Hi, folks. There's a meeting slot tomorrow at the usual time, 2010-08-24
15:00 UTC. There's nothing new on the agenda page -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers:meeting-agenda-list - and I
can't think of any particularly pressing topics, so we may not need to
have a meeting. I'll be around in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I just submitted updates for el5 and f1{2,3,4} as well as a build for
rawhide (f15) of a new fedpkg build. Here is a summary from the rpm:
- - Error check the update call. #625679
- - Use the correct remote when listing revs
- - Add the bash complet
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 7/30/10 9:34 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> I'd like to get some wider testing on it than what I subjected it to.
> Constructive criticism welcome.
>
Did you ever get testing on this?
- --
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 08:12 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Roberto Ragusa wrote:
> > Some more tags for "functionally comparable to" and the name of
> > some well known programs for Windows or Macintosh would let
> > people cope with the original names of Linux apps.
> >
> > Nero -> k3b, xcdroast
>
2010/8/23 drago01 :
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>
>>> Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) said:
>>> > > My concern with this line of thinking is that you're asking us to
>>> > > quantify
>>> > > the unknown unknown, and de
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:06:32PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> This, however, is just packaging guidelines. From readng the thread, there
> are many things that I think people would like covered with systemd before
> they would feel comfortable with it. So, I'm going to attempt to quantify
> wh
Top FAS account holder who has completed reviewing "Package review"
components on bugzilla for last week ending 22nd August is Emmanuel
Seyman.
Emmanuel Seyman : 4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=624339
perl-Lingua-PT-Stemmer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.
(intentionally breaking thread)
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
> Maybe I should start a new thread since this isn't really a bug, but it is
> a blocker -- we need to get some packaging guidelines out for systemd.
> I think that the last message on the subject was this one:
>
> http:/
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 13:16 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:24:42PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 06:49:33PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > > I think "run X as user Xorg if you're on KMS" would be a fine
> > > > > F15Feature to aim for. Ubun
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 11:51 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 23:29:38 +0800
> Chen Lei wrote:
>
> > 2010/8/22 Thomas Spura :
> > > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:48:31 -0400
> > > David Malcolm wrote:
> > > [snip]
> > >>
> > >> So you'll need to update the %files for python3 subpackages,
>
On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 19:16 -0500, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 5:48 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > I just built Python 3.2a1 into rawhide:
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=191382
> > so the meaning of "python3" in rawhide just jumped from Python 3.1 to
>
On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 14:50 -0400, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 04:31:08PM +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 18:48:31 -0400
> > David Malcolm wrote:
> > [snip]
> > >
> > > So you'll need to update the %files for python3 subpackages, listing
> > > something lik
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:08:24PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 13:59, Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) wrote:
>
> > On 8/23/10 1:17 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > I understand your desire to get your code out there in the real world. But
> > > Fedora really can't a
On Mon, 23.08.10 18:24, David Malcolm (dmalc...@redhat.com) wrote:
> With my former "QA architect" hat on: please do have a test day for
> systemd, and try to cover a broad range of different uses and use cases:
> with a change this deep, it's the things you're not expecting that cause
> the "inte
On Mon, 23.08.10 17:04, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > I am not sure what your problem with me or systemd is, but I'd prefer
> > you dropped those personal attacks, or at least if you call me a
> > pretender point me to where I supposedly "pretended" something.
> >
> > Also, given h
2010/8/23 Miloslav Trmač :
> If non-sysadmins will hardly notice the new init system, shouldn't the
> sysadmins, who will notice, be the primary consideration?
> Mirek
Not IMO. Sysadmins are just one group of stakeholders. My intervention
was just to put things in perspective.
However if a sysad
On 08/24/2010 03:55 AM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> Right. So the problem is to not actually break PackageKit's notification
> system, not to add blue tack and scotch tape on top of it.
The proposed solution is not just for package update issues but for
general announcements that are of importance to
Piscium píše v Po 23. 08. 2010 v 23:14 +0100:
> It seems to me that it is mostly sysadmins that are concerned about
> systemd. That is understandable, they are the group of users that will
> be most affected by the new paradigm, and will have to learn new
> tricks.
>
> Yet sysadmins are just a se
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 13:14 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 11:03 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> > Why isn't this idea merged into PackageKit and the rest of the update
> > infrastructure, which should take care of important notifications to
> > users?
> >
> > Or were you
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 23:47 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 17:31, David Malcolm (dmalc...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > > > 20:07:05 nirik: hence F15, I think
> > > > 20:07:11 nirik/adamw: I know lennart was working on a bugfix
> > > >release of systemd todasy
> >
It seems to me that it is mostly sysadmins that are concerned about
systemd. That is understandable, they are the group of users that will
be most affected by the new paradigm, and will have to learn new
tricks.
Yet sysadmins are just a section of the Fedora users. For example,
people that like me
On 08/24/2010 03:34 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> No you're not, you fight change at every turn and have completely
> dismissed my concerns and Matt's concerns as "funny". I have nothing more
> to say to you on this or on Pulseaudio except to hope that systemd is as
> easy to uninstall. Do what you
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 16:39, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> >
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, 23.08.10 16:22, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > >
> > > > (yet another thing we ignored in thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/23/10 2:32 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Not answering Mike directly here, but the thread in general...
>
> IMHO, it's too early to have this discussion.
> Alpha has not even been released...
>
> Instead, before:
>
> 2010-09-14Beta Change De
On 08/24/2010 03:09 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> You fixed them all so far, then got onto devel and pretended that fixed
> bugs mean no bugs. So yes, to put it as directly as possible: My
> experience with systemd has been absolutely horrible.
The tone of the conversation seems to have degraded agai
On Mon, 23.08.10 16:39, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 23.08.10 16:22, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote:
> >
> > > (yet another thing we ignored in this process). My experience has so far
> > > been very bad wit
On Mon, 23.08.10 17:31, David Malcolm (dmalc...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > 20:07:05 nirik: hence F15, I think
> > > 20:07:11 nirik/adamw: I know lennart was working on a bugfix
> > >release of systemd todasy
> > > 20:07:45 dmalcolm: yeah, no shame in moving it out a release...
>
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 23:30:22 +0200,
drago01 wrote:
>
> Being "2 months old" isn't a problem in itself ... bugs on the other
> hand might be if they can't be fixed in time (this does not include
> already fixed ones).
It is already too late. The bugs impacted alpha testing and probably in
a
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 16:22, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > (yet another thing we ignored in this process). My experience has so far
> > been very bad with systemd so when Lennart proclaims that everything's
> > fine, I'm just filled wi
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 23:05:11 +0200,
Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> I know I am repeating myself: everything's wonderful.
Maybe now, but the landing close to alpha made it harder to do some other
testing needed before the alpha. (Though the fallout from Python and Boost
updates, seemed wors
On Mon, 23.08.10 16:22, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote:
> (yet another thing we ignored in this process). My experience has so far
> been very bad with systemd so when Lennart proclaims that everything's
> fine, I'm just filled with more worry.
Bugzilla ids please?
Lennart
--
Lennar
On Mon, 23.08.10 16:17, Dennis Gilmore (den...@ausil.us) wrote:
> > > It's just risk management. I think we'd be better off acknowledging
> > > there are unknown unknowns and try to mitigate them. One way we could
> > > have done that this time around was making it an optional feature (as
> > >
Not answering Mike directly here, but the thread in general...
IMHO, it's too early to have this discussion.
Alpha has not even been released...
Instead, before:
2010-09-14 Beta Change Deadline
Features 100% Complete
We should look at the state of things and decide if we should revert
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 22:57 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 16:17, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
>
> > Oh, I have found a later meeting, from August 3rd. There, the
> comments
> > (after a brief discussion o updating the wiki)
[snip]
>
> > [... different-topic
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
>> Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) said:
>> > > My concern with this line of thinking is that you're asking us to
>> > > quantify
>> > > the unknown unknown, and define a time period of testin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/23/10 2:08 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Well, but why? things in F14 are jolly?
>
> Either stop this discussion or tell me exactly which bug you think is
> the one that makes you think that "systemd for f14" doesn't work out?
I don't have an
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 16:17:26 -0500
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> With no outcome other than to stick with upstart for now its not all
> wonderful and peachy. it has been the case forever that if your
> using ldap for auth you need to have network start before dbus that
I think you mean user
On 20 August 2010 21:25, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> The attached list shows currently orphaned packages in F-14. If they are
> not claimed by the end of next week, they will be blocked, potentially
> breaking dependencies (and causing more things to be blocked...)
>
> If you already co-maintain the
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) said:
> > > My concern with this line of thinking is that you're asking us to quantify
> > > the unknown unknown, and define a time period of testing which is
> > > 'long enough' for us to catch all the unknown unknow
On Monday, August 23, 2010 04:05:11 pm Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 15:52, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) said:
> > > > So, I'm honestly asking: what are the odds that these few thing
Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) said:
> > My concern with this line of thinking is that you're asking us to quantify
> > the unknown unknown, and define a time period of testing which is
> > 'long enough' for us to catch all the unknown unknowns. This seems
> > impractical, in as much as it doe
On Mon, 23.08.10 13:59, Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) wrote:
> On 8/23/10 1:17 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > I understand your desire to get your code out there in the real world. But
> > Fedora really can't afford to have a marketing-disaster release right now.
> > Because this is a fa
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 16:47 -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:15:12PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> >> It would be good to define such a nonstandard abbreviation as "MTA"
> >> when posting a new thread so that more p
On Mon, 23.08.10 15:52, Mike McGrath (mmcgr...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> > Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) said:
> > > So, I'm honestly asking: what are the odds that these few things are the
> > > only improvements that cause a disruptive change t
On 08/23/2010 01:54 PM, Manuel Escudero wrote:
>
> b) Let's test it first in Fedora and see how it goes, my idea was having
> a notification system that let the user Choose between what kind of news
> they wanna recieve in some part of the instalation process (trough
> anaconda) so
> if they want
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/23/10 1:17 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I understand your desire to get your code out there in the real world. But
> Fedora really can't afford to have a marketing-disaster release right now.
> Because this is a far-reaching change to a core servic
On Mon, 23.08.10 16:17, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
> Oh, I have found a later meeting, from August 3rd. There, the comments
> (after a brief discussion o updating the wiki):
>
> 20:05:40 What do folks think on systemd? still too early to tell
>if it will be ready for
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=553142
--- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-08-23 16:54:46 EDT ---
It would be best to wait and see if there is going to be a
extra ch
2010/8/23 Adam Williamson
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 11:03 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> > Why isn't this idea merged into PackageKit and the rest of the update
> > infrastructure, which should take care of important notifications to
> > users?
> >
> > Or were you expecting other types of notific
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) said:
> > So, I'm honestly asking: what are the odds that these few things are the
> > only improvements that cause a disruptive change to user interaction? I
> > don't think it's unreasonable to wonder if there are o
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:23 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:15:12PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>> It would be good to define such a nonstandard abbreviation as "MTA"
>> when posting a new thread so that more people would know what is being
>> discussed.
>
> It's actually a
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 19:30UTC (3:30pm EDT) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
= Followups =
#topic #351 Create a policy for updates - status report on implementation
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/351
#topic #382 Imp
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 15:48 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 20:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Given the degree to which sysadmins are religious about MTA choice, I'd
> > suspect that a large proportion of people who run an MTA on Fedora are
> > probably already swapping it
Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) said:
> So, I'm honestly asking: what are the odds that these few things are the
> only improvements that cause a disruptive change to user interaction? I
> don't think it's unreasonable to wonder if there are other changes which fit
> this category.
My concern
On 08/24/2010 01:47 AM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> I understand your desire to get your code out there in the real world. But
> Fedora really can't afford to have a marketing-disaster release right now.
> Because this is a far-reaching change to a core service, any problems people
> encounter will be
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 04:15:12PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> It would be good to define such a nonstandard abbreviation as "MTA"
> when posting a new thread so that more people would know what is being
> discussed.
It's actually a long-standing and well-recognized term.
I think it's one of t
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 09:33:26PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Well, maybe we should discuss this when we actually ran into a real
> problem instead of just "seeing patterns"?
> Seriously, don't discuss these things to death in advance.
The whole point of having these things in testing is t
> pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> I know its been discussed in the past but there's been reasons not to
>> drop a default MTA but now that cronie (the last actual dependency)
>> has support for logging to system logs is there any reason to include
>> an MTA by default for F-14?
>
It would be good
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 11:03 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> Why isn't this idea merged into PackageKit and the rest of the update
> infrastructure, which should take care of important notifications to
> users?
>
> Or were you expecting other types of notifications?
The motivation for this system
This has all been talked about in the past and there was even some
action taken on it. I wrote up the wiki page, but Will Woods did all
the heavy lifting. We missed our target and appear to have been side
tracked since but there aren't really many line items left before we
can pull the trigger.
ht
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On 08/23/2010 02:21 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 20:10 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> pbrobin...@gmail.co
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 20:37 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 03:15:11PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>
> > What's the benefit of having no default MTA at all? Is it that Desktop
> > users don't care about MTAs being installed? what about those of us who
> > care more about serv
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 03:15:11PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
> What's the benefit of having no default MTA at all? Is it that Desktop
> users don't care about MTAs being installed? what about those of us who
> care more about server installations than Desktop?
Given the degree to which sysadmins
On Mon, 23.08.10 14:55, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
> This is such a substantial change, and the system so young, that I'm really
> afraid that one such cycle isn't going to be enough. I don't think it would
> be a failure to say that we should leave the system as optional for F14 an
On 08/23/2010 02:21 PM, pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 20:10 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>>> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
> I know its been discussed in the past
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 11:54 -0400, Genes MailLists wrote:
> Whatever we do please make it an option NOT to have any window splat
> on the screen anywhere - let it stay in the system tray and not
> interfere with my work.
It gets worse. I frequently come back to a desktop on which my
girlfrien
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 20:10 +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
>> > pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> >> I know its been discussed in the past but there's been reasons not to
>> >> drop a default MTA
On Sun, 2010-08-22 at 20:10 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> I know its been discussed in the past but there's been reasons not to
> >> drop a default MTA but now that cronie (the last actual dependency)
> >> has su
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 08:22:16PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > This is the second such surprise that I've come across -- "shutdown -r +1"
> > of course being the other. And of course before that, the long thread about
> > the chkconfig and service commands. I was positively impressed by yo
There was an unexpected outage starting at 2010-08-23 17:57 UTC, which
lasted about 20 minutes
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2010-08-23 17:57 UTC'
Reason for outage:
hosted01 died. Root cause still unkn
On Mon, 23.08.10 12:40, Matthew Miller (mat...@mattdm.org) wrote:
> This seems like a useful behavior, but we can't just make old options have
> radically different meaning -- there's really no room for interpretation.
>
> How about having a new option called "noboot", "nowait", "nobootwait",
> "
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 18:56:02 +0200
Martin Sourada wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 23:03 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
> > Hi, all.
> >
> > As the primary maintainer of Fedora's WebKitGTK+ stack, allow me
> > first to apologize for my lack of diligence here. Let me simply say
> > that I know now tha
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 11:38 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> >
> > And change it. The request was pretty clear.
> >
> > -Mike
>
> Try to stay friendly, maybe ?
> Lennart said at the outset that he was open to change it.
> And, while this discussion
commit ca171970a195d247807b3f568aa4e3ca8539db9a
Merge: d6cf610 9c9084e
Author: Nicolas Chauvet
Date: Mon Aug 23 19:40:03 2010 +0200
Initial pseudo merge for dist-git setup
---
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@li
Summary of changes:
49e81d5... Fix typo that causes a failure to update the common directo (*)
410c059... - rebuild against perl 5.10.1 (*)
76d126a... Update to 5.22 (*)
d2ce085... - Update to 5.24 (rpm version : 5.24) (*)
515d1f9... - Mass rebuild with perl-5.12.0 (*)
5705e7c... - Upd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 8/23/10 9:27 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>
>>
>> Lennart Poettering wrote:
>>> So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
>>> you make a g
commit 1860b18bbaabd07e7adf883a432f7b9c7b67de5e
Merge: 84619c7 bd6c025
Author: Nicolas Chauvet
Date: Mon Aug 23 19:36:36 2010 +0200
Initial pseudo merge for dist-git setup
---
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@li
Summary of changes:
edeb30b... Initial import (*)
e2dfdbf... Rebuilt (*)
8c1f9cb... dist-git conversion (*)
84619c7... Update to 0.04 (*)
1860b18... Initial pseudo merge for dist-git setup
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 11:38 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> And change it. The request was pretty clear.
>
> -Mike
Try to stay friendly, maybe ?
Lennart said at the outset that he was open to change it.
And, while this discussion rages here, he has in fact already
implemented the request
On 08/23/2010 09:33 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
>> Well, we took the liberty to interpret noauto a little bit differently
>> than you: everything marked "auto" will be mounted at boot, and boot
>> will not proceed until all devices listed as auto appeared a
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 09:24:42PM +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 06:49:33PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > > I think "run X as user Xorg if you're on KMS" would be a fine
> > > > F15Feature to aim for. Ubuntu's been working on it too:
> > > Of course, doing so just turns
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:40:35PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Is it helpful at this point if I file a bug for systemd's noauto behavior?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=626502
--
Matthew Miller
Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional & Research Computing Services
Harvard Schoo
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:40:35PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> So, my question is serious. If we go ahead with systemd for F14, will we be
> hit with an onslaught of confusion, trouble, and change? That would be good
> for testing systemd, but *not awesome* for the distribution or for its
> user
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>> * fstab(5) documents the "noauto" option
>
> Well, what it says is that noauto results in "the -a option will not
> cause the filesystem to be mounted". And that's still the case. We
> execut
On Tue, 2010-08-03 at 23:03 -0700, Peter Gordon wrote:
> Hi, all.
>
> As the primary maintainer of Fedora's WebKitGTK+ stack, allow me first
> to apologize for my lack of diligence here. Let me simply say that I
> know now that almost maxing-out one's unit counts for a semester,
> double-majoring
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 12:23, David Michael (fedora@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>> > i.e. "auto" → wait for this on boot; "noauto" → don't delay boot for this.
>>
>> I may be wron
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 05:51:30PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Well, we took the liberty to interpret noauto a little bit differently
> than you: everything marked "auto" will be mounted at boot, and boot
> will not proceed until all devices listed as auto appeared and are fully
> mounted (o
On Mon, 23 Aug 2010, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>
> >
> > Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
> > > you make a good case for dropping this automatism? I
On Mon, 23.08.10 12:23, David Michael (fedora@gmail.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> > i.e. "auto" → wait for this on boot; "noauto" → don't delay boot for this.
>
> I may be wrong, but wasn't there already a "bootwait" and "nobootwait"
> defined
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Well, we took the liberty to interpret noauto a little bit differently
> than you: everything marked "auto" will be mounted at boot, and boot
> will not proceed until all devices listed as auto appeared and are fully
> mounted (or things timed out). File systems marked a
On Mon, 23.08.10 10:52, Garrett Holmstrom (gho...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
>
> Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
> > you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
> > to do so.
>
> That behavior might
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> i.e. "auto" → wait for this on boot; "noauto" → don't delay boot for this.
I may be wrong, but wasn't there already a "bootwait" and "nobootwait"
defined for this behavior?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://a
Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> Well, we took the liberty to interpret noauto a little bit differently
> than you: everything marked "auto" will be mounted at boot, and boot
> will not proceed until all devices listed as auto appeared and are fully
> mounted (or things timed out). Fil
On 08/23/2010 02:19 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
A lowly user view here about popups ..
Whatever we do please make it an option NOT to have any window splat
on the screen anywhere - let it stay in the system tray and not
interfere with my work.
All the popup notifications are annoying and d
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
> you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
> to do so.
That behavior might be fine, but don't add filesystems marked "noauto"
to the list of filesystems to be mounte
On Mon, 23.08.10 10:28, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Lennart Poettering said:
> > So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
> > you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
> > to do so.
>
> The fact that
Fedora collection packages maintainers
Please pick up latest translation and build your package with it for
translators by 26-Aug. On 27-Aug, Release Engineering team will compose
the image for software translation review in UI. Then all language
translators will be able to review and correct t
Opps, that list was incorrect.
Orphaning the following packages:
fedora-security-guide-en-US -- A Guide to Securing Fedora Linux
zikula-module-MultiHook -- MultiHook is a simple replacement for the old
AutoLinks module for Zikula
zikula-module-Polls -- Simple voting system for Zikula
zikula-mo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am orphaning the following packages:
fedora-security-guide-en-US -- A Guide to Securing Fedora Linux
php-LightweightPicasaAPI -- A lightweight API for Picasa in PHP
php-pear-File-Bittorrent2 -- Decode and encode data in Bittorrent format
php-phpS
Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) said:
> So, to turn this around. Do you think this behaviour is problematic? Can
> you make a good case for dropping this automatism? If so I'd be willing
> to do so.
Yes, 'noauto' has defined semantics of 'not automatically mounted at boot';
breaking tha
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
