On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 12:43 AM, Michael Wiktowy
wrote:
> On 6/3/11, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>> The existence and the proliferation of extensions indicates that a lot of
>> people simply are not happy with what gnome shell does out of the box, and
>> that's why they use the extensions.
>>
>> If it
Am 04.06.2011 05:22, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
> It is not our job to work around bugs (or gratuitous incompatibilities with
> long-established Free Software packages) in proprietary software
WTF - Nobody said that
but let the peopole out there fuck in peace with more and more per
default installed
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 04.06.2011 05:22, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
>> It is not our job to work around bugs (or gratuitous incompatibilities with
>> long-established Free Software packages) in proprietary software
>
> WTF - Nobody said that
>
> but let the peopole
Am 04.06.2011 10:38, schrieb drago01:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>> Am 04.06.2011 05:22, schrieb Kevin Kofler:
>>> It is not our job to work around bugs (or gratuitous incompatibilities with
>>> long-established Free Software packages) in proprietary software
>>
>
On 06/03/2011 12:44 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Ville Skyttä wrote:
>
>> I'd like to have bash-completion included in F-16's default install. In
>> my opinion it's in a good enough shape for that already now, and with my
>> upstream hat on I expect things to further improve before F-16 is out.
>
On 06/03/2011 06:25 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
> Since you are asking...I have a suggestion since I've used
> bash-completion for a few years:
> - make it modular (perhaps depending on environment variables?)
>
> why? Because some completions take a lot of time to load, as has
> already bee
On 06/02/2011 04:51 PM, Petr Sabata wrote:
> Why would you include an "optional functionality" (a quote from Packaging
> guidelines) package in the default installation?
I don't think being "optional functionality" alone prevents something
being installed by default. And the point of the quoted
Am 04.06.2011 12:57, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> Looking at what's currently in the @base group in comps-f16.xml.in tells
> me that there's a *lot* of optional functionality already in it
yes, it is currently too much and should be reviewed instead
taken as argument to put more stuff there
signat
On 06/02/2011 05:47 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>From a size perspective, it's not a huge deal - 500k with no deps that
> aren't already in @core. From a functionality perspective, it would be
> good to fix the issues it has with disconnected machines, etc. - I've
> always removed it personally be
On 06/04/2011 02:20 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> I'd invite people to try out the latest packages, and if the issues are
> still present, filing bugs about them (preferably upstream at
> https://alioth.debian.org/projects/bash-completion/ if it's not
> packaging related, otherwise in Red Hat Bugzilla
On 06/03/2011 05:52 AM, Peter Hutterer wrote:
> Anyway, I'll tell Jeremy he'll need to manually remove/update.
In my opinion this is a good (or bad?) example how users' life is made
harder due to irrational fear of the Epoch. Telling Jeremy won't help
people who don't know that the problem exist
Am 04.06.2011 13:20, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
> but it seems to me that most of the negative feedback is also
> coming from people who haven't been using bash-completion for a while
no - i am using bash-completion since years on all machines
but i do not like making default-install bigger as really
Hi,
I somehow missed the top post, so sorry for replying in the middle of
the thread. Adding bash-completion by default gets a +1 from me.
Note that Ubuntu has been doing this for ages AFAIK, so it is being
used by a large group of users without very vocal complaints for years
now.
Regards,
Han
On 06/04/2011 02:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 04.06.2011 13:20, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
>> but it seems to me that most of the negative feedback is also
>> coming from people who haven't been using bash-completion for a while
>
> no - i am using bash-completion since years on all machines
N
Le samedi 04 juin 2011 à 10:46 +1000, Chris Jones a écrit :
> But whilst installing the Java web-browser plugin, I observed that
> it's not its dependancies that suck up the size but rather the
> physical java packages themselves. And I just don't understand what
> makes Java packages so bi
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 04.06.2011 13:20, schrieb Ville Skyttä:
>> but it seems to me that most of the negative feedback is also
>> coming from people who haven't been using bash-completion for a while
>
> no - i am using bash-completion since years on all machi
Compose started at Sat Jun 4 08:15:25 UTC 2011
Broken deps for x86_64
--
389-admin-1.1.16-1.fc16.i686 requires libadmsslutil.so.1
389-admin-1.1.16-1.fc16.i686 requires libadminutil.so.1
389-admin-1.1.16-1.fc16.x86_64
Michael Wiktowy wrote:
> The cognative dissonance required to misconstrue an extension
> framework that has provided people with a previously impossible amount
> of customization in Gnome as something negative is quite astounding.
The complaint is not about the fact that GNOME 3 is extensible, but
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 01:32 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 12:25 +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>
> > sooo... although the situation *right now* is that nobody in the
> > commercial world is the slightest bit interested in LSB because they
> > all do "custom builds"
On Sat 4 June 2011 10:54:13 Reindl Harald wrote:
> but is here idiot-day today?
Please stop with this tone, it is very unexcellent behavior towards everyone
involved in this disucssion.
--
Ryan Rix -- http://rix.si
== OpenSource.com: Where Open Source Happens! ==
signature.asc
Description: Th
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 1:54 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Wiktowy wrote:
>> The cognative dissonance required to misconstrue an extension
>> framework that has provided people with a previously impossible amount
>> of customization in Gnome as something negative is quite astounding.
>
> The co
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:24 PM, tim.laurid...@gmail.com
wrote:
> The latest version of gnome-tweak-tool can enable/disable installed extentions
> http://timlau.fedorapeople.org/files/pics/tweek-tool.png
That is excellent. I would assume that disabled extensions are just
added to the blacklist usi
On 06/04/2011 01:54 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> what makes me [crazy] is the arrogant "we do not support third party software"
> [...]
First, saying "We do not support third-party software" is not arrogance,
but simply a statement of fact about our community.
--
Peter Gordon (codergeek42)
Who am
Folks,
If you're interested in getting involved in the armv7hl[0] bringup,
please do subscribe to the ARM list and follow along/join us Fri for the
first of what will hopefully be several sessions dedicated to bootstrap
of F15 hardfp bits, followed by building the universe around those.
Jon.
[0]
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 20:53 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> [0] We're making a "one time" incompatible ABI switch in F-15 bringup to
> the "hard float" ABI defined in section 6 of the ARM AAPCS (commonly
> referred to as the ARM EABI - but that doesn't actually exist as a
> name). The procedure call st
On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 21:10 -0400, Chris Tyler wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-06-04 at 20:53 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> > [0] We're making a "one time" incompatible ABI switch in F-15 bringup to
> > the "hard float" ABI defined in section 6 of the ARM AAPCS (commonly
> > referred to as the ARM EABI - but t
26 matches
Mail list logo
