-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/03/2014 11:06 PM, Brendan Jones wrote:
On 01/31/2014 12:28 PM, Ian Malone wrote:
On 30 January 2014 23:07, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
On
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/01/2014 11:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
Fedora Products: This *is* Fedora. It comes in three flavors.
I don't like the hardcoded three there at all, because if KDE is
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
This is the domain of Fedora Remixes, not Fedora Spins. Downstreams
are permitted (naturally) to use Fedora packages for whatever
distribution they want to create. The catch is that they have to
follow the policies on
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:01:40AM +, Ian Malone wrote:
Two thoughts:
1. Is there scope for a spin to be a particular sub-focus of a product?
Desktop (all)
. desktop gnome
. desktop kde
. desktop twm (maybe not)
Server (all)
. server web
. server fileserver (or whatever might make
On 02/04/2014 04:58 AM, Christopher Meng wrote:
Hi all,
Can someone tell me why this library is still at a very old version
packaged in Fedora? I've seen RFEs about updating it to the latest
version, but maintainer Adam Jackson hasn't done neither any to this
package still so far, nor response
On 02/04/2014 08:54 AM, Simone Caronni wrote:
The source code comes from the nvidia-settings tarball; and following
the same logic we should allow all the relevant open source components
of the Nvidia driver [2] in Fedora, that is:
Correct, we could - Similar things are being done at several
I'm not fond of keeping spins around when we're focusing on products.
That gives the message that they are second-class citizens in Fedora.
I'd rather define a process that allows current spins to become either
sub-products or full-featured products
when they meet a set of requirements (that is
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/04/2014 11:11 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
I'm not fond of keeping spins around when we're focusing on
products. That gives the message that they are second-class
citizens in Fedora.
To be fair, spins have always been second-class citizens (to a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/04/2014 10:34 AM, Dan Mashal wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:03 AM, Stephen Gallagher
sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
This is the domain of Fedora Remixes, not Fedora Spins.
Downstreams are permitted (naturally) to use Fedora packages for
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:16:16PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
If we decide the alternative desktops are a valuable part of Fedora -
which seems to be a popular opinion - how do we fit them into a
Product-based conception of Fedora?
We can have a KDE Product, and an Xfce Product, and an
2014-02-04 Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I won't speak for all of FESCo, but I'm leaning towards: Spins can
continue just as they are, while being aware that they continue to be
secondary to our primary deliverables.
[snip]
Yes, in my
On 02/04/2014 10:39 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:16:16PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
If we decide the alternative desktops are a valuable part of Fedora -
which seems to be a popular opinion - how do we fit them into a
Product-based conception of Fedora?
We can have
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:51:31AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the
Fedora community, if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I
think organizations like the Red Cross or Unicef would have a much better
chance
Am 04.02.2014 11:57, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 02/04/2014 10:39 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:16:16PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
If we decide the alternative desktops are a valuable part of Fedora -
which seems to be a popular opinion - how do we fit them into
It's also a negative message to the 1.4 k active contributors in fedora.
Or do you assume that most of them are paid by RH which is unlikely.
Don't forget that fp.o has been founded with two stakeholders: RH and the
community
H.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
I won't speak for all of FESCo, but I'm leaning towards: Spins can
continue just as they are, while being aware that they continue to be
secondary to our primary deliverables. (Yes, I'm aware of the
2014-02-04 Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 05:51:31AM -0500, Christian Schaller wrote:
What I mean to say is that Red Hat has a business motive to support the
Fedora community, if supporting Fedora was a pure act of charity then I
think organizations like the
On 4 February 2014 11:03, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
Correct, we could - Similar things are being done at several places in
Fedora.
Somewhat oversimplified, the basic requirement is all shipped binaries
must be built from OSI-compiliant sources-code and no closed-sources be
On 4 February 2014 11:34, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote:
but what is the benefit of having them in Fedora if they can't be used
without the
proprietary blobs?
I've always wondered the same thing.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-CPANPLUS:
e135aab8af0f16e07ddf1fe096680a00 CPANPLUS-0.9148.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061113
Bug ID: 1061113
Summary: perl-Text-Aligner-0.10 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-Text-Aligner
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061114
Bug ID: 1061114
Summary: perl-URI-Find-Simple-1.04 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-URI-Find-Simple
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061115
Bug ID: 1061115
Summary: perl-URI-Title-1.87 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: perl-URI-Title
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee:
commit fadcaded4d1160b825aade2e7d55677fd2c5185e
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Feb 4 12:59:09 2014 +0100
0.9148 bump
.gitignore |1 +
perl-CPANPLUS.spec |5 -
sources|2 +-
3 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
---
diff --git
ACTION: bkabrda will write more about devassistant (mmaslano,
16:44:20)
I tried to rewrite the DevAssistant part to be more high-level and to also
include information on what we should do with DevAssistant. Hope it's enough.
Slavek.
--
devel mailing list
On 4 February 2014 12:02, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote:
I tried to rewrite the DevAssistant part to be more high-level and to also
include information on what we should do with DevAssistant. Hope it's enough.
Should DevAssistant and gnome software work together? I think there
are a
- Original Message -
On 4 February 2014 12:02, Bohuslav Kabrda bkab...@redhat.com wrote:
I tried to rewrite the DevAssistant part to be more high-level and to also
include information on what we should do with DevAssistant. Hope it's
enough.
Should DevAssistant and gnome software
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061103
Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Fixed In
Il 03/02/2014 14:09, Christopher Meng ha scritto:
Please use your real name for the email address/Bugzilla account.
I've just edited the name on bugzilla adding my last name.
Thank you for the tip.
Hope to find someone interested to my packages.
Greetings,
Alberto
--
devel mailing list
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:57:51AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
For that matter, there could be a Fedora GNOME spin distinct from the
Fedora Workstation product, if there were people really keen to work on it,
perhap as a showcase of upstream technology without worrying about the
Hi, I'm having problems running mock with a rawhide buildroot.
I get the following error
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
# /usr/bin/repoquery -c /tmp/tmpQ6Wu7m --installed -a --qf '%{nevra}
%{buildtime} %{size} %{pkgid} %{yumdb_info.from_repo}'
It would seem that splitting the products could loose some community
support as one product has more support than the other, either way
the Fedora 20 product is definately at the cutting edge but after
installing it on several machines, it seems IMHO that cracks are
starting to appear now that I
Hi,
On 02/04/2014 12:56 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 4 February 2014 11:34, Simone Caronni negativ...@gmail.com wrote:
but what is the benefit of having them in Fedora if they can't be used
without the
proprietary blobs?
I've always wondered the same thing.
IIRC libXNVCtrl was introduced
- Original Message -
Apologies for the late notice everyone, but as i've been head of heels
in tons of other work the past week and quite a few folks are either
traveling or attending FOSDEM this weekend we're canceling the meeting
today.
Next week we'll have to see with a lot of
On 02/04/2014 12:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:57:51AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
For that matter, there could be a Fedora GNOME spin distinct from the
Fedora Workstation product, if there were people really keen to work on it,
perhap as a showcase of
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 01:34:09AM -0800, Dan Mashal wrote:
So where do we currently stand with this?
So, here's what *I'm* thinking.
Spins clearly have enough popularity and importance that we either need to
keep them or have some alternative that fills the same space and makes
people at
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 9:10 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 20:56:15 -0700
Dave Johansen davejohan...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm trying to do a build on koji and ran into an error during the mock
buildroot setup (
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 12:56:04PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Yes but community products wont be considered primary products
No. The initial plan calls for three primary *community* products. And we'll
see where it goes from there.
which means if things continues in the same manner as
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.orgwrote:
I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it
- Original Message -
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
with other things) is good,
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs.
combined with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it
*would* be okay
- Original Message -
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:38:32PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs.
combined with other things) is good, but, for example,
#fedora-meeting: Env and Stacks (2014-02-04)
Meeting started by bkabrda at 13:03:24 UTC. The full logs are available
at
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:48:12AM -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
I'd also like to see some of the restrictions on spins loosened a little
bit. I think the spin/remix distinction (Fedora-only software vs. combined
with other things) is good, but, for example, spins, maybe it *would* be
okay
Hi All,
I've yet to see an announcement email for this, but the polls for the
FESCo and FAMSCo votes are open. Please go vote here:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/
josh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 09:25:17AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
I've yet to see an announcement email for this, but the polls for the
FESCo and FAMSCo votes are open. Please go vote here:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/voting/
Also: more details on Fedora's voting process at
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:14:06PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
(This is a particular pain point for me -- my main development box was
originally installed as BIOS, and I switched it to UEFI, and I'm sure
I did it wrong because the boot process is impressively finicky.)
If your hard disc
Robert Mayr wrote:
Why do you think only about KDE?
The other desktops should be considered separate Products, too. It's time to
stop treating them as second-class citizens that we won't even wait a few
days for with our releases.
This topic shouldn't turn into a DE war IMHO. The product for
Summary of changes:
fc93f40... Build for epel7 bootstrap done (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 20:14:06 -0800
Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
that in the wiki.
(This is a particular pain point for me -- my main development box was
originally installed as BIOS, and I switched it to UEFI, and I'm sure
I did it wrong because the boot process is impressively
Hi
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
- Original Message -
It needs updates :). Any volunteer?
I have updated it just to remove the obsolete content for now. Ideally,
it needs a good rewrite
Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
I intend to orphan conglomerate (http://www.conglomerate.org/).
The source code has not been updated for a long time and my interest in the
package is gone.
If no one is interested in maintaining it I will retire it from the
distribuition in the next weeks.
Regards,
--
José Abílio Matos
--
On Tue, 4 Feb 2014 11:09:15 -0500
Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:54 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
- Original Message -
It needs updates :). Any volunteer?
I have updated it just to remove the obsolete content for now.
Ideally, it
Recently, as part of the Fedora.next effort, FESCo has accepted the PRDs from
the following Working Groups:
- Workstation
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Workstation_PRD
- Server
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Product_Requirements_Document
- Cloud
On 02/04/2014 06:15 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
honestly going back to only a install DVD with a sane user-UI and
dedicate all the time wasted for the spin/products/discrimination
discussions for documentations, screenshots and howtos would have more
benefit for Fedora there is nothing you can't
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 12:34 +0100, Simone Caronni wrote:
Well, the tools are totally opensource and can be built standalone,
libXNVCtrl will interface with the Nvidia X.org driver; but what is
the benefit of having them in Fedora if they can't be used without the
proprietary blobs?
Well,
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 04:42:23PM +0100, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
On Mon, Feb 03, 2014 at 08:14:06PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
(This is a particular pain point for me -- my main development box was
originally installed as BIOS, and I switched it to UEFI, and I'm sure
I did it wrong
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org said:
…and configure the UEFI boot options, which you can't do because you're
not running under UEFI and so have no access to UEFI runtime services.
That's probably the biggest flaw in the whole UEFI setup - you can't
access it unless you
Hi,
What is the usage of an empty RPM ? What it is for ?
For example, on Fedora 20:
rpm -qpl libvirt-1.1.3.3-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
shows:
(contains no files)
Regards,
Kevin Wilson
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 07:30:16PM +0200, Kevin Wilson wrote:
Hi,
What is the usage of an empty RPM ? What it is for ?
For example, on Fedora 20:
rpm -qpl libvirt-1.1.3.3-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
shows:
(contains no files)
It pulls in the various dependant packages that are required for a
full
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote:
Once upon a time, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org said:
…and configure the UEFI boot options, which you can't do because you're
not running under UEFI and so have no access to UEFI runtime services.
That's probably the
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:30 AM, Kevin Wilson wkev...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
What is the usage of an empty RPM ? What it is for ?
For example, on Fedora 20:
rpm -qpl libvirt-1.1.3.3-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
shows:
(contains no files)
It's effectively a meta-package that pulls in dependencies.
Hi,
Thanks to Adam and Daniel for the quick answer.
I am not an expert about RPMs. I just wonder where are these
dependencies defined for libvirt (and in general for other RPMs),
since the libvirt RPM file itself is an empty file ?
Regards,
Kevin
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 7:37 PM, Adam Miller
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:46 AM, Kevin Wilson wkev...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Thanks to Adam and Daniel for the quick answer.
I am not an expert about RPMs. I just wonder where are these
dependencies defined for libvirt (and in general for other RPMs),
since the libvirt RPM file itself is an
On 02/04/2014 06:46 PM, Kevin Wilson wrote:
Hi,
Thanks to Adam and Daniel for the quick answer.
I am not an expert about RPMs. I just wonder where are these
dependencies defined for libvirt (and in general for other RPMs),
since the libvirt RPM file itself is an empty file ?
You need to have a
I've done conversions in both directions a few times although not very
recently. But having done it, I'd say f it, just reinstall. Or f it, get
drunk and sent to the hospital is even a better experience than converting.
BIOS-UEFI
- BIOS install won't have an EFI System partition, so you have to
example of how to build meta packages
some obsoletes/provides are hacks to get rid of useless
dependencies or workarounds for UsrMove-bugs
the really relevant is Requires:
they do not need to privide files
they only ned to provide dependencies
[builduser@buildserver:~]$ cat
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
I've done conversions in both directions a few times although not very
recently. But having done it, I'd say f it, just reinstall. Or f it, get
drunk and sent to the hospital is even a better experience than
On 02/04/2014 05:31 AM, Dan Mashal wrote:
On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
On Mon, 2014-02-03 at 19:42 -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
I'm not sure why the default -Wall is being
dropped from that line (it is on other tests).
It's explicitly dropped
Le Tuesday 04 February 2014 19:30:16 Kevin Wilson a écrit :
Hi,
What is the usage of an empty RPM ? What it is for ?
For example, on Fedora 20:
rpm -qpl libvirt-1.1.3.3-2.fc20.x86_64.rpm
shows:
(contains no files)
That package does not contain files, but it does contain other things:
On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
I think that half the difficulty here is that UEFI is annoying and the
other half is that both GRUB2 and efibootmgr are miserable.
For single OS installs, you shouldn't have to interact with any of those
things. shim.efi, or
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
I think that half the difficulty here is that UEFI is annoying and the
other half is that both GRUB2 and efibootmgr are miserable.
For single OS
On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
partition, a BIOS Boot partition, and a smallish (1 or 2 GB) ext4
/boot near the beginning of the disk. All Linuxes seem perfectly
happy to install this
Summary of changes:
d09375f... Upstream update. (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Summary of changes:
f640e95... Perl 5.18 rebuild (*)
2b3f8d5... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass (*)
d09375f... Upstream update. (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
I think that half the difficulty here is that UEFI is annoying and the
other
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:21 +0100, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 02/01/2014 11:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
Fedora Products: This *is* Fedora. It comes in three flavors.
I don't like the hardcoded three there at all,
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
/boot is useful regardless of how you boot. The ESP doesn't need to
be very large and doesn't cause any harm if booted via BIOS. The BIOS
Boot
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
653
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5620/bugzilla-3.4.14-2.el6
83
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-12079/bip-0.8.9-1.el6
47
On 02/04/2014 02:44 PM, Sergio Pascual wrote:
Hi, I'm having problems running mock with a rawhide buildroot.
I get the following error
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
# /usr/bin/repoquery -c /tmp/tmpQ6Wu7m --installed -a --qf '%{nevra}
%{buildtime} %{size} %{pkgid}
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:03 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
partition, a BIOS Boot partition, and a smallish (1 or 2 GB) ext4
/boot near the beginning of the disk. All Linuxes seem perfectly
happy to install this way
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:49 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
And in fact it's worse in that presently I can't create an ESP per
disk because the installer is mountpoint centric not partition
centric. So I can only create one ESP on one disk because I can have
only one /boot/efi.
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:49 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
partition, a BIOS Boot partition, and a smallish (1 or 2 GB) ext4
/boot near the beginning of
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:03 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
partition, a BIOS Boot partition, and a smallish (1 or 2 GB) ext4
/boot near the
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:49 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:03 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
partition, a BIOS Boot
On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
IMO in an ideal world, there would be one (or zero!) copy of the
bootloader config, and the default configuration of the bootloader
would populate the ESP (with the signed shim!), the BIOS Boot
partition, and the (fake) MBR
On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:34 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:49 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
And in fact it's worse in that presently I can't create an ESP per
disk because the installer is mountpoint centric not partition
centric. So I can only create one
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 12:26 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Your proposal like cmurf's involves us auto-creating the BIOS boot
partition, so it doesn't have *that* problem, but it has another
problem, the one I pointed out to cmurf - it's not actually all that
easy to have custom part just
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:21 +0100, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On 02/01/2014 11:07 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Right now, the vision essentially looks like:
Fedora Products: This *is* Fedora. It comes in three flavors.
I don't like the hardcoded three there at all,
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:11 +0100, H. Guémar wrote:
I'm not fond of keeping spins around when we're focusing on products.
That gives the message that they are second-class citizens in Fedora.
We already have about sixteen 'citizen classes' within the spin system,
as I pointed out in another
On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:49 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Feb 4, 2014, at 11:03 AM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
partition, a BIOS Boot
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 10:30:58AM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 10:19 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Feb 4, 2014, at 10:42 AM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
I think that half the difficulty here is that UEFI is annoying and the
other
On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:03 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
This reminds me: I *always* install with a GPT partition table, an ESP
partition, a
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 11:49:06AM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
What failed? I'm guessing that userspace improvements since then have
mostly fixed this. I've never seen any problem on F18 (IIRC) and up
with GPT partition tables being BIOS-booted. It seems to Just Work
(tm).
Some
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:45 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
You of all people know the consequences of adding more complexity to the
installer's partitioning codepaths. ;)
Yeah what's complex is error checking whether an ESP is needed, and
whether it's present, and the not present gripe code,
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:52 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Feb 4, 2014, at 12:49 PM, Andrew Lutomirski l...@mit.edu wrote:
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 10:03 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
This reminds
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 11:27 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:15 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
honestly going back to only a install DVD with a sane user-UI and
dedicate all the time wasted for the spin/products/discrimination
discussions for documentations, screenshots and
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:29 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
and my suggestion is now to just create both partitions when
installing to GPT. Presumably if firmware can handle a GPT disk at
all, it won't care whether it happens to contain an ESP unless it's
actually trying to boot it using
Thank you for pointing me the bug report
2014-02-04 Panu Matilainen pmati...@laiskiainen.org:
On 02/04/2014 02:44 PM, Sergio Pascual wrote:
Hi, I'm having problems running mock with a rawhide buildroot.
I get the following error
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
#
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:29 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
and my suggestion is now to just create both partitions when
installing to GPT. Presumably if firmware can handle a GPT disk at
all, it won't care whether it
1 - 100 of 165 matches
Mail list logo
