On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:25:31PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/23/2013 11:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
you claimed more than once that they are a less woth part of the community
because they get paid for their work and are not completly free in their
doings
Yes not because they
Dne 22.7.2013 18:29, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson napsal(a):
As for cruft in the spec files, why not bring a proposal to the FPC to
update the packaging guidelines stating that Fedora spec files must
not contain RHEL/EPEL macros? Then the git branches would be
maintained separately and the spec files
On 07/22/2013 03:53 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2013 06:13 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
But it's not an objective of Fedora to have long-term-stable releases
suitable for running servers!
Says who?
That is because Fedora has a 13 month support policy
On 07/23/2013 02:36 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 07/22/2013 03:53 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2013 06:13 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
But it's not an objective of Fedora to have long-term-stable releases
suitable for running servers!
Says who?
That is because Fedora has a 13
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:37:57PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Not the current one no but if people are willing to maintain a
longer release cycle there is nothing preventing them from doing so.
The only thing is that it's _really hard_ and almost certainly requires
full-time workers to
On 07/23/2013 02:59 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:37:57PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Not the current one no but if people are willing to maintain a
longer release cycle there is nothing preventing them from doing so.
The only thing is that it's _really hard_ and
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:51:43PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
If people are interested in stepping up to make this happen and have a
long-term sustainable plan, that would be awesome.
Come to think of it Red Hat itself is not willing to invest in
extended release cycle of Fedora even
On 07/23/2013 05:13 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:51:43PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
If people are interested in stepping up to make this happen and have a
long-term sustainable plan, that would be awesome.
Come to think of it Red Hat itself is not willing to
Am 23.07.2013 19:25, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
And fundamentally again I think you are wrong we are better off in the long
term standing on our own two feets then
working with downstream or be dependant on RH on way or another or some other
sponsor.
So we are at impasse regarding
On 07/23/2013 05:33 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.07.2013 19:25, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
And fundamentally again I think you are wrong we are better off in the long
term standing on our own two feets then
working with downstream or be dependant on RH on way or another or some other
Am 23.07.2013 20:57, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 07/23/2013 05:33 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.07.2013 19:25, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
And fundamentally again I think you are wrong we are better off in the long
term standing on our own two feets then
working with downstream
On 07/23/2013 07:11 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
so you have no plan how large the positive impact is but you
attack Redhat and employees in a subtle way wherever you can?
For the first you do realize that Red Hat is a corporate and my view of
corporate involvement is the same in open source
Am 23.07.2013 22:07, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 07/23/2013 07:11 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
so you have no plan how large the positive impact is but you
attack Redhat and employees in a subtle way wherever you can?
For the first you do realize that Red Hat is a corporate and my view of
On 07/23/2013 08:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
and from here is clear that you*blindly* shoot around at Redhat*blindly and
nothing else*
This was everything but blindly shot I'm perfectly well aware that he's
a Red Hat employee I even sent him email at his Red Hat address last week.
If you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/23/2013 04:07 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/23/2013 07:11 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
so you have no plan how large the positive impact is but you
attack Redhat and employees in a subtle way wherever you can?
For the first you do
On 07/23/2013 09:11 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
For the record, I'd like you to have a look at basically any
community-reported bug in the 'sssd' component of BZ or
community-submitted patches on the sssd-devel list. That's a project
comprised nearly entirely of Red Hat employees.[1]
You may
On 07/23/2013 11:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
you claimed more than once that they are a less woth part of the community
because they get paid for their work and are not completly free in their
doings
Yes not because they work for Red Hat but because I value people
dedicating and invest their
Am 24.07.2013 00:46, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 07/23/2013 09:11 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
For the record, I'd like you to have a look at basically any
community-reported bug in the 'sssd' component of BZ or
community-submitted patches on the sssd-devel list. That's a project
Am 23.07.2013 22:32, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 07/23/2013 08:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
and from here is clear that you *blindly* shoot around at Redhat *blindly
and nothing else*
This was everything but blindly shot I'm perfectly well aware that he's a Red
Hat employee I even
Hi
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Yes not because they work for Red Hat but because I value people
dedicating and invest their free time to the project more then I value
people that get paid to work on Fedora and are doing so on corporate time
How do you
On Jul 23, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact is we live in a rather thankless community and that is something we
might be better at something that Picard would indeed want us to do.
Thank you for inviting me, with your foul attitude, to be
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:28:52PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
What better time to move epel out of Fedora since is really not
related to Fedora et all but is strictly for downstream distribution
based upon us to use ( like RHEL and it's clones )
I'm not sure what you think needs to
On 07/22/2013 03:38 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:13:28PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2013 02:52 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:28:52PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
What better time to move epel out of Fedora since is
On 07/22/2013 02:52 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:28:52PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
What better time to move epel out of Fedora since is really not
related to Fedora et all but is strictly for downstream distribution
based upon us to use ( like RHEL and it's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2013 11:58 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Our Fedora infrastructure team should be using Fedora it's an
disgrace to the community for them not doing so.
That's something else that this policy could potentially addresses,
frankly. The
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:08:32 -0400
Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2013 11:58 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Our Fedora infrastructure team should be using Fedora it's an
disgrace to the community for them not doing
On 07/22/2013 04:34 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:08:32 -0400
Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2013 11:58 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Our Fedora infrastructure team should be using Fedora it's an
disgrace
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:58:01PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2013 03:38 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Packaging Guidelines themselves are written for Fedora. We note where
EPEL/RHEL need something different where applicable.
Aha that's why nonsenses like the allowance for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2013 12:36 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2013 04:34 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:08:32 -0400 Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2013 11:58
On 07/22/2013 04:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
They chose to use a_downstream_ distribution. RHEL*is* Fedora, it's
just a Fedora that's been hardened and held to a certain level of
ABI/API compatibility.
Which is my point exactly instead of helping increasing the overall
quality of Fedora
On 07/22/2013 04:34 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:58:01PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2013 03:38 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Packaging Guidelines themselves are written for Fedora. We note where
EPEL/RHEL need something different where applicable.
Aha
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:08:32PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
As for cruft in the spec files, why not bring a proposal to the FPC to
update the packaging guidelines stating that Fedora spec files must
not contain RHEL/EPEL macros? Then the git branches would be
maintained separately and
On 07/22/2013 04:08 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/22/2013 11:58 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Our Fedora infrastructure team should be using Fedora it's an
disgrace to the community for them not doing so.
That's something else that this
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:47:12PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2013 04:34 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This was actually not the rationale. The rationale was that it wasn't
harmful to Fedora and so if individual maintainers felt that it was
something that they wanted to ship
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/22/2013 04:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
They chose to use a _downstream_ distribution. RHEL *is* Fedora, it's
just a Fedora that's been hardened and held to a certain level of
ABI/API compatibility.
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:13:28PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2013 02:52 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:28:52PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
What better time to move epel out of Fedora since is really not
related to Fedora et all but is strictly
On 07/22/2013 05:53 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:47:12PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2013 04:34 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This was actually not the rationale. The rationale was that it wasn't
harmful to Fedora and so if individual maintainers felt
On 07/22/2013 06:13 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/22/2013 04:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
They chose to use a _downstream_ distribution. RHEL *is* Fedora, it's
just a Fedora that's been hardened and held to a
Once upon a time, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com said:
On 07/22/2013 06:13 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/22/2013 04:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
They chose to use a _downstream_ distribution. RHEL
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/22/2013 05:53 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:47:12PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2013 04:34 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This was actually not the rationale. The
On 07/22/2013 08:04 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com said:
On 07/22/2013 06:13 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
No one in their right mind runs any
rapid development
On 07/22/2013 08:17 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Well, I did what you asked and I don't know what you are getting at.
So I suppose either your instructions were unclear or you just wanted
me to see that the FPC subpackage guidelines work as designed.
So you installed a sub package ( or simply
On Mon, 2013-07-22 at 12:13 -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/22/2013 04:41 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
They chose to use a _downstream_ distribution. RHEL *is* Fedora, it's
just a Fedora that's been hardened
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 12:13:25PM -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
But it's not an objective of Fedora to have long-term-stable releases
suitable for running servers! No one in their right mind runs any
rapid development distribution (not just Fedora) on critical
infrastructure.
I'd like to qualify
44 matches
Mail list logo
