Re: [Test-Announce] Fedora 15 Beta RC1 Available Now!

On 04/08/2011 06:11 PM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Dennis Gilmore said: >> Chris its the teminology we have always used. >> each phase has a series of release candidates. > I thought they were called "test composes" or TC, not RC. I dont see any reason why we cant use TC if RC is caus

Re: What's this /run directory doing on my system and where does it come from?

On 04/01/2011 03:32 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> So, now I am a violent crack addicted rapist in your eyes. I am curious >> > what adjectives you think of next. > Well, PC prohibits to pronounce what I actually think of your works. I'm not sure what is the cause for this hatred you seem to have b

Re: Orphaning and retiring HAL

On 03/15/2011 12:42 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: > The things that depend on HAL in F15 seem to be: > > beldi-0:0.9.25-3.fc15.x86_64 > blueman-0:1.21-7.fc15.x86_64 > exaile-0:0.3.2.1-1.fc15.noarch > gnome-device-manager-libs-0:0.2-6.fc15.i686 > libconcord-0:0.23-2.fc15.i686 > lxsession-0:0.4.5-2.fc15.

Re: Services that can start by default policy feedback

On 02/27/2011 07:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Thu, 24 Feb 2011 12:23:59 + > "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >> Is it possible to get the rationality behind why those services which >> are permitted to be enabled by default as specific exceptions are >&

Re: Services that can start by default policy feedback

On 02/24/2011 05:26 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > that said, I do think it would make sense to offer some command to > enable all modules that were originally enabled, to get a working system > back if you broke it. Something in the sense of #630174. Hum You probably would need to implement som

Re: Services that can start by default policy feedback

On 02/24/2011 04:27 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Fedora is intended to be a functional distribution, not merely a toolbox > for SIGs to build functional distributions. > The project has already outgrown that purpose... It's just taking several people some time to let go and realize that a "Defau

Re: Services that can start by default policy feedback

On 02/24/2011 03:32 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > "May" as in "Are allowed to". It's always going to be the package > maintainers call in the end - we're not going to mandate it. > Hum not following you.. If ultimately packagers can override this then is this [1] being worked on? I thought the wh

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

On 02/24/2011 02:42 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > This link contains at least in my case incorrect unit files, which were > not applied. I received duplicates of bugs on my daemons. Proposed > patches in these bugzillas were wrong or incomplete. > There should be at least fixed links on web-page t

Re: Services that can start by default policy feedback

On 02/23/2011 06:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Greetings. > > FESCo is looking at the question of what services can start by default > (ie, you install something and it's set to start automatically next > time you boot up). > > We have a draft at: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Kevin/Default

Re: systemd fail-to-boot in rawhide

On 02/24/2011 01:43 AM, Ray Strode wrote: > Yea, fsck integration is something i've wanted to add to plymouth for > a long time. Yeah I might say it's rather needed The novice end user behaviour I saw when fsck was running in the background was *interesting* but not *surprising*.. The novic

Re: state of systemd in Fedora and services pledge

On 02/23/2011 03:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > Are you proposing that system V init scripts be banned for F15 and that we > do not allow upgrades from F14 to F15, only new installs? The backwards compatibility code would never have been added if that had ever been the intention now would it :)

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On 02/23/2011 03:33 PM, Josef Bacik wrote: > >> I'm actually not that worried about corruption as that is something that >> can be fixed once discovered. What creeps me out about btrfs at the moment >> is this: >> >> https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#Help.21__Btrfs_claims_I.27m_out_of_spa

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On 02/23/2011 01:26 AM, Josef Bacik wrote: > Various things, better data integrity to start with, and if you > install the yum-fs-snapshot you have the ability to rollback easily. So we got the above + What Lennart mentioned as "benefits" to the end user. Now if we continue to hang on to the outd

Re: systemd fail-to-boot in rawhide

On 02/21/2011 06:38 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > How do I even go about diagnosing this? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Systemd_problems JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Rawhide is annoying me!

On 02/07/2011 12:29 PM, David wrote: > "steam powered technology". This is pretty much what I was talking about > here. My 'real' machine, the one that I use for work, is modern within > 12 months. My 'made from taken out parts' machine is not. As I said I > can deal with that. > > But there are ot

Re: Rawhide is annoying me!

On 02/07/2011 01:18 AM, David wrote: > On 2/6/2011 5:41 PM, Christopher Aillon wrote: >> On 02/06/2011 01:38 PM, David wrote: >> >> >> Well... this is one of the things we want to get out of the GNOME 3 >> test days. If you aren't getting either a shell or fallback mode, we >> need to know what h

Re: Minutes/Summary from today's FESCo meeting (2011-02-02)

On 02/02/2011 10:14 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Also, something has to happen when the packages are installed... Hum not following here as in why is there a need for something to happen beside the packaging getting installed? I would think that the same thing would apply here all services off s

Re: Minutes/Summary from today's FESCo meeting (2011-02-02)

On 02/02/2011 06:53 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > * #544 List of services that may start by default (nirik, 18:12:54) >* LINK:http://fpaste.org/B18Y/(nirik, 18:15:55) >* ACTION: mjg59 and notting will work on the list and sort thru it for > next time. (nirik, 18:36:33) >* AGREED:

Re: Plan for tomorrow's FESCo meeting (2011-01-11)

On 01/11/2011 08:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > #topic #515 Investigate a "features" repo for stable releases > .fesco 515 I think this is a good direction to take for those that want more *Bleeding edge/Next release* stuff on a stable release as in having technology preview/feature repos. What I

Re: ABRT opt-out (was Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo meeting)

On 12/09/2010 09:59 AM, Jiri Moskovcak wrote: > Just a wild idea - ABRT detects the dupes even locally so we can make > ABRT to allow reporting the bug to bz only if it happened more then once > (or some other threshold):) Dont we loose hard to catch odd ball bugs if that's implemented? JBG -- d

Re: F15 Feature - convert as many service init files as possible to the native SystemD services

On 11/20/2010 11:46 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote: > Hi, > > I would like to help with scripts conversion. IMO the conversion > action should be coordinated. > > Comments, thoughts? > > Kind regards, > Michal I created this a while back so just take your pick from there fill it with a link to the n

Re: The new Update Acceptance Criteria are broken

On 11/23/2010 06:51 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > IMO, the real problem is not "backports" vs. "upgrading" to "fix bugs", > it's bugs not getting fixed in Fedora, for a variety of reasons. > > Therefore, I consider trying to apply any such simple "policy" to be > impossible and naive. Agreeable logi

Re: how to debug sound not working on macbook?

On 11/17/2010 09:09 PM, Marius Andreiana wrote: > Does anybody have suggestions how an end user could debug this? > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=580703 Had you tried this already [1] JBG 1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_sound_problems -- devel mailing list devel@list

Re: Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility

On 11/17/2010 08:58 PM, Magnus Glantz wrote: > But.. if we notice that it's broken, we can: > 1) Notify Adobe about it, so they -can- provide a fix. If they do not > know, they can't fix it.. The Adobe developers I e-mailed with did say > that they took the issue seriously, they want it to work on

Re: Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility

Dont we have an upstream mantra to uphold... Forward all Fedora users and otherwize that experience this to Adobe.. If we are going hack around this on our side where are we going to draw the line.. Are we planning to start hacking around every ill written code out there? JBG -- devel mailing

Re: Fedora 15, new and exciting plans

On 11/15/2010 09:27 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > Nobody has yet proven that LVM is a problem Well if you don't consider what Lennart mentioned [1] as a con against usage of lvm by default what pros do you see for having lvm by default for the novice end user? JBG 1. http://lists.fedoraproje

Re: Fedora 15, new and exciting plans

On 11/15/2010 05:30 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 03:03:28PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: >>> Strongly no to this. We need to have fewer choices during the installation >>> and more flexibility later. LVM provides this. >> So we

Re: Fedora 15, new and exciting plans

On 11/15/2010 02:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:53:03AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: >> > That's the essence of what's being discussed here >> > laptop/desktop/workstation installs default to ext4 and experienced >&g

Re: External HD fs was: Re: Fedora 15, new and exciting plans

On 11/15/2010 02:03 PM, Frank Murphy wrote: > On 15/11/10 13:54, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > >> there are very good reasons to use anything but DOS-FAT. For example >> F10 and F12 automount said filesystems with drastically different options >> by default (filename downcasing), using any other FS av

Re: Fedora 15, new and exciting plans

On 11/15/2010 11:29 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > This is a silly straw-man. No one[1] formats external HDs with > anything other than MS-DOS FAT. Fedora changing the default for the > main hard disk will not make any difference to this case of your > contrarian user giving away LVM-formatted U

Re: Fedora 15, new and exciting plans

On 11/15/2010 02:41 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: LVM's a fantasically useful tool in a wide range of cases, but I don't think that in the*typical* laptop/desktop install any of that functionality ever gets used. That's the essence of what's being discussed here laptop/desktop/workstation instal

Re: Fedora 15, new and exciting plans

On 11/12/2010 05:03 PM, clum...@redhat.com wrote: >> We have been spending a lot of time and thought trying to scheme >> about how to accelerate btrfs. At this point, it is actually fairly >> stable but still missing key things (most notably a fsck that can >> fix the file system!). >> >> Last week

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

On 11/09/2010 09:40 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 21:31 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: >> On 11/09/2010 07:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> In practice, we run very few metrics on Bugzilla >> This is the problem we should be g

Re: Why should I ever bother filing another bug?

On 11/09/2010 07:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > In practice, we run very few metrics on Bugzilla This is the problem we should be gather all kinds of bug metrics and general component activity from bugzilla. This is very vital information for QA group to harvest and have. ( without it we cant f

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On 11/06/2010 02:11 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 11/05/2010 10:06 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote: >> >>> On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a >>> maintainer on a component they have reported against I not only ask t

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On 11/06/2010 01:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: >> On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote: >> >>> ABRT >>> It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are >>> worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports >> Parts of th

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On 11/05/2010 07:47 AM, Frank Murphy wrote: > On 05/11/10 07:27, Alexander Kurtakov wrote: > >> So what if I got 100 bug reports and didn't answered 10 bugs you will want to >> orphan my package? >> Welcome to the world without gtk, openjdk, eclipse-platform, kdelibs > I think maybe it is mea

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On 11/04/2010 10:22 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote: > 2- ABRT should keep track of unresponsive users. If a user has an > outstanding "needinfo?" flag for the bugs sent through ABRT, he > shouldn't be able to send a new bug report through ABRT for my > packages. > Since this has turned into general pony

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On 11/04/2010 07:47 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote: > If someone else cares and retests, they ideally > would be able to reopen it, but Bugzilla currently doesn't allow that Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but as I recall we changed that deliberately. ( should be a discussion about this in this li

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On 11/04/2010 04:24 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 04:10:31PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: >> If the maintainer is not responding to reports or not acting as the link >> to upstream ( that if he's not upstream himself ) for the compon

Re: bugzilla bugzappers?

On 11/04/2010 01:21 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 04.11.2010, 13:28 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt: >> On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 21:41:22 +0100, Bert wrote: >>> So can someone please explain my why I should continue to try to >>> improve Fedora by reporting bugs ? >> Glad you ask this.

Re: Questions about Fusion Linux

On 10/19/2010 03:29 PM, TK009 wrote: > I got an email this morning from the Fusion Linux group. In it, the > group lead suggested this to one of his users - > > "Fusion 14 betais based on Fedora 14 which isn't released yet so there > could be number of bugs that haven't been fixed yet. I suggest

Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)

On 09/15/2010 12:01 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM, James Laska wrote: >> Much like we introduced and communicated btrfs support in F-11, should >> we communicate systemd as a technology preview in Fedora 14? > I would agree with this. I certainly plan to run F14 with

Re: Meeting summary/minutes from today's FESCo meeting (2010-09-14)

On 09/14/2010 10:01 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: >* ACTION: : will defer systemd to f15 release to give more time to fix > small issues and docs and general polish. (nirik, 21:12:43) What are you kidding me! Gnome-shell better be sparkling out of aunt Tilly pony eyes before we ship it.. JB

Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)

On 08/29/2010 05:29 AM, Mike McGrath wrote: > Beats me, but not to releng, the team who's ability you were calling into > question. Could you care to explain to me how I'm was calling releng ability into question? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.

Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)

On 08/28/2010 09:40 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > I know it's not a comfortable thing to deal with, I know I'm not super > happy about it but Fedora exists almost entirely because RH wills it to. > If RH decided Fedora should go away, it would. You could fork, have a > mess of a time getting infrast

Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)

On 08/28/2010 09:40 PM, Mike McGrath wrote: > Dennis is his backup (RH employee) and if need be I know jwb (not redhat > employee) is more than capable of handling these problems. Believe it or > not, we do consider these things and cross train. If you have the > several hours per week availabl

Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)

On 08/28/2010 08:28 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > What are you afraid of? I think my concerns have been very clear. > Fedora is not a country, you don't have to move to get away. All the code > is free. Most the code isn't even ours, it belongs to the upstreams. If > somebody were to buy RHT,

Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)

On 08/28/2010 06:42 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > This is utter bullshit. It assumes that anybody who works in the corporate > world and happens to have an interest in Fedora is somehow going to be a > puppet for the Smokey backroom corporate overlords and their evil designs > upon Fedora. It's l

Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)

On 08/28/2010 05:31 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 17:16:12 +, > "\"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\"" wrote: >> It's not far from reality that Red Hat will get bought by a company >> like Oracle so what's preventing us

Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)

On 08/27/2010 10:47 PM, Bob Arendt wrote: Actually I think Fedora*should* articulate who the users are, basically design and express who and what Fedora is designed for. If you poll "users" - people who download Fedora - and cater to their stated desires for the sake of market share, then mark

Re: If you cannot boot after installing systemd v8...

On 08/26/2010 12:05 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote: > FYI, Fedora 14 Alpha testers: > > Please read the following, since this update issue will hit you after > you install Fedora 14 Alpha and then update. > > We probably need to spread this news out wider and add to the Common > F14 bugs page And emph

Re: [HEADS-UP] adding missing systemd links in rawhide/F14 upgrades

On 08/11/2010 10:32 AM, Rudolf Kastl wrote: > 2010/8/11 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson": >> On 08/11/2010 09:02 AM, Rudolf Kastl wrote: >> >> instead of trying to workaround the problem i actually tried to check >> if a clean install of latest package wo

Re: [HEADS-UP] adding missing systemd links in rawhide/F14 upgrades

On 08/11/2010 09:02 AM, Rudolf Kastl wrote: instead of trying to workaround the problem i actually tried to check if a clean install of latest package would work properly with this result: Installing : systemd-units-5-2.fc15.x86_64 This is far from being the latest packages ( the latest b

Re: [HEADS-UP] adding missing systemd links in rawhide/F14 upgrades

On 08/04/2010 06:05 PM, Frank Murphy wrote: > This from an F13.x86> F14-Rawhide> F14-Branched Guest > (Host if F13.x86_64) > > Some still from the video: > > http://www.zimagez.com/zimage/screenshot-040810-185144.php > > http://www.zimagez.com/zimage/screenshot-040810-185343.php > > http://www.

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

On 07/22/2010 06:37 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > Personally, speaking as a person_and_ a sysadmin, it would be > worthwhile to have a big freakin button somewhere that allowed me to > disable all native systemd config files and let me run sysinit style > files when the situation demands... ie crap

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

On 07/21/2010 04:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: Would it be reasonable to extend chkconfig so that it can know which services it can no longer control and provide a pointer blurb to admins when they try to use chkconfig with those services in the F14 timeframe. The reality is any change to scriptabl

Re: [HEADS-UP] systemd for F14 - the next steps

On 07/21/2010 03:24 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: I have a few requests for things to add to that page :-) * What replaces chkconfig systemd-install Now first the gotcha then I'll provide chkconfig replacement example. Admins will need to know that they have to use chkconfig for services tha

Re: Reasons for hall monitoring

On 05/08/2010 02:40 AM, John Poelstra wrote: > Matěj Cepl said the following on 05/07/2010 04:41 PM Pacific Time: > >> More and more I was writing this email, more and more I tend to agree >> with somebody today, who wrote that they key problem of the Fedora >> community is unclear vision about

Re: Reasons for hall monitoring

Burying the underlying issue yet again under the carpet or "Hall monitoring" it wont resolve it neither will a shouting contest between people do. People will need leave all emotion behind and look neutrally at each other point of view and listen to each other constructive criticism to graduall

Re: Res: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo

On 05/04/2010 06:04 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Peter Jones wrote: Wait just a second - you're arguing that requiring testing doesn't work because nobody tested the KDE spin within 8 days. You might want to rethink this position. Why? I don't see the contradiction. If nobody tests things,

Re: Res: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo

On 05/04/2010 01:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: You must all realize that the ratio of bureaucracy/process burden and quality of maintainers/packagers go hand in hand. The better the maintainers/packagers/components are less bureaucracy/process burden

Re: Res: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo

On 05/03/2010 10:30 PM, Jesse Keating wrote: > The point here is that Kevin isn't perfect. As such, he can make > mistakes, just like all of us. By asking for a couple karma nods from > different people, we increase the chance of catching some of those > mistakes. Since the delay exists anyway,

Re: Postgresql namespace

Is there any reason why we aren't naming this as closed to upstream as possible? http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/8.4/fedora/fedora-12-x86_64/ BTW What's the difference between upstream packages and the

<    5   6   7   8   9   10