>> Even if it eventually succeeds crash-landing it in Fedora while half
>> the security and management tools are lacking is a great way for the
>> distribution to get an awful reputation, while others will rip the
>> fruits of this work some years later.
>I'm entirely puzzled about how you think
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Petr Stodulka wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
> I am looking at the #1357438 BZ about broken links to "How to*" doc files and
> I am thinking,
> about the best solution of this. Problem is with using of %doc macro, which
> moves/copies
> doc files to specific directories of
Hello,I received two spam emails, one in users and one in devs. Both
are exactly the same.If someone can take care of them, I would be
grateful.
Thanks,Sylvia
On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 10:41 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 07/17/2017 10:34 AM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> > Do the list admins have an
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 8:37 PM, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
A blocker ought to be a blocker, no matter when it is discovered and
how
long it takes to fix.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1405539
It violates a release criterion (IMO), but it's been broken forever and
fixing it would be
Hi Todd,
thanks for feedback.
On 17.7.2017 20:57, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Hi Petr,
>
> Petr Stodulka wrote:
>>
>> Hi folks, I am looking at the #1357438 BZ about broken links to "How to*"
>> doc files and I am thinking, about the best solution of this. Problem is
>> with using of %doc macro, wh
On 7/17/2017 10:22 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:13:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
I strongly dispute the idea that Fedora must be tied to a particular
packaging technology.
The particular packaging technology is what ensures that we have a coh
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 02:01 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > Firstly, it may occur if it is agreed to be very unlikely that the bug
> > can possibly be fixed within a reasonable time frame for the release to
> > be made. For instance, fixing the bug may be a task of such technical
>
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 03:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> IMHO, this is a slippery slope eroding the quality of Fedora just because
> some people are not willing to wait a week longer for their "fix". The
> argument that this steals time from the next cycle is also invalid, because
> the obvio
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:48:09PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> === Exceptional cases ===
>
> Generally speaking, any bug that is agreed to be a violation of the
> [[Fedora Release Criteria|release criteria]] should be accepted as a
> blocker bug for the next relevant milestone release.
>
> Ho
Adam Williamson wrote:
> So, during the blocker review process in the last few cycles, we have
> several times come up against the unfortunate situation that a bug that
> in the usual course of events would block a release is discovered
> extremely late - say the day before the go/no-go meeting - a
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Use of RPM is merely a particular historical choice of delivery mechanism,
> and certainly not the defining characteristic of what it means to be the
> Fedora distribution. For users consuming the Fedora desktop, the fact that
> they're using RPM is hidden away as an imp
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 02:58:52AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > Yeah, that last point is the real difficult issue, it forces you to keep
> > the RPM in parallel with the flatpak, unless we were to either change
> > RPM (yuk), or find a way to auto-generate a RPM wrappe
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> However we end up doing it, I think it'd be better if we could do it
> without you, whatever it is you do for Fedora. We, and certainly I, don't
> want this level of toxicity and utter malfeasance on a mailing-list that
> I'm supposed to be subscribed to.
>
> Please, do lea
Jiří Eischmann wrote:
> I agree with Matt here, Fedora Project's mission (neither the old one,
> nor the new draft) doesn't say anything about RPM. RPM is just means to
> an end, not the goal. And I don't know why Fedora should be tied to RPM
> forever. Really successful brands don't die when their
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Yeah, that last point is the real difficult issue, it forces you to keep
> the RPM in parallel with the flatpak, unless we were to either change
> RPM (yuk), or find a way to auto-generate a RPM wrapper around the flatpak
> to pull in it contents.
You need to keep the R
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> I had to write a script to read the dnf planned transaction log and finish
> installing and erasing remaining packages, and manually run any %posttrans
> scripts.
Such a dnf-complete-transaction script would be a nice addition to DNF.
Kevin Kofler
_
Michael Stahl wrote:
> no, the worst case is this:
>
> https://www.happyassassin.net/2016/10/04/x-crash-during-fedora-update-when-system-has-hybrid-graphics-and-systemd-udev-is-in-update/
That was a one-time bug that is already fixed. It also affected only systems
with hybrid graphics, lots of s
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> It's like you didn't listen to the arguments when this feature was
> implemented in Fedora years ago, and continue not to. You're wrong, and
> the fact that you keep insisting you're not is frankly intellectual
> dishonesty.
I am using online updates of RPMs all the time. H
Hi, folks!
So, during the blocker review process in the last few cycles, we have
several times come up against the unfortunate situation that a bug that
in the usual course of events would block a release is discovered
extremely late - say the day before the go/no-go meeting - and at least
some fo
Dusty Mabe wrote:
> I'm sure some people are aware but for those who aren't it is worth noting
> that we have an entire edition (atomic host) that is built around atomic
> updates for rpm content.
Atomic updates for "rpm content", but not for actual RPMs, unfortunately,
only for blobs composed on
Daniel Walsh wrote:
> I read this like containers are something new and interesting.
Nope, we are saying they are something new and uninteresting. ;-)
> Upstream docker project started this effort a few years ago and the world
> has latched onto it. Fedora needs to adjust and become great at
> c
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:02:42PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> I think that's probably worthwhile. The way I see it, we have a
> large number of users who prefer an entirely RPM-based system,
> although most users would be better off with an Atomic system and
> just layering a few RPMs on top
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 21:29 +0200, Lars Seipel wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:26:04PM -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> > But we have not been. Very few applications actually have SELinux
> > profiles,
> > and they are all maintained downstream rather than upstream. The
> > volume of
> > er
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
The problem is that the RPMs that go into the Flatpaks are not FHS-
compliant, so the RPMs will have to carry some conditionals and be
built
twice.
Yes, that is true. Some apps will have to be patched for Flatpak, and
building them as bot
Dear all,
You are kindly invited to the meeting:
Modularity Office Hours on 2017-07-18 from 10:00:00 to 11:00:00 US/Eastern
At https://meet.jit.si/fedora-modularity
The meeting will be about:
This is where you ask the Fedora Modularity Team questions (and we try to
answer them)!
Join us o
On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 17:51 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> > There's a
> > burning the ships sort of appeal in that approach,
>
> Actually, the correct analogy would be "burning platform" (and we all
> know how well that ended).
I almost certainly should avoid responding to such an
On Sat, 2017-07-15 at 13:43 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 02:56:34PM -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> > This is only a problem because Flatpak is currently following the
> > IMO
> > rather busted old Android model. With very few, if any, exceptions,
> > I
> > think a much
On 07/17/2017 03:14 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 17.07.2017 19:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:03:13PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 16.07.2017 12:54, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:59:37PM +000
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 17.07.2017 19:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:03:13PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
>>> On 16.07.2017 12:54, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:59:37PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> On Fr
Hi Petr,
Petr Stodulka wrote:
Hi folks,
I am looking at the #1357438 BZ about broken links to "How to*" doc files and I am thinking,
about the best solution of this. Problem is with using of %doc macro, which moves/copies
doc files to specific directories of each subpackage. However the Make
On 17.07.2017 19:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:03:13PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
>> On 16.07.2017 12:54, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:59:37PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:44:18AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote
Hi folks,
I am looking at the #1357438 BZ about broken links to "How to*" doc files and I
am thinking,
about the best solution of this. Problem is with using of %doc macro, which
moves/copies
doc files to specific directories of each subpackage. However the Makefile
expects that will
be used ju
On 07/14/2017 05:04 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 14 July 2017 at 20:28, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> Is this really more reliable than using dnf (for graphical packages
>> like Recepies and Builder)?
>
> It's hugely more reliable. You can't actually trust rpm to do anything
> atomically, and this
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:48:46AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 05:17:44PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:42:15PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > > > On Mo
I have received a few on the development mailing list.
On 17 Jul 2017 6:48 pm, wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>
>> I haven't seen any spam on the devel list. I even checked my spam
>> folder. Maybe the messages are being sent directly to you, not the list?
>>
>
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:41 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
I haven't seen any spam on the devel list. I even checked my spam
folder. Maybe the messages are being sent directly to you, not the
list?
They're being sent to 389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org (whatever that
is). I can see in the mail
"We" in this case is me, my Red Hat colleagues working on GNOME, Fedora
Workstation, upstream developers involved in Fedora Workstation and upstream
developers who are not involved in Fedora, usually because of answers like this.
I'm also fine with you leaving. In fact, that's probably a request
On 17 July 2017 at 13:34, wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do the list admins have any plans to combat the spammers that are spoofing
> Kevin Fenzi to bypass the moderation queue?
>
We are aware of this and have been dealing with whack-a-mole in trying
to fix it.
> Could we please at least hold his messages fo
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 10:41:13AM -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> I haven't seen any spam on the devel list. I even checked my spam folder.
> Maybe the messages are being sent directly to you, not the list?
I am getting those messages as well :)
--
Athos Ribeiro
http://www.ime.usp.br/~athoscr
___
On 07/17/2017 10:34 AM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
Do the list admins have any plans to combat the spammers that are
spoofing Kevin Fenzi to bypass the moderation queue?
Could we please at least hold his messages for moderation? Maybe he
could manually approve his own messages, as annoying as
Hi,
Do the list admins have any plans to combat the spammers that are
spoofing Kevin Fenzi to bypass the moderation queue?
Could we please at least hold his messages for moderation? Maybe he
could manually approve his own messages, as annoying as that would be.
Though I don't know what we wo
- Original Message -
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:13:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > I strongly dispute the idea that Fedora must be tied to a particular
> > > packaging technology.
> >
> > The particular packaging technology is what ensures that we have a
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:03:13PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 16.07.2017 12:54, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:59:37PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> >> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:44:18AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> >>>
> >>> If RPMs of the graphical application
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:13:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
> > I strongly dispute the idea that Fedora must be tied to a particular
> > packaging technology.
>
> The particular packaging technology is what ensures that we have a coherent,
> integrated system. Flatpaks b
- Original Message -
> > There's a
> > burning the ships sort of appeal in that approach,
>
> Actually, the correct analogy would be "burning platform" (and we all know
> how well that ended).
>
> Flatpacks are an unproven tech that can still crash and burn in the market.
>
> Even if
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 11:31:54 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
> No one is talking about "ripping RPM out of Fedora".
I'm glad to hear it. I have a tendency to hyperbole in this noisy
world.
On 07/10/2017 09:31 PM, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> F29: packagers (of graphical applications) must create Flatpa
On 17 July 2017 at 15:11, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> the whole operating system and no longer can compare the installed
>> packages of two machines with a single command
> Yeah, I agree that it's important to have a unified management
> interface like this.
I also agree, but I don't think the answe
> There's a
> burning the ships sort of appeal in that approach,
Actually, the correct analogy would be "burning platform" (and we all know how
well that ended).
Flatpacks are an unproven tech that can still crash and burn in the market.
Even if it eventually succeeds crash-landing it in Fedor
On 17 July 2017 at 10:10, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 01:17:25PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> These sorts of deep brand issues are why most companies start new
>> brands which might look like they are competing with their primary
>> one. It can showcase some new identi
stan píše v Po 17. 07. 2017 v 08:02 -0700:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:10:16 -0400
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> > We could look at starting a new brand. But, I don't think your
> > Harley-Davidson analogy applies, because we're not using this to
> > break
> > into a new market. We're using this to ma
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 08:02:10AM -0700, stan wrote:
> making an all or nothing bet on a new technology. Once rpm is ripped
> out of fedora, it won't be coming back, in practical terms. There's a
> burning the ships sort of appeal in that approach, but it isn't the
> most prudent path from an ex
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 12:45:27 +0200
Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 16.07.2017 14:10, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Debarshi Ray wrote:
> >> How about reliable online updates of running applications as a
> >> benefit?
> >
> > Upgrading RPM applications online just works. I do it all the time.
> > The KDE
On 07/15/2017 01:43 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 02:56:34PM -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
This is only a problem because Flatpak is currently following the IMO
rather busted old Android model. With very few, if any, exceptions, I
think a much better model would be for an a
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 10:10:16 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
> We could look at starting a new brand. But, I don't think your
> Harley-Davidson analogy applies, because we're not using this to break
> into a new market. We're using this to make sure that we remain
> relevant as the market we are in c
I hope someone can take mldonkey, as I still remember the days patching it
to pass the compiler.
--
Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng
http://cicku.me
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@li
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 04:31:33PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
> users which had chosen Fedora because of a single package manager
> working without any GUI will dispute with their feet if it goes in a
> direction where you no longer can upgrade *everything* with "dnf
> distro-sync", no longer can
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 01:17:25PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> These sorts of deep brand issues are why most companies start new
> brands which might look like they are competing with their primary
> one. It can showcase some new identity and get people to see it as
> useful or better than
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:56:26AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:04:37PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On 14 July 2017 at 20:28, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> > > Is this really more reliable than using dnf (for graphical packages
> > > like Recepies and Builder)?
> >
On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 19:20 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote:
> I haven't been using these packages for awhile and better for someone
> to take them that can adequately test.
I took clamav , co-maintianer are more than welcome ,I took it because
I use it sometimes to detect virus on microsoft systems an
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 6:53 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:45:27PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
>> On 16.07.2017 14:10, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> > Debarshi Ray wrote:
>> >> How about reliable online updates of running applications as a
>> >> benefit?
>> >
>> > Upgrading R
On Monday, July 17, 2017 11:53:35 Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> I had this kind of fun problem upgrading F25 -> F26. I was lazy and didn't
> want to reboot so I was just running dnf distro-sync in a gnome-terminal
> session. I've upgrade this way since F6 and mostly it just works, but
> forgot to no
- Original Message -
>
>
> Am 17.07.2017 um 12:16 schrieb Bastien Nocera:
> > It's like you didn't listen to the arguments when this feature was
> > implemented in Fedora years ago, and continue not to.
> > You're wrong, and the fact that you keep insisting you're not is frankly
> > int
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:45:27PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 16.07.2017 14:10, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Debarshi Ray wrote:
> >> How about reliable online updates of running applications as a
> >> benefit?
> >
> > Upgrading RPM applications online just works. I do it all the time. The KDE
>
On 16.07.2017 14:10, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Debarshi Ray wrote:
>> How about reliable online updates of running applications as a
>> benefit?
>
> Upgrading RPM applications online just works. I do it all the time. The KDE
> tools do not even implement offline updates (and IMHO that's a good thing)
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:40 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2017-07-13 at 10:37 +0200, Michal Schorm wrote:
> >> A new version of MariaDB 10.2-4 is out, it now has fixed symlinks and
> >> Provides.
> >
> > I'm afraid even this build doesn't entirely work right, for s
It's like you didn't listen to the arguments when this feature was implemented
in Fedora years ago, and continue not to.
You're wrong, and the fact that you keep insisting you're not is frankly
intellectual dishonesty.
If you really believe you're correct, try to kill your X server in the middle
On 16.07.2017 12:54, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:59:37PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:44:18AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> If RPMs of the graphical application work fine now, what on earth is
>>> the point of forcing packagers to ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 2017-07-16 at 13:27 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 02:17:47PM +0200, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > = Proposed Self Contained Change: Unified database for DNF =
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Unifi
Why Customers Need Third Party Technical Support for QuickBooks?
The common goal why people choose for Third Party Quickbooks Technical Support
Company is the efficient service provided by them, one can access their
services 24/7 and because of high competition all of the third parties.
QuickBo
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 05:17:44PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:42:15PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 00:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > > Jaroslav Reznik wr
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 01:29:01PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > If I look at this from my POV as the upstream maintainer of a graphical
> > application wishing to make it widely available to users of many distros.
> > The question is whether it is beneficial for me to
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> P.S. On a completely unrelated note... and just brainstorming... so
> long as our Flatpaks are built from RPMs, there's probably no great
> technical reason to get rid of the RPMs, even if Flatpak becomes the
> primary/default distribution mechanism. We mainly just need a
Colin Walters wrote:
> First, RPMs (as we use them) are designed for a single merged /usr,
> and their %post scripts run with full CAP_SYS_ADMIN privileges.
> This means if one wants to install any 3rd party apps, any sandboxing
> at runtime is...well, useful, but there's a rather gaping hole if th
您好, 李先生
关于fedora打包,还真有些问题需要请教您:
1. 如何给官方软件打包,像fedora26刚发布的发行版,官方仓库有好多包不全。请问我可以帮忙打包这些(比如:gtkmm30-devel)吗?
2. 用koji打包后,是不是只要创建Review Request就差不多了?
At 2017-07-17 15:23:04, "Robin Lee" wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:01 PM, 方俊伟 wrote:
Dear,
Hello, everybody. My name is Jun
Hi, Robin
I have already do that,done that.
Thanks a lot.
多谢!!!
At 2017-07-17 15:23:04, "Robin Lee" wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:01 PM, 方俊伟 wrote:
Dear,
Hello, everybody. My name is Junwei Fang, a developer of C++. I am from
China
I worked for a little comp
On su, 16 heinä 2017, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Joonas Sarajärvi wrote:
Just to check if my experience is still up to date, I made a fresh
Fedora 25 KDE installation into a VM, booted it up and logged in. Then
in the Plasma desktop session I updated the system through the
notification that tells me th
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:01 PM, 方俊伟 wrote:
> Dear,
>Hello, everybody. My name is Junwei Fang, a developer of C++. I am
> from China
> I worked for a little company, my work is about VoIP. I use fedora
> workstation as my default OS,
> i worked with gnome desktop for more than 5 years. I
Dear,
Hello, everybody. My name is Junwei Fang, a developer of C++. I am from
China
I worked for a little company, my work is about VoIP. I use fedora workstation
as my default OS,
i worked with gnome desktop for more than 5 years. I hope to join fedora
project and I'm a newer,
I'm seekin
78 matches
Mail list logo