Vít Ondruch wrote:
It is interesting to see such response from somebody who appears to be
maintainer of Qt. Don't we ship 3 parallel installable version of Qt?
We indeed ship major (first digit!) versions of Qt as parallel-installable
versions. They are for all practical purposes different
Dne 17.10.2013 01:15, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
Vít Ondruch wrote:
Sorry, this has nothing to do with FPC yet. RPM/YUM/DNF should first
provide reasonable support. For example this issue [1] could take us
closer as a first approximation.
Vít
[1]
On 10/17/2013 09:15 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 17.10.2013 01:15, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
Vít Ondruch wrote:
Sorry, this has nothing to do with FPC yet. RPM/YUM/DNF should first
provide reasonable support. For example this issue [1] could take us
closer as a first approximation.
Vít
[1]
Dne 17.10.2013 10:05, Jiri Moskovcak napsal(a):
On 10/17/2013 09:15 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
To be honest, the Kernel is the last package, which should be paraller
installable, since you can run just one kernel at time.
Yeah, admins will love that, when after updating the kernel the
machine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/16/2013 07:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Vít Ondruch wrote:
Sorry, this has nothing to do with FPC yet. RPM/YUM/DNF should
first provide reasonable support. For example this issue [1]
could take us closer as a first approximation.
Vít
On 15. 10. 2013 at 09:40:41, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:15:26PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
Not to be only negative here, take a look at the COPR initiative, I expect
it will solve the problem you are talking about by offering external
repositories that will be easily
Dne 16.10.2013 10:04, Jan Zelený napsal(a):
On 15. 10. 2013 at 09:40:41, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:15:26PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
Not to be only negative here, take a look at the COPR initiative, I expect
it will solve the problem you are talking about by offering
On 16. 10. 2013 at 10:46:01, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 16.10.2013 10:04, Jan Zelený napsal(a):
On 15. 10. 2013 at 09:40:41, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:15:26PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
Not to be only negative here, take a look at the COPR initiative, I
expect
it will
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:04:55AM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
I won't speak for Michael, but I think the answer is no. COPRs fills a
need, but it's _too_ wild west (no package signatures, for example). We
need to support multiple language runtimes and native upstream packaging
*in* Fedora.
On 16/10/13 13:57, Matthew Miller wrote:
We have a mantra of upstream! upstream! upstream! for software development
and patches. In the olden days, we didn't do that for packaging, because
there was no consistent upstream packaging at all (just the occasional
upstream shipping terrible
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Jan Zelený jzel...@redhat.com wrote:
Ok then, talk to FPC about this. Personally I'd be against creating the wild
west from Fedora itself and I'd rather like to have have it in COPRs. Fedora
should keep its high standard of Software packaging (which usually
Tom Hughes wrote:
That hasn't stopped us saying that they don't provide a good experience
to Fedora users however, and that it is better to repackage things as
RPMs so that our users only have to deal with a single interface to
installing and updating packages and that they will get a set of
Vít Ondruch wrote:
Sorry, this has nothing to do with FPC yet. RPM/YUM/DNF should first
provide reasonable support. For example this issue [1] could take us
closer as a first approximation.
Vít
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845247
Parallel-installing multiple versions
On 13. 10. 2013 at 03:05:20, Alek Paunov wrote:
On 04.10.2013 15:34, Jan Zelený wrote:
If you have any other questions, comments or notes regarding the document,
feel free to to use this list for the discussion.
Where (list threads, wikis, sources) one should seek more details about
the
On 13. 10. 2013 at 22:19:16, Michael Stahnke wrote:
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Jan Zelený jzel...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
as you might remember I issued a call for RFEs on this list during the
spring. The participation was not bad at all, we have collected so many
data that
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 01:15:26PM +0200, Jan Zelený wrote:
Not to be only negative here, take a look at the COPR initiative, I expect
it will solve the problem you are talking about by offering external
repositories that will be easily reachable from Fedora but won't be a part
of the Fedora
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:19:16PM -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:
Developers don't do deployments with RPM...at least not inside Fedora.
Anything sane is actually against Packaging Guidelines. So that
becomes a problem, and developers skip it. If developers (or
Can you elaborate on anything
On 10/14/2013 05:19 AM, Michael Stahnke wrote:
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Jan Zelený jzel...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
as you might remember I issued a call for RFEs on this list during the spring.
The participation was not bad at all, we have collected so many data that it
took us
On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 6:46 AM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Sun, Oct 13, 2013 at 10:19:16PM -0700, Michael Stahnke wrote:
Developers don't do deployments with RPM...at least not inside Fedora.
Anything sane is actually against Packaging Guidelines. So that
becomes a
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 5:34 AM, Jan Zelený jzel...@redhat.com wrote:
Hello everyone,
as you might remember I issued a call for RFEs on this list during the spring.
The participation was not bad at all, we have collected so many data that it
took us several months to discuss and process it.
On 04.10.2013 15:34, Jan Zelený wrote:
If you have any other questions, comments or notes regarding the document,
feel free to to use this list for the discussion.
Where (list threads, wikis, sources) one should seek more details about
the DB aspects of the plan, e.g.:
* A1: Delta
21 matches
Mail list logo
