Hi all,
release of evolution-data-server 3.5.3 and evolution 3.5.3 the next week
contains API changes in the core part of these, mostly in a way how
backends are authenticated and where the information about configured
accounts is stored, together with single-include approach, thus expect
Le Dim 17 juin 2012 02:46, Paul Wouters a écrit :
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 06/15/2012 05:03 AM, Jens Petersen wrote:
yum install rpm-build should install an rpmbuild version that works
as expected for fedora. Currently, it does not because it is missing the
dependancy
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
On 17/06/12 20:15, drago01 wrote:
By that logic we could just stop development today.
Yes, and there are places where we should.
No.
That is to stop reinventing the wheel.
This would just result into stagnation while
Le dimanche 17 juin 2012 à 21:54 -0600, Kevin Fenzi a écrit :
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Jay Sulzberger j...@panix.com wrote:
I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers would indeed solve
part of the problem
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:32AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
You're asserting that dbus-daemon etc cannot be restarted, but without
saying why.
Because designing an asynchronous messaging bus that can be restarted
and contribute!
This is a reminder of the upcoming QA meeting. Please add any topic
suggestions to the meeting wiki page:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Meetings/20120618
The current proposed agenda is included below.
== Proposed Agenda Topics ==
1. Previous meeting follow-up
2. ARM
On 06/18/2012 01:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:32AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
You're asserting that dbus-daemon etc cannot be restarted, but without
saying why.
Because designing an
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 12:31:46PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 4:18 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Jun 15, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
They are using PBKDF2 with SHA-256, default 500 rounds up to 100,000
rounds. The database is locally
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:07:08PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/18/2012 01:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:32AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
You're asserting that dbus-daemon etc
On 06/18/2012 02:40 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
What we shouldn't do is break things further by making almost all
updates require a reboot.
What do you want to do? Either we should fix all the possible issues
with restarting things on demand or we can accept this simpler solution
but
On Sat, 2012-06-16 at 15:12 +0200, valent.turko...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, but why isn't this easy fix via new policy done, why is it sitting
in bugzilla for over two years?
I really don't know. I don't maintain the cups-pk-helper package.
Tim.
*/
signature.asc
Description: This is a
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-IO-Socket-SSL:
27796a16df658aa3b3d2defd0fe3ac61 IO-Socket-SSL-1.76.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 18.06.2012 12:10, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:07:08PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 06/18/2012 01:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:10:32AM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 06:49:43PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Chris Murphy wrote:
Grubby does not work fine with GRUB 2, it creates sloppy menu lists that
eventually break the advanced menu entries, as well as totally departing
from any user customization of /etc/default/grub.
… vs. grub2-mkconfig, which totally departs from any user customization in
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers
Ben Rosser wrote:
It seems to me that we should make the boot menu more consistent somehow.
I feel like the simplest solution is just to run grub2-mkconfig at every
kernel update, and stop using grubby for this.
If we do this, can we PLEASE drop the braindead Fedora patch which changes
On 18 June 2012 10:50, Alek Paunov a...@declera.com wrote:
As I understand the proposal, the necessary workaround only affects the
desktop instances and specifically Gnome ones - I am under the impression
that my servers will continue to be updated by the normal way.
Exactly. This will not
On 18 June 2012 10:10, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
I believe there is or was an effort to replace dbus by something
AMQP-based. However I can't find that right now.
The async-message bus isn't the only problem. You *have* to restart a
process before it will be running a new
On 18/06/12 09:30, drago01 wrote:
This would just result into stagnation while the competition invents
much better wheels and leave us behind.
Abstracting for the sake of discussion from the particular case of grub2
could you at least imagine new program which would be worse than the
program
I like the idea like debian does update-grub2 it looks like grub2-mkconfig
its the same thing probably we can switch or remove grubby and just use
grub2-mkconfig its a little bit confusing had both
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:12 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.atwrote:
Ben Rosser wrote:
It
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com writes:
The async-message bus isn't the only problem. You *have* to restart a
process before it will be running a new library version. That mean
testing (and probably patching) every single application and daemon in
our stack
Why testing the daemons? Any
On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsen benny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already.
Try booting a few VMs and then doing systemctl restart
libvirtd.daemon -- libvirtd restarts okay (hopefully) but
Le lundi 18 juin 2012 à 06:09 -0400, Gerald Henriksen a écrit :
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
No. Let Red Hat tell the truth. Let Red Hat design a better
UEFI motherboard.
So now the target has moved from Red Hat buying some hardware with
secure boot disabled to
Quoting Jef Spaleta (2012-06-15 22:00:31)
So yeah... revelation is back to being entirely noarch python again.
Is bouncing a package from arch to noarch as an update going to cause
problems?
Last time I've done this, I had to add Obsoletes: XX current_VR
I assume this hasn't changed in past
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:47:34AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're suggesting here. It's
not possible to simply replace a system's firmware with another
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:22:16PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsen benny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already.
Try booting a few VMs and then doing
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 6:42 AM, tim.laurid...@gmail.com
tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]
Linux is about choices
No it isn't:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2008-January/msg00861.html
(I do
On 18.06.2012 14:22, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsen benny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already.
Try booting a few VMs and then doing systemctl restart
On 06/18/2012 12:53 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:52:48PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
So why does the SecureBoot private key require a so much higher
cost of administration?
Fedora's keys are currently only relevant on hardware where users have
voluntarialy installed
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 02:57:12PM +0300, Alek Paunov wrote:
However, I never tried to update qemu-system with live VMs.
The update will work, but the VMs will still be running the old code.
You can actually solve that problem using VM migration: live migrate
the VM from the old qemu to the new
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:47:34AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson seth.p.john...@gmail.com
wrote:
I'm sorry, I really don't understand what you're suggesting here. It's
not
On 06/18/2012 01:17 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
The game is now just about over. What if one day, Microsoft
makes it even harder to install Fedora without a
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
UEFI implementations, so I'm not sure what you're asking for.
No need for a
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:54:08AM -0400, Peter Jones wrote:
There's every indication that were we to so choose, Microsoft would happily
sign our binaries and allow us to boot on Secure Boot constrained ARM
machines at no additional cost. We believe that without the guarantee that
you can
On 06/17/2012 06:06 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 17 June 2012 10:53, Richard W.M. Jonesrjo...@redhat.com wrote:
So this is a problem that needs to be solved, but does it require a
reboot? Not really ... it's possible to list all processes using
zlib, convert that back into a list of packages,
commit 244467456f18d644024095d19ffe03dc82aede1e
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Mon Jun 18 13:58:26 2012 +0200
Specify all dependencies
perl-Data-Structure-Util.spec | 17 ++---
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff --git
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/18/2012 01:17 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Bob Young, a master of
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an ARM key. I did
not present an argument in my comment.
What if, as has already happened with ARM, Microsoft
commit 89807bf61ec98140f9060862e4ab074923c5e6fa
Author: Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com
Date: Mon Jun 18 14:28:46 2012 +0200
Specify all dependencies
perl-HTML-Template.spec | 16 +++-
1 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
---
diff --git
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
The features you wanted in a free software UEFI are present in existing
UEFI
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
above. Jay did not say you currently cannot get an ARM key. I did
not present an
On 06/18/2012 01:09 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Benny Amorsenbenny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
Richard Hugheshughsi...@gmail.com writes:
It takes me 4 seconds to POST, boot the kernel, get into
system-update.service, and then reboot. Using a new rpm version,
applying
On 06/18/2012 09:26 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 08:45:07AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:43 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
The features you wanted in a free
On 06/18/2012 01:22 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 12:03, Benny Amorsenbenny+use...@amorsen.dk wrote:
Why testing the daemons? Any daemon which cannot be restarted by
systemctl restart foo.daemon is broken already.
Try booting a few VMs and then doing systemctl restart
Am 18.06.2012 01:09, schrieb drago01:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Benny Amorsen benny+use...@amorsen.dk
wrote:
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com writes:
It takes me 4 seconds to POST, boot the kernel, get into
system-update.service, and then reboot. Using a new rpm version,
Am 18.06.2012 09:30, schrieb drago01:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:16 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
On 17/06/12 20:15, drago01 wrote:
By that logic we could just stop development today.
Yes, and there are places where we should.
No.
yes
That is to stop reinventing the wheel.
Am 18.06.2012 15:30, schrieb Seth Johnson:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:20:05AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
It's apparently difficult to recognize Jay's argument, immediately
above. Jay did not say you currently cannot
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:27AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Like I said before, the existing UEFI implementations on the existing
hardware will support Disable Secure Boot or use your own chain of
trust. If you're
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:43:27AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Like I said before, the existing UEFI implementations on the existing
hardware
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:04:38AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Ok so what you mean is I want a UEFI implementation that doesn't
require a Microsoft signature to boot? The options there are currently
(1) have a Fedora
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:04:38AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Ok so what you mean is I want a UEFI implementation that doesn't
require a
On 06/18/2012 05:08 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
that is not the point because every admin is dong this all the time
the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
fully up and running until saturday sometimes
On 18 June 2012 00:38, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
fully up and running until saturday sometimes at evening where
you rebootet the machine and now
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
I want Red Hat, Fedora, and the free software community to come to
terms with what they must do in the
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
if this is what you call development then YES we should
stop development now until we have ideas for real
improvements instead wasting time by making steps backward
Language like this isn't helpful. Might I suggest
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org
wrote:
So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
I want Red Hat, Fedora,
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 June 2012 00:38, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
fully up and running until saturday sometimes at
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:35:40 +0200
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 18.06.2012 15:30, schrieb Seth Johnson:
I stand corrected. Jay's point is that Microsoft will be in a
position to change policy, on either platform. That could happen
once it is in a position to do so.
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 10:15 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not willing to change the kernel spec file for this.
The kernel calls 'new-kernel-pkg', which today is provided by grubby.
Despite the similar name, grubby actually works with more than just
grub and grub2. It also
On 18 June 2012 15:32, Seth Vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
As dbus is required for various things like networkmanager - does this mean
that if a server happens to be using nm for network setup that in order to
apply a security patch to dbus, for example, that the server will require a
Am 18.06.2012 16:20, schrieb Richard Hughes:
On 18 June 2012 00:38, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
the point is that it was perfectly possible in 2005 to make a fedora
dist-upgrade at friday night while http, netatalk or samba was
fully up and running until saturday sometimes at
Am 18.06.2012 16:27, schrieb Jared K. Smith:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
if this is what you call development then YES we should
stop development now until we have ideas for real
improvements instead wasting time by making steps backward
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:09:52AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
The game is now just about over. What if one day, Microsoft
makes it even harder to install Fedora without a Microsoft
controlled key? What if, as has already
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 15:35:40 +0200
We really can't know whats going to happen down the road, we can only
act on it as we know it.
LOL -- by all the signs we have available to know it.
Seth
--
devel mailing list
On 06/18/2012 11:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Microsoft has not refused to grant Fedora a key for ARM.
This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
policy is to keep Fedora, and any other OSes, except for
Microsoft
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
policy is to keep Fedora, and any other OSes, except for
Microsoft OSes, off all Microsoft Certified ARM
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:56:54AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
We just need hardware we can install Fedora on, as once we did,
without asking Microsoft for permission.
System76 have committed to providing hardware without
On 06/18/2012 11:14 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
System76 have committed to providing hardware without pre-enabled secure boot.
Matthew, I am delighted to hear this.
Note that this contradicts the claim, made more than once in
this thread, that such an arrangement is, in practice, impossible.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
I think 50 million dollars toward
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:14:04AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
So you want Fedora to boot on all hardware sold?
I want Red Hat, Fedora, and the
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Peter Jones pjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On 06/18/2012 11:03 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Microsoft has not refused to grant Fedora a key for ARM.
This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
incompetent magazines dealing with home computers, Microsoft's
policy is to keep Fedora, and any other
On 06/18/2012 11:54 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
If I understand correctly, Fedora has now formally allowed
Microsoft to lock Fedora out of many coming ARM devices.
Well, no. At this point it's still just a proposal.
--
Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:40:01AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
But here are two headers of my argument: If we do not defend the
ground on which free software lives and grows, we will shortly
have no free software. Part of the ground is that we need ask no
permission of Microsoft, nor
On Sun, 17.06.12 10:53, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 03:06:10PM +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
Hi.
On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 14:57:30 +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote
One of the most inportant advance of Linux over Windows is the
fact, that there are
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Andre Robatino
robat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr at gmail.com writes:
It seems to me that we should make the boot menu more consistent somehow. I
feel like the simplest solution is just to run grub2-mkconfig at every kernel
update, and
On 18/06/12 15:56, Ben Rosser wrote:
ould seem like a better idea to me.
Hmm, okay.
In that case, would it be possible (or at least, a better idea) to
modify *grubby* to call grub2-mkconfig when the bootloader is grub2?
Then we'd still have all the other abstractions for other bootloaders
but
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
I mean, have you ever tried to upgrade firefox while running firefox? If
you did, you know how awfully wrong that goes... [1]
I run Mozilla's nightly builds and receive updates every day. They
disrupt nothing
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 11:54 -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
Just one word before I break off, if I can ;), engagement for today:
If I understand correctly, Fedora has now formally allowed
Microsoft to lock Fedora out of many coming ARM devices.
The use of the term 'allowed' implies that we
Am 18.06.2012 18:09, schrieb Lennart Poettering:
I mean, have you ever tried to upgrade firefox while running firefox? If
you did, you know how awfully wrong that goes... [1]
So, you have three problems: a) you cannot safely determine what to
restart. b) you cannot restart many components
On 18 June 2012 17:36, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
and now you come the road and thell us firefox can not be
updated while it is running? strange that i apply FF updates
since years in my daily workload and after all are finished the
browser get's restarted or even at the next
On Wed, 13.06.12 15:00, Petr Pisar (ppi...@redhat.com) wrote:
On 2012-06-13, Xose Vazquez Perez xose.vazq...@gmail.com wrote:
== https://bugzilla.redhat.com/815790 ==
clear_console: New helper program to clear the *console*,
including the _scrollback buffer_.
DESCRIPTION
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:14:11 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:56:54AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
We just need hardware we can install Fedora on, as once we did,
without asking Microsoft for permission.
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
A couple of concerned Red Hat / Fedora developers - Peter and Matthew -
have stated that they are unhappy that the certification requirements
for Windows ARM client devices don't state that the user should be able
to disable Secure
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:54:20 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:03:23AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
This I do not understand. By reports in the admittedly
incompetent magazines dealing with home
Hi all,
I have a doubt regarding the '.so's' in devel packages... From my
understanding they go in devel packages to allow the installation of
several packages with different versioning
Who defined this? Is this part of some standards (ex: LSB, etc) ?
Is there some written documentation
Audacious 3.3-alpha1 will be landing in Rawhide.
Compared with previous releases in F-17 (and older) it is
API/ABI-incompatible once again. I've had a look at what will be necessary
to patch dependencies and will take care of patching and rebuilding in the
Fedora package collection as necessary.
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:23:53 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 01:09:52 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 11:21:14PM -0400, Jay
On 06/18/2012 10:18 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Sorry for the self-reply, but just in case it's not brutally clear yet,
I wanted to explicitly state this:
[snip]
Bravo!
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Jun 18, 2012, at 4:08 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Murphy wrote:
Grubby does not work fine with GRUB 2, it creates sloppy menu lists that
eventually break the advanced menu entries, as well as totally departing
from any user customization of /etc/default/grub.
… vs. grub2-mkconfig,
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:23:16 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
Hi all,
I have a doubt regarding the '.so's' in devel packages... From my
understanding they go in devel packages to allow the installation of
several packages with different versioning
Who defined this? Is this part of some
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 10:18:35 -0700, you wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
Much good stuff deleted.
Fedora can deplore the situation; Fedora can state its support for
computing devices which allow the user the freedom to install
alternative operating system
On Jun 18, 2012, at 8:33 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
I will say: A political campaign
that rebukes Microsoft.
For what? Come up with three example picket sign messages for your campaign,
and *briefly* elaborate on each one using less than 60 words each.
A stand that does not accommodate
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:18 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 09:35 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I hesitate to put words in people's mouths, and correct me if I'm wrong,
but it reads to me as if Jay and others are arguing from an incorrect
premise. That
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 14:42 -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
In this connection, the claim is that if we actually purchase
something (and do not contract the transaction otherwise), then as our
property we can do with it as we see fit. The notion that there's
another kind of transaction where
On Jun 18, 2012, at 10:05 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
2) Government. If a large enough set of national governments required
that secure boot be disabled by default then we could assume that
arbitrary hardware would work out of the box. It's unclear to me which
laws you think the vendors
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 18:23 +0100, Nelson Marques wrote:
Hi all,
I have a doubt regarding the '.so's' in devel packages... From my
understanding they go in devel packages to allow the installation of
several packages with different versioning
Not really, no. They go in -devel packages
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
On 06/18/2012 09:24 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
I run Mozilla's nightly builds and receive updates every day. They
disrupt nothing because Mozilla has built infrastructure to make that
possible. Firefox must be
Greetings.
We have some users who are owners or initialcc on Fedora packages, but
have no bugzilla account that matches up with the email they have
listed in the Fedora account system.
See:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/861
for more details.
If anyone knows any way to contact the
Am 18.06.2012 18:58, schrieb Richard Hughes:
On 18 June 2012 17:36, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
and now you come the road and thell us firefox can not be
updated while it is running? strange that i apply FF updates
since years in my daily workload and after all are finished
1 - 100 of 172 matches
Mail list logo
