On 05/02/14 05:46 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 02/04/2014 06:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
And then we can definitely justify making them bigger. 550MB, or even 1GB. It's
neutral to plus
for performance for either HDDs or SSDs (faux short stroked in the former, and
overprovisioned for
the latt
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:24 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> > Are there official guidelines on how to handle selinux contexts in
> > packaging? I can still only find the draft which seems way more
> > complicated than necessary for my needs.
>
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:24 -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Are there official guidelines on how to handle selinux contexts in
> packaging? I can still only find the draft which seems way more
> complicated than necessary for my needs.
>
>
> I'm working on a package that uses mongodb internally (run
On 02/05/2014 12:24 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Are there official guidelines on how to handle selinux contexts in
> packaging? I can still only find the draft which seems way more
> complicated than necessary for my needs.
>
> I'm working on a package that uses mongodb internally (runs it's own
> i
Add in "Keywords" field:
FutureFeature
Or edit the title with [RFE] prefixed?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Everyone does not need reopen: just the ability to change the version
> would suffice. (Unless there are serious worries about the risk of
> allowing users to deface version fields?) I think auto-expiration would
> work great with this twe
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 14:50 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The problem is that no-one seems to come up with an alternative that's
> any better. Leaving bugs on EOL versions open to rot away and be
> ignored
> is no use. We *could* give everyone privs to re-open closed bugs, I
> guess, and I person
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:04 -0800, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
>> > TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to update
>> > the version if they wanted it to stay
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> Sure it does - it tells them to update the version if the problem still
> occurs.
Those instructions start with "Package Maintainer:" so they are not
directed at the people experiencing the bug.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.o
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 15:04 -0800, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to update
> > the version if they wanted it to stay open so I'm a bit surprised to hear
> > that they can't unles
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 22:57 +, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 05/02/14 22:50, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > The problem is that no-one seems to come up with an alternative that's
> > any better. Leaving bugs on EOL versions open to rot away and be ignored
> > is no use. We *could* give everyone privs t
On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 22:59:46 +
Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 05/02/14 22:57, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> > TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to
> > update the version if they wanted it to stay open so I'm a bit
> > surprised to hear that they can't unless they are also a pa
On 05/02/14 23:02, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
In fact the first message actually tells the reporter to do that:
: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not
: be able to fix it before Fedora 18 is end of life. If you
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to update
> the version if they wanted it to stay open so I'm a bit surprised to hear
> that they can't unless they are also a packager.
Regular bug reporters definitely can't. Of
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The idea of not closing bugs that have comments after the EOL
> notification doesn't necessarily make things better, I don't think; we'd
> just have errors in the other direction. Say someone dropped a note 'oh
> yeah, this is working now!'
On 05/02/14 22:57, Tom Hughes wrote:
TBH I thought the whole point was that the reporter was expected to
update the version if they wanted it to stay open so I'm a bit surprised
to hear that they can't unless they are also a packager.
In fact the first message actually tells the reporter to do
On 05/02/14 22:50, Adam Williamson wrote:
The problem is that no-one seems to come up with an alternative that's
any better. Leaving bugs on EOL versions open to rot away and be ignored
is no use. We *could* give everyone privs to re-open closed bugs, I
guess, and I personally don't think that w
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 22:48 +, Colin Macdonald wrote:
> On 05/02/14 22:42, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> > This is also not the first time this has happened to me.
>
> I'll chime in: when I first switched to Fedora (F14/15 era), I found
> this quite obnoxious, enough that I remember it.
>
>
On 05/02/14 22:42, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
This is also not the first time this has happened to me.
I'll chime in: when I first switched to Fedora (F14/15 era), I found
this quite obnoxious, enough that I remember it.
So there is also an issue of being a welcoming community to newcomers
David Timothy Strauss wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Timothy Strauss
wrote:
Telling me to join a group is also not addressing my complaint. My
complaint is that Fedora is auto-setting EOL on bugs with no clear way
for even the users who reported the bugs to stop it from happening.
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 14:39 -0800, David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Quite a lot of people have editbugs - I think it's in the hundreds or
> > thousands
>
> I mean "few people" in the sense that it requires a specific grant of
> permissions,
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:39 PM, David Timothy Strauss
wrote:
> Telling me to join a group is also not addressing my complaint. My
> complaint is that Fedora is auto-setting EOL on bugs with no clear way
> for even the users who reported the bugs to stop it from happening.
> Obviously, my comment w
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Quite a lot of people have editbugs - I think it's in the hundreds or
> thousands
I mean "few people" in the sense that it requires a specific grant of
permissions, more than to just report bugs.
Telling me to join a group is also not addr
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:36 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Please don't. This is not accurate. Bugzappers has been inactive for
> > years now. Packagers and QA team members (and possibly other groups I
> > don't know about) get editbugs privileges via automatic inher
Adam Williamson wrote:
Please don't. This is not accurate. Bugzappers has been inactive for
years now. Packagers and QA team members (and possibly other groups I
don't know about) get editbugs privileges via automatic inheritance into
the 'fedorabugs' group, and 'fedorabugs' group admins can hand
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 16:09 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> > That is not something I appear to have access to do. And, if I don't,
> > very few people do.
Rather a lot do, actually - see below.
> If you'd like to help update bugs then apply for the Bugzappers g
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987706
Fedora End Of Life changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
David Timothy Strauss wrote:
That is not something I appear to have access to do. And, if I don't,
very few people do.
If you'd like to help update bugs then apply for the Bugzappers group in FAS and
you'll get editbugs access to be able to change the version in the future.
As far as the bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984185
Fedora End Of Life changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|---
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Susi Lehtola
wrote:
> You just need to change the Version tag.
That is not something I appear to have access to do. And, if I don't,
very few people do.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedo
On Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:51:41 -0800
David Timothy Strauss wrote:
> Like this:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959071
>
> I specifically followed up to say the issue continues in Fedora 19,
> and nothing changed. The bug tracker should not expire bugs if there's
> been a comment after
Like this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=959071
I specifically followed up to say the issue continues in Fedora 19,
and nothing changed. The bug tracker should not expire bugs if there's
been a comment after the EOL warning.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 5 February 2014 10:20, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
I do keep track of the affected packages and may end up doing that,
depending on what happens in a week or two since I posted the initial
message.
We no longer have valid contact information for the following packagers due
to changes in their work duties:
* npajkovs
* fkocina
* zpavlas
For packages that they own we have orphaned the packages and made them
comaintainers. In the future, if their current fas email addresses start to
bounce, w
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> Are there official guidelines on how to handle selinux contexts in
> packaging? I can still only find the draft which seems way more complicated
> than necessary for my needs.
>
> I'm working on a package that uses mongodb internally (runs it'
Are there official guidelines on how to handle selinux contexts in
packaging? I can still only find the draft which seems way more complicated
than necessary for my needs.
I'm working on a package that uses mongodb internally (runs it's own
instance). Selinux is complaining because it has mongodb
On 02/04/2014 06:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
And then we can definitely justify making them bigger. 550MB, or even
1GB. It's neutral to plus for performance for either HDDs or SSDs
(faux short stroked in the former, and overprovisioned for the
latter). Does anyone know why the convention is to c
On 02/05/2014 03:34 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
It's not just that, actually. It has to do with the fact that the
majority of the scientific-focused applications are built atop the QT4
and other KDE libraries, making it much better suited to operating
atop the KDE desktop environment. Certainly
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 08:54:15 -0500,
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Seems to be pretty outdated (*), we're past many things written there aka Live
CD size - for example for desktop and KDE spins. So the CD part could be
removed,
I know several spins doing changes in defaults and it's really up to
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 13:30 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 02/05/2014 01:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >> On 02/04/2014 05:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>
> >>> It's a (hopefully) not too long and not too technical help for
> >>> install
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 10:44 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 05:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > It's a (hopefully) not too long and not too technical help for
> > installing Fedora on UEFI systems. Should cover the 'greatest hits' that
> > show up in bug reports, forums and IRC the
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 04:56:02PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Yeah it's really a mistake for us to be using the linux/initrd commands
> under any circumstances.
I have created the following bug report
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055157
which was reverted because the maint
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:17 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim <
sali...@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 02/03/2014 10:31 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Dave Johansen
> > mailto:davejohan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > The EL6
I've built cogl 1.17.2 in rawhide (required by clutter, in turn
required by mutter, in turn required by gnome-shell) and I'm just in
the process of building clutter 1.17.2 also.
Due to the vast number of things that depend on cogl I'm going to need
some help. At least for cogl, this is the depchai
May take on the Spins
1) Spins have given us a great way to show people what is in Fedora
without installing
2) We have been producing Multi-Live media for several years to give out
at events.
3) The multi-lives make the display machines very easy to maintain (new
release wipe hd and reinstall
Miroslav Suchý writes:
> On 02/05/2014 11:40 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
>> the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct and a
>> simple change.
>
> Usually yes. But e.g. in rhn-client-tools this path is used in
On 02/05/2014 01:09 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 02/04/2014 05:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
It's a (hopefully) not too long and not too technical help for
installing Fedora on UEFI systems. Should cover the 'greatest hits' that
show up in bug
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 02/04/2014 05:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> It's a (hopefully) not too long and not too technical help for
>> installing Fedora on UEFI systems. Should cover the 'greatest hits' that
>> show up in bug reports, forums and IRC the most.
On 02/05/2014 11:40 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct and a
simple change.
Usually yes. But e.g. in rhn-client-tools this path is used in code and the
change is non-trivial
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 11:40 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 5 February 2014 10:20, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
>
> For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
> the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct and a
> si
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:40:20AM +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 5 February 2014 10:20, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> > Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
>
> For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
> the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct an
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 11:20:15AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
There is a rough Guideline about mass bug filing:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mass_bug_filing
If not all packages are fixed after a while, the bugs can still be
filed. However it is also
On 01/31/2014 09:23 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
msuchy rhn-client-tools mzazrive
Filed upstream bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1061013
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS
Red Hat, Senior Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraprojec
On 5 February 2014 10:20, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs?
For stuff like this, I think just getting a provenpackager to fix up
the packages is the best thing to do. It's obviously correct and a
simple change.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproj
Hello,
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 9:23 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> List of affected packages follows (maintainer package comaintainers):
>
Wouldn't it be better to mass-file bugs? Yes, it's more work initially,
but the work would have a larger impact (the bug would keep being tracked,
unlike an e-ma
- Original Message -
> bkabrda python3 amcnabb,bkabrda,mstuchli,tomspur
Fixed in python3-3.3.2-9.fc21
> bkabrda python bkabrda,dmalcolm,ivazquez,jsteffan,mstuchli,tomspur,tradej
Fixed in python-2.7.6-2.fc21
--
Regards,
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedora
On 02/04/2014 05:09 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
It's a (hopefully) not too long and not too technical help for
installing Fedora on UEFI systems. Should cover the 'greatest hits' that
show up in bug reports, forums and IRC the most.
What about installations on systems which only offer 32-bit UE
On Wed, Feb 05, 2014 at 10:27:44AM +0100, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > That was a particularly gray area because it's simply a matter of
> > installing a package or not. Installing rsyslog but configuring it to
> > log differently than the standard is another level of change (although
> > of course a
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 02:45:29PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > You're making a fatal mistake: assuming some kind of sense on the part
> > of firmware authors. ;)
>
> Not really -- I figure that either the firmware is only parsing th
On Tue, Feb 04, 2014 at 04:18:27PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Does anyone know why the convention is to create the ESP as the first
> partition?
Because that's the only configuration anyone's likely to have tested.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.f
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/04/2014 10:37 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 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:
Fedor
On Wed, 2014-02-05 at 01:41 -0500, David wrote:
> On 2/5/2014 12:52 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 21:47 -0500, David wrote:
> >> On 2/4/2014 5:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2014-02-04 at 14:29 -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> >>>
> and my suggestion is now
Summary of changes:
e8b4be3... Perl 5.18 rebuild (*)
538f55a... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass (*)
5423c80... Update to 0.47 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/
Summary of changes:
c73598e... Perl 5.18 rebuild (*)
75efdda... - Rebuilt for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_20_Mass (*)
dd8b89e... Update to 1.61 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/03/2014 10:31 PM, Dave Johansen wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 7:58 PM, Dave Johansen
> mailto:davejohan...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> The EL6 build of llvm 3.4 is currently in testing and it was just
> pointed out that there's a potential issue w
66 matches
Mail list logo
