layers:
- the old approach DSAdmin for TCP communication
- DirSrv implementing your interface
essentially I would put
class DirSrv(DSAdmin):
# ...new stuff go here ...
class DSAdmin(SimpleLDAPObject):
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:23:49AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/23/2014 08:07 AM, David Tardon wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:37:07PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/22/2014 03:47 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 22 January 2014 12:09, Richard Hugheshughsi...@gmail.com
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:51:53AM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 23 January 2014 08:34, David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com wrote:
I have noticed that there are applications on the list that have
NoDisplay=true in their desktop file, e.g., libreoffice-startcenter.
I've just downloaded
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote:
As the subject suggests, Fedora 22 will require applications to have a
long description to be shown in the software center.
What constitutes an 'application' in this sense? Does 'gcc' count for
instance? How about 'find'?
David
--
devel mailing
It doesn't build anyway. I've found that the latest release, 0.9.4, does,
but I see you've discovered that as well. :)
-J
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.comwrote:
Jon please don't rebuild oyranos, I'm working on this now.
--
devel mailing list
On 23 January 2014 12:37, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote:
What constitutes an 'application' in this sense? Does 'gcc' count for
instance? How about 'find'?
No. In the AppStream and AppData definitions, a program is an
application if it has a .desktop file that is visible in the menu.
On 01/23/2014 12:09 PM, David Tardon wrote:
No, I think your reasoning is faulty and your attempts to see everything
in just black and white is fundamentally flawed. Anyway, that_was not_
the point of my mail. What I wanted to point out is that forced removal
of packages_is not_ going to
It built very well(I did it this afternoon), you can check it out from Koji.
Hmm...Only some tiny issues need to be solved.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Am 23.01.2014 14:06, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 01/23/2014 12:09 PM, David Tardon wrote:
No, I think your reasoning is faulty and your attempts to see everything
in just black and white is fundamentally flawed. Anyway, that_was not_
the point of my mail. What I wanted to point out is
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:23:49AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release in
half a decade
Which poses security risk and bugs not being dealt and bad end user
experience if our end user base chooses to install it.
( because if they
Hi,
that was my mistake. Now both libdbi and libdbi-drivers are in new
version in rawhide.
-- Jan Pacner
On 01/21/2014 09:53 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
Hi,
Looks like yet another unannounced soname bump has occurred in
Rawhide, this time libdbi. If there was an announcement, I haven't
commit 588c2846f5dd6cc34ee19c4f5d48c16a77bfab6e
Author: Jesse Keating jkeat...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Sun Jul 26 08:52:26 2009 +
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Mass_Rebuild
perl-KinoSearch.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
commit a3b0855529b189fa3fce927e44b26d51317b5083
Author: Bill Nottingham nott...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Wed Nov 25 23:30:57 2009 +
Fix typo that causes a failure to update the common directory. (releng
#2781)
Makefile |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
commit 2ad1e209c36e91a10656f7df9ced468e330bdb0a
Author: Lubomir Rintel lkund...@fedoraproject.org
Date: Mon Apr 13 16:17:04 2009 +
- Upstream applied our PowerPC patch
.cvsignore |2 +-
perl-KinoSearch.spec |7 ---
sources |2 +-
3 files changed,
commit 2fe799fe2f02ad50608729f96dcb12df0301a34f
Author: Fedora Release Engineering rel-...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Date: Thu Jul 29 07:06:02 2010 +
dist-git conversion
.cvsignore = .gitignore |0
Makefile | 21 -
import.log |
commit eff1b259ab55eb1b6970f90613ae13d9d71f2733
Author: Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Dec 21 10:28:51 2010 +0100
add BR
perl-KinoSearch.spec |4 +++-
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-KinoSearch.spec b/perl-KinoSearch.spec
index
commit 7e278932d2872263ac7a25f122b4533ee6491e87
Author: Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk
Date: Sun Dec 12 16:11:03 2010 +0100
Filter useless provide
perl-KinoSearch.spec |2 ++
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-KinoSearch.spec b/perl-KinoSearch.spec
commit be9ced862029eaa246aab0beaedbda820859d2a2
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Wed Jun 20 22:55:14 2012 +0200
Perl 5.16 rebuild
perl-KinoSearch.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git a/perl-KinoSearch.spec b/perl-KinoSearch.spec
commit 0c79fffcb9e01e3989f5b4364ef9602276f8f09a
Author: Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us
Date: Fri Jul 20 11:26:26 2012 -0500
- Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_18_Mass_Rebuild
perl-KinoSearch.spec |5 -
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff
Am 23.01.2014 16:49, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate
repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default
That wont reduce the bugs reported against it...
On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate
repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default
That wont reduce the bugs reported against it...
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057063
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
Fixed In
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 03:49:17PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate
repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default
That wont reduce the bugs reported against it...
That's not necessarily bad. And by
On 01/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate
repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default
That wont reduce the bugs reported against it...
That's not necessarily bad. And by categorizing those
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a
separate
repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default
That wont reduce the bugs
On 23 January 2014 15:55, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
consider packages for removal because upstream does not jump around
and release at least once per year a new version is hmmm... i
must not say the words in public
Please stop posting to this thread.
Richard.
--
On 01/23/2014 04:27 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
So, one possibility would be to move
less-maintained packages to a separate
On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
That doesn't answer the question. You keep using the word we. Who
is we?
We in quality assurance if you want us to come up with an official
respond regarding inactively maintained packages I can put it on the
meeting agenda.
JBG
--
devel
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Obviously not you...
That doesn't answer the question. You keep using the word we. Who is we?
To me this is pure community resources leakage due to distribution
litterers with the mentality of packaging *everything*
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
That doesn't answer the question. You keep using the word we. Who is
we?
We in quality assurance if you want us to come up with an official respond
regarding inactively
On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If you have specific problems in any packages, feel free to point them
out.
Tracker bug [1] which fixes requirements on crontab as got approved by
the FPC [2].
Each of those ca 50 components contains a patch submitted by myself in
last July
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
By going through those reports you will notice how long it took for those
patches to be applied as well as see all those that have yet to be applied.
Yep but these are not
On 01/23/2014 05:41 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
By going through those reports you will notice how long it took
for those patches to be applied as well as see all those
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi!
On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
[…] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
else should be included? What different directions should we
consider? How will we make Fedora more awesome than ever in the
coming
On Jan 23, 2014, at 5:09 AM, David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com wrote:
And at what point does package become
unmaintained?
It seems self evident that it's at least insufficiently maintained, if it
doesn't meet the long description requirement to appear in software center. I
don't know how else
Hi
Cutting off inactively maintained packages being the only way we can deal
with that which in turn will reduce the size of the distribution to
something we actually can maintain or cover ( which probably is around 5k
components )
I don't agree with the premise at all and therefore
The lightweight tag 'perl-Set-Infinite-0.65-9.el7' was created pointing to:
47a8651... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Mass
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:09:25 +
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com escribió:
Hi,
As the subject suggests, Fedora 22 will require applications to have a
long description to be shown in the software center. We're introducing
this change so that
On 01/23/2014 06:09 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I don't agree with the premise at all and therefore unsurprising I
don't agree with this conclusion. In any case, I sincerely doubt you
will get even a single person other than yourself to agree with this
proposal but feel free to try filing a
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
Verbose: Yes, I really think the Fedora needs changes -- at some point
a few years ago we mostly continued to do things as they have always
been done (read: since Core and Extras merged), without thinking if
those
Hi
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Oh I see you apparently have no idea what we in the QA community do but
since you dont we dont handle this matters so there is no point for me to
file a ticket it would not lead anywhere
This seems pretty incoherent and I
The lightweight tag 'perl-Date-Simple-3.03-13.el7' was created pointing to:
138c886... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_19_Mass
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 05:48:00 -0500 (EST)
Kamil Paral kpa...@redhat.com wrote:
https://phab.qadevel-stg.cloud.fedoraproject.org/
The hosting does work over ssh, but I'm noticing some quirks
- the ssh urls are displayed incorrectly. This may be fixed in the
latest upstream (the
On 23/01/14 18:26, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
And I really wonder if Fedora.next is really backed by those community
contributors that are not involved in Fedora to deeply. One reason for
I wonder the same. However, I
Christopher Meng wrote:
But you can do this on copr IMO. Also update-testing is not just a place
for updates to have a break, you can let it satisfy the needs of testing
for unstable.
Well, that's kinda abusing updates-testing. IMHO, COPR is the much better
option until you have something
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056804
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|CLOSED |NEW
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
While github is nice for pulls and patches, it's not so great for
tickets and support needs.
github issues are very primitive last I looked and wouldn't meet Fedora
Infrastructures needs, IMHO.
I also object to the idea of hosting critical parts of our infrastructure on
The lightweight tag 'perl-DateTime-Set-0.33-2.el7' was created pointing to:
271802c... Bootstrap epel7 build
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:53:19 +0100
David Sommerseth dav...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
This might be a viewed as a fire torch, but there is, IMO, a major
regression in BlueZ 5 which is shipped in Fedora 20. It doesn't
support HSP/HFP headset profiles, which enables the microphone on
many
On 23/01/14 19:58, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:53:19 +0100
David Sommerseth dav...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
This might be a viewed as a fire torch, but there is, IMO, a major
regression in BlueZ 5 which is shipped in Fedora 20. It doesn't
support HSP/HFP headset
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056804
Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Summary of changes:
51dda63... Perl 5.18 rebuild (*)
567181b... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass (*)
f5efb4b... Fix requires.
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
Summary of changes:
f5efb4b... Fix requires. (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 09:54 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 23:18 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 01:01 -0600, Ian Pilcher wrote:
On 01/20/2014 11:48 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
The bug currently under discussion was caused by a change that came in
The lightweight tag 'perl-DateTime-Set-0.33-3.el7' was created pointing to:
5a29747... Bootstrap of epel7 done
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:03:02PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Okay, I'll bite (after thinking whether writing this mail is worth it):
Thanks. I hope that I can make you feel that it was.
The main reason for that: Fedora.next is a huge effort that seems to
make everything even more
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/23/2014 01:43 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Christopher Meng wrote:
But you can do this on copr IMO. Also update-testing is not just
a place for updates to have a break, you can let it satisfy the
needs of testing for unstable.
Well, that's
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:04 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 23/01/14 19:58, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:53:19 +0100
David Sommerseth dav...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
This might be a viewed as a fire torch, but there is, IMO, a major
regression in BlueZ 5 which is
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 14:17 -0600, Dan Williams wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:04 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 23/01/14 19:58, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:53:19 +0100
David Sommerseth dav...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi all,
This might be a viewed as a fire
On 23 January 2014 11:48, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the way the whole thing
seemed
to be a fait accompli such that there seemed to be little point doing
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2014 11:48, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the way the whole thing
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi!
On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
[…] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
else should be included? What different directions
Hi,
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:06:16AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
What I wanted to point out is that forced removal
of packages _is not_ going to guarantee more packager's attention to
the rest of the distribution.
Is there a reading comprehension problem in this thread? I don't recall
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi!
On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
[…] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
else should be included? What different
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:03 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi!
On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
[…] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
else should be included? What different directions should we
consider? How will we make Fedora more awesome than ever
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:03 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
wikipedia page. Further: kororaproject.org, fedorautils-installer and
similar project show that there are people that want to make Fedora
better. But they do their work outside of Fedora and RPM Fusion;
fixing the issues directly at
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor
hat - that we will lose the gold standard unified packaging standards and
single source and mechanism for installing packages.
I haven't seen anything from any
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor
hat - that we will lose the gold standard unified packaging standards and
single source
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:53 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
Hi all,
Hi,
This might be a viewed as a fire torch, but there is, IMO, a major
regression in BlueZ 5 which is shipped in Fedora 20.
I agree. But everyone probably already knows that.
It doesn't support
HSP/HFP headset profiles,
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:54 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor
hat - that we will lose the
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:04 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
Nope, several packages depends on the bluez-5.13-1 package.
Indeed. However I could probably live without gnome-bluetooth if
blueman were still available.
pulseaudio-module-bluetooth though. Would it work with Bluez4? Would
it need
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:57:38 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
The repos will still exist, but things will be different. At present,
the Fedora repos are the single unified official Fedora method for
deploying software on Fedora products. Any other method you can use to
deploy
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 01:57:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
If these plans go ahead, we will have multiple official/blessed methods
for deploying software on Fedora, potentially with different policies
about what software they can include and how that software should be
arranged, how
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:54 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
To be honest my concerns are
On 23 January 2014 14:14, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com
wrote:
My view of the matter was pretty much the same as Tom's and I was at
FLOCK.
The language at the sessions I attended was not one of We would
On Jan 23, 2014, at 2:56 PM, Brian J. Murrell br...@interlinx.bc.ca wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:53 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
As a side note, it also needs to be discussed how such a key feature of
the bluetooth stack could go unnoticed through QA, and how to avoid this
from
quoting simplified: is Tom Hughes, is me, is Josh. Restored
part of Tom's original context.
The actual spins (or whatever you want to call them) aren't something
that bother me at all, as they are to my mind largely irrelevant for
anybody other than a new user. When I bring a new
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
quoting simplified: is Tom Hughes, is me, is Josh. Restored
part of Tom's original context.
The actual spins (or whatever you want to call them) aren't something
that bother me at all, as they are to my mind
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 17:26 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are
technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos,
the RPM format, or yum/dnf, their plans - under a reasonable
interpretation of the discussions so
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 17:26 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are
technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos,
the RPM format, or
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 23:37 +0100, drago01 wrote:
No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a
vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in Fedora: our
*only* way. If you want to install the Fedora-y version of a particular
piece of software, you use
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 11:09 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com
wrote:
On 01/21/2014 06:01 PM, Kaleb KEITHLEY wrote:
Take, for example,
https://github.com/nfs-ganesha/nfs-ganesha/releases, where
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 23:37 +0100, drago01 wrote:
No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a
vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in Fedora: our
*only* way. If you want
On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 14:32 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:26:19 -0500
Dan Scott deni...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi:
A few hours ago I submitted requests to push perl-MARC-XML directly to
stable (by filling out the fedpkg update request with type=security
and
Am 23.01.2014 23:49, schrieb drago01:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 23.01.2014 23:37, schrieb drago01:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
wrote:
No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:41:52 +0400
Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote:
2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com:
Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get
it updated.
Don't know what others think,
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:58 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:04 +0100, David Sommerseth wrote:
Nope, several packages depends on the bluez-5.13-1 package.
Indeed. However I could probably live without gnome-bluetooth if
blueman were still available.
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:55 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.01.2014 16:49, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate
repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:43 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Christopher Meng wrote:
But you can do this on copr IMO. Also update-testing is not just a place
for updates to have a break, you can let it satisfy the needs of testing
for unstable.
Well, that's kinda abusing updates-testing.
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 05:07:16PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Also possibly correct. However, that doesn't preclude the repos as we
know them today from still existing, with still the same quality.
Server, desktop or embedded board, in today's Fedora it's all the same,
just with a different
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 02:16:23PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are
technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos,
the RPM format, or yum/dnf, their plans - under a reasonable
interpretation of the
1 - 100 of 248 matches
Mail list logo
