On 03/06/2014 09:24 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 03/06/2014 10:24 AM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Hi,
Will the subject packages be included in epel 7? I don't see them
listed on the web pages at
http://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/epel/beta/7/SRPMS/repoview/
tia
Someone will have to step up and
To my knowledge it was originally based on CentOS but it has since diverged.
It may be useful to mention that this same issue affects multiple Red Hat
derivatives (including RHEL 6.4 itself) and not just Amazon Linux. I
attempted the same process on Red Hat 6.4, Fedora 20, and Amazon Linux
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Tyler Brock tyler.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Here is a gist containing the output of attempting to compile the program
after installing the clang package on each platform I mentioned:
https://gist.github.com/TylerBrock/9771402
-Tyler
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component
in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like.
Thoughts?
On 25/03/14 03:00 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 17:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Saying that nobody wants this, it's madness, totally wacky,
almost all users are NOT going to put up with this is going rather
too
far. I think it's entirely worth the Desktop product making
Hi,
the Change Proposals Submission Deadline is coming soon, in two weeks [1]
- 2014-04-08. I'd like to ask especially WGs to work on the PRD/Tech
Specs break out into the Change Proposals - so the scope of release
can be evaluated and also for tracking purposes to knwo where we are
with Fedora
- Original Message -
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the
component
in question, and let maintainers handle it
On 03/24/2014 08:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component
in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like.
Thoughts?
Alternative idea -- maybe identify
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:07:35PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not ciritcal and
have an open merge review. Take those packages out of the repository.
Then revisit the list and formulate a plan on what to do with thoes (even if
the
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
For the record Fedora is not a bleeding edge distro anymore or first in
anything
maybe some people should consider the difference between leading and
bleeding
smart: leading if things are ready
dumb: bleeding for any price
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:07:35PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not ciritcal and
have an open merge review. Take those packages out of the repository.
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 6:59 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 05:07:35PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Alternative idea -- maybe identify all packages which are not
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:29:12AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I like the idea of actually revisiting the list and deciding what to do,
although pulling them out of the repository seems unnecessarily drastic.
This
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:29:12AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I like the idea of actually revisiting the list and deciding what to do,
although pulling them out of the repository seems unnecessarily drastic.
This
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:29:12AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I like the idea of actually revisiting the list and deciding what to do,
although pulling them out of the repository seems unnecessarily drastic.
This always winds up being the suggestion. Nobody actually does
anything about it.
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 3:07 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 07:18:58PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
It's a pity though that nobody in Fedora is actively working on getting
rid of legacy cruft. I really wished we had some people who oversee
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 09:24 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
I agree with Harald here. I think some people have always wanted it to be,
but Fedora never really has been chartered to be bleeding. To quote the
first foundation more fully:
First represents our commitment to innovation. We are not
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 07:07:43PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Who the hell wants to install Gnome to install MATE or KDE or XFCE?
Nobody, it's madness.
I don't think anyone wants to _have_ to, but I think it would be great if we
made it _easy to_ for people who _do_ have Gnome installed
Am 25.03.2014 15:22, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 03/25/2014 01:24 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
For the record Fedora is not a bleeding edge distro anymore or first in
anything
maybe some people should consider the difference
Everyone in this thread:
Please re-read our code of conduct (in the footer of every single
message).
Stop attacking people.
Please stick to constructive comments about ideas instead.
kevin
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Am 25.03.2014 15:54, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 03/25/2014 02:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
stop your destructive FUD, without users developers and contributors are
*meaningless*
and with throwing alpha-state software to the users and make them bleed all
the
time you will end in no
On Mon, 24 Mar 2014 16:59:34 +0100
Jan Horak jho...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/06/2014 09:24 PM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On 03/06/2014 10:24 AM, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
Hi,
Will the subject packages be included in epel 7? I don't see them
listed on the web pages at
On 03/25/2014 02:41 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
stop your destructive FUD, without users developers and contributors
are*meaningless*
and with throwing alpha-state software to the users and make them bleed all the
time you will end in no users at all
if you don't understand that, don't care for
On 03/25/2014 01:24 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 09:17:20PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
For the record Fedora is not a bleeding edge distro anymore or first in anything
maybe some people should consider the difference between leading and
bleeding
smart: leading if things
On Mon, 2014-03-24 at 15:20 -0400, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
WG meeting will be at 16:00 UTC, 17:00 Central Europe, 12:00 (noon)
Boston, 9:00 San Francisco, 1:00 Tokyo in #fedora-meeting on Freenode.
Today's meeting was canceled since there were only hhorak, drieden and
me present.
== Topic
* Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com [2014-03-24 11:41]:
On 03/22/2014 06:15 AM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Given the known large number of failures (OptionalJavadocs says 80% build
failure rate without saying that all are JavaDoc-related), we really
should do a mass rebuild to identify which
Hello,
So I've found a 'bug'. I have a group of developers who use
vagrant/libvirt to develop against. We use VNC since we are a
distributed team to connect to each other's desktops/workstations for
when we're at the 'huh this makes no sense'.
If libvirt/qemu-system-x86_64 starts before
On 03/25/2014 02:06 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Hello,
So I've found a 'bug'. I have a group of developers who use
vagrant/libvirt to develop against. We use VNC since we are a
distributed team to connect to each other's desktops/workstations for
when we're at the 'huh this makes no
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 12:06:31PM -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
Hello,
So I've found a 'bug'. I have a group of developers who use
vagrant/libvirt to develop against. We use VNC since we are a
distributed team to connect to each other's desktops/workstations for
when we're at the
On 03/25/2014 08:42 AM, Cole Robinson wrote:
On 03/24/2014 08:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
An alternative would be to reassign every open merge review to the component
in question, and let maintainers handle it as they like.
* Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com [2014-03-24 11:55]:
That's exactly the problem. We need to use a modified version of
java-1.8.0-openjdk with extra provides and adjusted priorities for
alternatives.
I have started a new java-1.8.0-openjdk build that should fix this:
Hi Fedora folks,
Since NetworkManager I suffer the same issue, release after release, ok,
it's not a Fedora issue
If I preserve the home partition and perform a newly installation, eg
f19-f20 NetworkManager configurations per user are lost. I think that
NM should respect the user settings
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 16:19 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote:
Hi Fedora folks,
Since NetworkManager I suffer the same issue, release after release, ok,
it's not a Fedora issue
If I preserve the home partition and perform a newly installation, eg
f19-f20 NetworkManager configurations per user
2014-03-25 16:20 GMT-03:00 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com:
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 16:19 -0300, Sergio Belkin wrote:
Hi Fedora folks,
Since NetworkManager I suffer the same issue, release after release, ok,
it's not a Fedora issue
If I preserve the home partition and perform a
Please keep java 1.7.0 around for some time. It would make moving easier if we
have to jump back for a build or two.
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team
- Original Message -
From: Omair Majid oma...@redhat.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
Adam Williamson wrote:
I think this is rather overstating the case. I certainly don't think
(and I already wrote) that it's enough to make everyone happy, but I
think it actually is what some people want. Quite a lot of people
install Ubuntu, for instance, and then add on GNOME or KDE or
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 21:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
I think this is rather overstating the case. I certainly don't think
(and I already wrote) that it's enough to make everyone happy, but I
think it actually is what some people want. Quite a lot of people
install
Adam Williamson wrote:
Um. Are you sure this is what is happening? Are you sure these aren't
set as systemwide connections?
NetworkManager 0.9 stores all connections systemwide, with permissions
optionally restricting them to specific users.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
Reposted from
http://fedoramagazine.org/five-things-in-fedora-this-week-2014-03-25/
Fedora is big project, and it’s hard to follow it all. This new feature
will highlight interesting happenings in five different areas every
week. It won’t be comprehensive news coverage — just quick summaries
with
Adam Williamson wrote:
*My* point is that you should make your rhetoric match your point. Two
or three of those quotations were direct rips from your previous emails
on the topic. If you don't actually mean those things, then I suggest
not writing them.
I said it's madness and totally wacky
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:41:19PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I said it's madness and totally wacky to NOT HAVE THE OPTION of
installing your desktop directly, before first installing GNOME. That is
also what I said almost all users are NOT going to put up with.
I haven't heard anyone
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:41:19PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I said it's madness and totally wacky to NOT HAVE THE OPTION of
installing your desktop directly, before first installing GNOME. That is
also what I
Here is a gist containing the output of attempting to compile the program
after installing the clang package on each platform I mentioned:
https://gist.github.com/TylerBrock/9771402
-Tyler
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 4:54 PM, Tyler Brock tyler.br...@gmail.com wrote:
To my knowledge it was
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 05:09:09PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I said it's madness and totally wacky to NOT HAVE THE OPTION of
installing your desktop directly, before first installing GNOME. That is
also what I said almost all users are NOT going to put up with.
I haven't heard anyone
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 18:24 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
In /etc/libvirt/qemu.conf you can set remote_display_port_{min,max}
to control the port range used
So that is awesome thank you.
Given that by default virt-manager/libvirt/qemu listens to
127.0.0.0:PORT as opposed to 0.0.0.0:PORT.
On 03/25/2014 05:43 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 18:24 +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
In /etc/libvirt/qemu.conf you can set remote_display_port_{min,max}
to control the port range used
So that is awesome thank you.
Given that by default
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 5:28 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 05:09:09PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I said it's madness and totally wacky to NOT HAVE THE OPTION of
installing your desktop directly, before first installing GNOME. That is
also what I
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 17:51 -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
There was a bug about that in the past, but we rejected changing the default
range. Libvirt and xen and qemu have all used the assumption of starting at
port 5900 for too long, we didn't want to deal with any potential fallout for
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting Wednesday at 18:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '-MM-DD HH:MM UTC'
Links to all tickets
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
703
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5620/bugzilla-3.4.14-2.el6
132
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12079/bip-0.8.9-1.el6
50
The following Fedora EPEL 5 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
703
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5630/bugzilla-3.2.10-5.el5
193
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-11560/fail2ban-0.8.10-4.el5
157
I also would like to see 1.7.0 stick around for awhile. Not
necessarily as the default, but at least available in the repos. As it
stands, it's difficult to use a modern Fedora on projects that are
still developing against JDK 1.6.
--
Christopher L Tubbs II
http://gravatar.com/ctubbsii
On Tue,
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Christopher ctubb...@apache.org wrote:
I also would like to see 1.7.0 stick around for awhile. Not
necessarily as the default, but at least available in the repos. As it
stands, it's difficult to use a modern Fedora on projects that are
still developing against
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
My point is that it must ALSO be possible to install the preferred desktop
directly, without installing GNOME first.
Exactly this.
Installing MATE from the spin is not exactly the same thing as
installing it from the
Hi,
I'm not using Gnote any more. I've moved to bijiben a while back. Would
any one like to take over the package as a primary maintainer? I don't
mind helping with updates from time to time since they're generally
quite easy, but since I don't use it at all I'm not the best choice for
a primary
Hi,
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/25/2014 08:42 AM, Cole Robinson wrote:
On 03/24/2014 08:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 04:41:29PM -0400, Cole Robinson wrote:
An alternative would be to reassign every open merge
perl-PDL has broken dependencies in the epel-7 tree:
On ppc64:
perl-PDL-2.7.0-2.el7.1.ppc64 requires perl(PDL::Slatec)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
- Original Message -
I would say this one https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/1351 is important
for us
as packagers. It makes me nervous/upset and sad altogether :-).
Awesome, well that’s on the list for 1.6 so that should be the next feature
release
of pip.
Cool, thanks a lot!
On Mar 25, 2014, at 2:59 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote:
- Original Message -
I would say this one https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/1351 is important
for us
as packagers. It makes me nervous/upset and sad altogether :-).
Awesome, well that’s on the list for 1.6 so
On Mar 25, 2014, at 8:52 AM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote:
Has this critical pip issue been addressed?
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-February/162518.html
Not that i’m aware of, although it’s actually an issue where distutils and
setuptools supports
two
60 matches
Mail list logo
