On Sat, 2020-11-14 at 19:11 -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 6:02 PM Markus Larsson
> wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a horrible experience. It seems circumventable by not
> > caching entire OUs though. They way sssd has been used where I have
> > be
On 14 November 2020 23:35:09 CET, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 5:11 PM Markus Larsson wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5 November 2020 13:58:54 CET, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> >
>> >sssd also breaks other LDAP setups, It's extreme
On 5 November 2020 13:58:54 CET, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>sssd also breaks other LDAP setups, It's extremely broken with larger
>LDAP setups because it insists on caching *ALL* of the LDAP, barring
>being able to filter to only a smaller set of the LDAP. But because so
>many LDAP setups
On 28 July 2020 17:07:14 CEST, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> To prevent brutally overwriting configuration, it would be best not to
>> replace
>> /etc/resolv.conf with a symlink on upgrade, ignoring user configuration, but
>> to do so on all new installs.
>>
>
>We can be smart here and replace the
On 7 July 2020 21:20:22 CEST, Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 09:03:19PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>> in https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2410 I proposed to name the dist-git
>> branch for Fedora Rawhide "rawhide" to clarify the purpose of that
>> branch. There was also some feedback
On 7 July 2020 20:26:52 CEST, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>On 7/7/20 7:56 AM, Michal Schorm wrote:
>> What I miss is the presence of nano in the default installations and images.
>> I strongly believe it was there just a few Fedora releases back, but
>> now, it's gone.
>
>Why do you think it's gone?
On 7 July 2020 18:31:32 CEST, Adam Williamson
wrote:
>On Tue, 2020-07-07 at 06:02 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 08:06:05PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 4:48 PM Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>> > > So if one has a spare partition to
On 5 July 2020 16:27:07 CEST, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Jul 2020 at 11:34, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jul 4, 2020 at 11:20 AM Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mi, 01.07.20 21:06, Neal Gompa (ngomp...@gmail.com) wrote:
>> >
>> > > The user-interactive portion of
On 3 July 2020 21:54:10 CEST, Adam Williamson
wrote:
>On Fri, 2020-07-03 at 21:35 +0200, Markus Larsson wrote:
>>
>> On 3 July 2020 21:30:26 CEST, Adam Williamson
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2020-06-25 at 13:18 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> > &
On 3 July 2020 21:30:26 CEST, Adam Williamson
wrote:
>On Thu, 2020-06-25 at 13:18 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/UseNanoByDefault
>>
>> == Summary ==
>>
>> Let's make Fedora more approachable, by having a default editor that
>> doesn't require specialist
On 1 July 2020 20:24:37 CEST, Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 06:54:02AM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> Making btrfs opt-in for F33 and (assuming the result go well) opt-out for F34
>> could be good option. I know technically it is already opt-in, but it's not
>>
On 30 June 2020 16:52:52 CEST, Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 08:43:34AM +0200, Markus Larsson wrote:
>> I have been using fedora since FC1 and there has been a few shifts. The
>> latest shift seems to be a strong desire to be just another Ubuntu. That's
>>
On 30 June 2020 11:10:03 CEST, Hans de Goede wrote:
>With livecd installs the livecd rootfs simply gets rsync-ed over, so
>anything which is in the livecd will also end up on the real system.
>
>There is a post-install configuration phase, so I guess we could
>disable things which are only
On 30 June 2020 02:04:18 CEST, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>Hi
>
>On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:40 PM Markus Larsson wrote:
>
>>
>> Thanks, I am well aware. That wasn't really the topic here.
>>
>
>If there is a repeated feeling that anyone has that a particular
On Mon, 2020-06-29 at 18:51 -0400, James Cassell wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020, at 6:43 PM, Markus S. wrote:
> > Why not Stratis?
>
> Stratis cannot be used to build the root filesystem. (It's been
> answered elsewhere in the thread.)
Are we sure?
On 29 June 2020 22:33:43 CEST, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>Hi
>
>On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:30 PM Markus Larsson wrote:
>
>>
>> No that doesn't help at all. It doesn't address what I wrote about many
>> seeing a problem for the first time when a change is suggested
On 29 June 2020 21:50:50 CEST, Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 07:46:53PM +0200, Markus Larsson wrote:
>> I think it would be beneficial to lift up the problems we're trying to
>> solve and then work towards possible solutions. I don't think it even
>> wo
On 29 June 2020 18:40:23 CEST, Ben Cotton wrote:
>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NetworkManager_keyfile_instead_of_ifcfg_rh
>
>== Summary ==
>Change the default settings plugin of NetworkManager so that new
>profiles will be created in keyfile format instead of ifcfg-rh format.
>
>==
On 29 June 2020 19:30:53 CEST, Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 07:18:00PM +0200, Markus Larsson wrote:
>> I think most of these things could be solved in better ways, I don't think
>> the "change request"-route is a good way to get the discussion st
On 29 June 2020 19:27:23 CEST, Samuel Sieb wrote:
>On 6/29/20 8:22 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> I will replace
>> "Fedora Change proposal: "
>>
>> with
>> " - Fedora Change proposal"
>>
>> As noted by Milan Crha, the existing format can result in threads that
>> are hard to distinguish when
On 29 June 2020 18:44:46 CEST, Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 06:30:11PM +0200, Markus Larsson wrote:
>> A spin feels like a commitment that involves gathering what other people
>> feel and need. While I'm cautious about some changes I tend to welcome
>>
On 29 June 2020 18:06:10 CEST, Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:09:08PM +0200, Markus Larsson wrote:
>> I was thinking more in the lines of a Remix.
>> Mainly to avoid spending time trying to get it blessed in the right
>> forums.
>
>Sure, you cou
On 29 June 2020 17:36:15 CEST, Armin Wehrfritz wrote:
>> It is not acceptable that there is a range of time that people would
>> literally not be able to mount their file systems because the kernel
>> module would not build.
>I would say that is a rather unlikely scenario to happen given how
On 29 June 2020 04:51:40 CEST, Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 10:32:34AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>> > Fine :) https://github.com/gwsw/less/issues/72
>> See Markus Larsson's comment on this above...
>
>Yeah, but as Michael points out, that doesn't really apply: it takes
On 29 June 2020 08:26:21 CEST, "John M. Harris Jr" wrote:
>On Sunday, June 28, 2020 5:37:08 PM MST Chris Adams wrote:
>> Once upon a time, John M. Harris Jr said:
>>
>> > XFS proved to be troublesome, and still is up to the latest of RHEL7. It's
>> > not uncommon to have to run xfs_repair on
On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 22:59 +, Stasiek Michalski wrote:
> > On 27 June 2020 17:55:09 CEST, Chris Murphy
> > >
> > The actual data I will never ever be able to share. I have ended my
> > time at that
> > particular company but even when I was there I was not permitted to
> > share such data.
On 27 June 2020 21:34:17 CEST, Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 10:25:01AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>> Jesus Christ, this actually got approved. It's time to fork Fedora. This is
>> really getting out of hand.
>
>
>As mentioned earlier, there's no need to "fork Fedora". It
On 27 June 2020 17:55:09 CEST, Chris Murphy wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 3:12 AM Markus Larsson wrote:
>
>> There's a difference between "can" and "should". I find this "
>> can do this are you less of a man than " tiresome.
>
>Yes, I a
On 27 June 2020 16:17:16 CEST, Solomon Peachy wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 27, 2020 at 09:39:36AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>> By that metric, Btrfs qualifies, as it's the default filesystem on
>> SUSE Linux Enterprise (and has been since 2014). SUSE has built
>
>One thing I'd like to see addressed.
>
On 27 June 2020 03:21:32 CEST, Chris Murphy wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 6:17 PM Peter Gordon wrote:
>Facebook since 2015. SUSE/openSUSE on the desktop and on servers since
>2014, by default. Are you suggesting they can do it and we can't?
There's a difference between "can" and "should".
On 26 June 2020 21:32:31 CEST, Igor Raits
wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA512
>>
>> Josef's server parks is a bit of a different use case than laptops as
>> other people has already pointed out.
>> If you want data on how it works in a desktop/laptop scenario talk to
>>
On 26 June 2020 21:04:00 CEST, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 8:45 pm, Markus Larsson
>wrote:
>> I strongly agree. BTRFS has been 5 years from production ready for
>> almost a decade now, please don't force this on users that doesn't
>> know any
On 26 June 2020 16:58:19 CEST, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>On 26.06.2020 16:42, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> For laptop and workstation installs of Fedora, we want to provide file
>> system features to users in a transparent fashion. We want to add new
>> features, while reducing the amount of
On 26 June 2020 20:08:53 CEST, Robert Relyea wrote:
>On 6/25/20 12:58 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>
>> Anyway, I find it hard to believe that serious developers are
>> unable/unwilling to set their own choice of EDITOR. A systemwide
>> default EDITOR=nano shouldn't cause them any real
On 26 June 2020 18:11:09 CEST, Adam Williamson
wrote:
>On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 11:58 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 09:24:44AM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
>> > And visudo/sudoedit, systemctl edit, bash ^X^E, mysql \e, virsh edit,
>> > less v, mutt, edquota, and a number of
On 26 June 2020 13:39:46 CEST, Sergio Belkin wrote:
>El vie., 26 jun. 2020 a las 8:10, Ankur Sinha ()
>escribió:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2020 23:38:13 +0200, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
>> > On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 21:21:37 +0200, Chris Adams wrote:
>> > > I'm not sure why you think end-users can't use a
On 1 May 2020 12:57:04 CEST, Mark Pearson wrote:
>Hi Markus,
>
>> From: Markus Larsson
>> Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 3:24 AM
>>
>> Hi Mark
>>
>> I have a question regarding the hardware lineup. The 3 machines mentioned
>> are very fine machines
On 30 April 2020 23:18:10 CEST, Mark Pearson wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Adam Williamson suggested I stick a note in the mailing list saying “hi” - so
>I’ve achieved that and officially upgraded myself from lurker! He also
>suggested I take questions from the community - and I’m very happy to do that.
On 18 April 2020 07:49:18 CEST, Leigh Scott wrote:
>> Well then please don't express your opinion then and keep it to yourself.
>
>It's a free country with free speech.
>If you don't like it don't read it!
You do realise that asking someone nicely is not the same as trying to take
away their
On 17 April 2020 21:00:55 CEST, "John M. Harris Jr"
wrote:
>On Friday, April 17, 2020 5:49:48 AM MST Leigh Scott wrote:
>> If there any plan to fix them?
>>
>> https://leigh123linux.fedorapeople.org/pub/screenshots/Screenshot%20from%202
>> 020-04-17%2013-32-22.png
>
>Wow, that does look
On 17 April 2020 15:17:50 CEST, Leigh Scott wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020, at 4:02 PM, Leigh Scott wrote:
>>
>> Hi Leigh,
>>
>> Elections for alternative wallpapers are currently open:
>> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/nuancier/elections/
>> Please vote for ones that you like.
>>
>> The
On 3 April 2020 19:18:57 CEST, Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Fri, Apr 03, 2020 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> For what it's worth, when I sent the list I included a reminder that
>> FOSS is always our strong preference where viable. It was a mistake to
>> not leave that in as a user
On 3 April 2020 10:23:58 CEST, Julen Landa Alustiza
wrote:
>
>But there is an initiative to federate git forges, and they plan to
>implement it on gitlab. Oh sorry, I meant on pagure :)
>
>https://forgefed.peers.community/
Oh that is quite the opportunity right there. The CPE team could get
On 2 November 2019 10:18:20 CET, Ankur Sinha wrote:
>On Sat, Nov 02, 2019 09:23:37 +0100, Markus Larsson wrote:
>> Not having this planned for and sorted before the change is sloppy.
>> Sadly this kind of attitude towards breakage in a production
>> environment seems
On 2 November 2019 09:12:21 CET, "Miro Hrončok" wrote:
>On 01. 11. 19 22:58, Tim Jackson wrote:
>> I realise this is not exactly news, but when replacing Ask Fedora,
>was there a
>> reason to break all the links on the entire web to existing
>solutions, rather
>> than just putting the new
On 23 September 2019 22:42:35 CEST, Ty Young wrote:
>
>On 9/23/19 3:16 PM, Markus Larsson wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23 September 2019 21:58:02 CEST, Ty Young
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >On 9/23/19 1:53 PM, Markus Larsson wrote:
>> >
On 23 September 2019 21:58:02 CEST, Ty Young wrote:
>
>On 9/23/19 1:53 PM, Markus Larsson wrote:
>> You already have a solution. Use the solution you have.
>
>
>Not a solution, it's a bandaid to a much larger problem.
You said it works fine in Arch. So use Arch
You already have a solution. Use the solution you have.
Fedora will not change to cater to this particular need.
Your opinions does not dictate what Fedora should/shouldn't do.
Your rants and all caps won't make anything change. Please try to deal with it
and move on from this rather dead
On 28 August 2019 13:34:54 CEST, "Dan Čermák"
wrote:
>Hi Danni,
>
>Danny Lee writes:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'm new to the devel list and fedora in general, but i was wondering
>if
>> these kind of back and forths between a few people is a frequent
>> occurrence. I came to Fedora to volunteer
I'm entirely fine with using discourse WHEN it has a functioning mailing list
mode.
I am not against discourse as such, I am against making changes that forces
everyone to consume the information in exactly the same way.
Ensure that mailing list mode works in a way that the ones who needs that
On 27 August 2019 16:29:28 CEST, "Gerald B. Cox" wrote:
>Thanks for the offer, but no thanks. My point is I don't like using
>email
>for forum discussions. The only reason I'm using it here is that I'm
>being
>forced to because "Development Discussions", "KDE Discussions" and
>"Packaging
On 27 August 2019 14:23:48 CEST, "Gerald B. Cox" wrote:
>I read all the comments and my response is this...
>First of all, there is no limit to the amount of emails that discourse
>will
>send out. That is a site parameter, and whomever supports it for
>Fedora
>needs to change it:
>
On 26 August 2019 17:28:03 CEST, "Gerald B. Cox" wrote:
>> On 26 August 2019 16:04:12 CEST, "Gerald B. Cox" wrote:
>>
>> The only reason to bring it up when replying to me is that you think
>it applies here. So
>> while you explicitly did not mention me there's not very many other
>ways it can
On 26 August 2019 16:04:12 CEST, "Gerald B. Cox" wrote:
>> On 26 August 2019 14:27:53 CEST, "Gerald B. Cox" wrote:
>>
>> Was it a lengthy conversation where you needed context from earlier
>posts?
>> Was is easily at hand right in your email client?
>>
>>
>> That's exactly my point. The
On 26 August 2019 14:27:53 CEST, "Gerald B. Cox" wrote:
>> It seems that the only thing in that link that has merit in regards
>to this list is that
>> discourse allow editing of messages that has been sent.
>>
>> As for the other things I disagree with pretty much everything. I
>don't think
you disagree with something that is stated, you need to in detail
>explain why, not just claim it is marketing and therefore invalid.
>
>On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 8:30 AM Markus Larsson
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 26 August 2019 13:25:52 CEST, "Gerald B. Cox"
>wrote:
&g
On 26 August 2019 13:25:52 CEST, "Gerald B. Cox" wrote:
>Here you go...
>https://meta.discourse.org/t/discourse-vs-email-mailing-lists/54298
Yes, I'm aware of their marketing. What I was after was data from someone that
doesn't have a horse in the race.
On 26 August 2019 12:56:42 CEST, "Gerald B. Cox" wrote:
What issues are you referring to? I don't believe it is reasonable to
believe everything would work exactly the same with Discourse - but
close enough should be sufficient. There are also myriad advantages to
Discourse.
Are these
58 matches
Mail list logo
