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
>>
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
t
>On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:16 AM, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:00:33AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400,
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:17:19AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett 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
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:16:37AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The machine will have a functional UEFI implementation. Why would we
> > want to replace it?
>
>
> Um, because you're not asking permission?
I'm sorry, I really don't unde
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Garrett 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 happen
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:00:33AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett
>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> >
>> >> But the best thing is that a free s
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 happened with ARM,
> Microsoft refuses to grant Fedora a special key
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:00:33AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> >
> >> But the best thing is that a free software UEFI would let anybody put
> >> their own key as hardware r
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett 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 would indeed solve
> part of the problem you point out.
>
> Why not?
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>
>> But the best thing is that a free software UEFI would let anybody put
>> their own key as hardware root, and this would stymie the
>> rationalizing of big shots holding roo
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 pre-enabled secure
boot.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:54:56AM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> But the best thing is that a free software UEFI would let anybody put
> their own key as hardware root, and this would stymie the
> rationalizing of big shots holding root and granting signing services
> to their hardware.
All UEFI i
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:09:37 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
>> Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>>
>>> I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
>>
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:41:20AM -0400, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> We do not have to have every motherboard work well with free
> software. But we do need at least one, and we hope many.
What market share Linux has is storngly infuenced by people's ability to
install Linux on computers that they
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:41 AM, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>>
>> Not to mention that you are effectively telling anyone not currently
>> using "Red Hat Hardware" that they can't run Linux, thus eliminating
>> the ability to gain new Linux users.
>
> You
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 Fedora. If all x86 machines shipped with a F
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 would indeed solve
> part of the problem you point out.
>
> Why not?
Because said machines would cost more than identica
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
>> > >
>> >
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Gerald Henriksen wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:01:53 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 00:09:37 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
>> Jay Sulzberger wrote:
>>
>>> I think 50 million dollars toward buying, and properly arranging
>>> the UEFI, of several lots of x86 computers would in
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> > On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murp
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Jay Sulzberger 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 you point out.
Why not?
Why? 50millio
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:01:53 -0400, you wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald
>>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>>>
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:21:14 -0400 (EDT)
Jay Sulzberger 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 you point out.
>
> Why not?
Why? 50million dollars is a big order, but I don't
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 17.06.2012 01:14,
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012, Jay Sulzberger wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald
wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
> >> Please provide an e
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
> >> Please provide an example of a better option, with sufficient detail
On 2012-06-16 21:08, 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. Then everything
would look consistent- the "Fedora Linux" boot o
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:08 AM, 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. Then everything would look
> consistent- the "
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>> >> Please provide an example of a better option, with s
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
without losing any messages is a difficult problem.
--
Matthew Garret
On 17 June 2012 11:49, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
>> On 17 June 2012 10:53, Richard W.M. Jones 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 pr
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 07:54:17PM -0400, Seth Johnson wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> >
> >
> > Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
> >> Please provide an example of a better option, with sufficient detail as to
> >> constitute a successful relay of the ba
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>> Please provide an example of a better option, with sufficient detail as to
>> constitute a successful relay of the baton.
>> The point of the thread from the outset was to explore alternative
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 12:24 AM, Benny Amorsen wrote:
> Richard Hughes 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 several dozen test updates takes another 20 seconds.
>
> Your hardware is t
Richard Hughes 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 several dozen test updates takes another 20 seconds.
Your hardware is too cheap. BIOS boot time is proportional to price when
the hardwa
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. That is to stop reinventing
the wheel.
Matěj
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 17 June 2012 18:49, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> You're asserting that dbus-daemon etc cannot be restarted, but without
> saying why.
Okay, I'll say why. The core protocol was never designed to support
the dbus-daemon being restarted.
> The current design may make restarting some daemons
> di
On Jun 17, 2012, at 12:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.06.2012 20:21, schrieb Heiko Adams:
>> Am 17.06.2012 20:15, schrieb drago01:
>>>
>>> By that logic we could just stop development today.
>>>
>> +1
>
> mhh and some "changes for the sake of the change" are showing that
> there are
On 17 June 2012 20:01, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> In this case we may save outage time, because we don't have waste time
> for the BIOS POST, loading the bootloader and the kernel.
It takes me 4 seconds to POST, boot the kernel, get into
system-update.service, and then reboot. Using a new rpm versio
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 09:01:11PM +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 08:40:31PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>
> > Yeah but those where examples not the sole reason why reboots are required.
> > It is not like if we didn't switch to systemd this problem wouldn't
> > exist. (which wa
Am 17.06.2012 20:21, schrieb Heiko Adams:
> Am 17.06.2012 20:15, schrieb drago01:
>>
>> By that logic we could just stop development today.
>>
> +1
mhh and some "changes for the sake of the change" are showing that
there are things which are working fine and should not be touched
and changed and
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 08:40:31PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> Yeah but those where examples not the sole reason why reboots are required.
> It is not like if we didn't switch to systemd this problem wouldn't
> exist. (which was my point re "blaming").
Do we realy need a complete reboot of the syste
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:19 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:08 PM, drago01 wrote:
>> A new feature is being added nothing is getting removed so no there is
>> no regression.
>
> Thats newspeak if I ever saw any.
>
> Going from a system which generally doesn't prompt users
Am 17.06.2012 20:15, schrieb drago01:
>
> By that logic we could just stop development today.
>
+1
--
Regards
Heiko Adams
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 2:08 PM, drago01 wrote:
> A new feature is being added nothing is getting removed so no there is
> no regression.
Thats newspeak if I ever saw any.
Going from a system which generally doesn't prompt users to reboot to
one that does is a regression.
> dbus is not optional
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.06.2012 06:08, schrieb Ben Rosser:
>> In Fedora 17, when you install grub2 and generate a fresh config file, that
>> config is produced by grub2-mkconfig.
>> However, when you install a kernel update, the kernel's entry is added to
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:51 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> you are aware that on ARM platform is NO DISABLE SECURE BOOT allowed
>> this is not "future requirement"
>> this is CURRENT requirement for Win8 on ARM
>
> It was also the original r
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 8:08 PM, drago01 wrote:
> [...]
>> If slippery slope arguments are to be dismissed when they're used
>> against new features like systemd (or Wayland or whatever), then
>> Fedora really does need to draw a line in the sand and say no to bad
>> effects when they crop up.
>
>
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>
> And now some mere userspace daemons mean users will constantly need to
> reboot for upgrades?
No.
> Regressions against featuresets from the '70s and '80s are pretty unfortunate
On Jun 17, 2012, at 11:25 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.06.2012 19:16, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>>
>> What I believe is irrelevant. You're proposing emotional reaction based
>> on a future hardware requirement that has not been proposed,
>> is not in the interest of Microsoft or their OE
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:51:32 -0400
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Reindl Harald
> wrote:
> > you are aware that on ARM platform is NO DISABLE SECURE BOOT allowed
> > this is not "future requirement"
> > this is CURRENT requirement for Win8 on ARM
>
> It was also the o
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:06 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> That's simply not possible. Some processes like dbus-daemon and
> gnome-session just cannot be restarted in this way. It's a complete
> fallacy to believe you can update core libraries on a modern Linux
> system without rebooting.
I upgrad
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> you are aware that on ARM platform is NO DISABLE SECURE BOOT allowed
> this is not "future requirement"
> this is CURRENT requirement for Win8 on ARM
It was also the original requirement on x86 before negative PR was
generated and the requir
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 05:06:51PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 17 June 2012 10:53, Richard W.M. Jones 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 o
Am 17.06.2012 19:16, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>
> On Jun 16, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>> Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>>> Please provide an example of a better option, with sufficient detail as to
>>> constitute a successful relay of the baton.
>>> The point of the t
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> It was justified. Only one is speculation. The other utilizes evidence and a
> track record of behavior.
... Right, In one case the actual participants in the discussion have
expressed doubt that they had any effect, and in the other we ha
On Jun 16, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
>> Please provide an example of a better option, with sufficient detail as to
>> constitute a successful relay of the baton.
>> The point of the thread from the outset was to explore alternatives
On Jun 16, 2012, at 6:36 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 8:16 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Calls for speculation. We know what the certification policy used to be. We
>> also know how long DOJ takes to do anything, let alone politicking behind
>> the scenes to arrive at comp
On 17/06/12 17:17, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 17 June 2012 11:00, Frank Murphy wrote:
Not much use to Xfce users.
Xfce doesn't have a native PackageKit client.
If you run the
gnome-settings-daemon updates plugin then it "just works".
Not since F16. iirc
I don't
think XFCE has the manpowe
On 17 June 2012 11:00, Frank Murphy wrote:
> Not much use to Xfce users.
Xfce doesn't have a native PackageKit client. If you run the
gnome-settings-daemon updates plugin then it "just works". I don't
think XFCE has the manpower to re-implement all the stuff needed for
the existing QA release tim
On 16 June 2012 14:04, Reindl Harald wrote:
> the next "have solution, searching problem" of Lennart?
> hopefully this leads not sooner or later in uncareful
> designs where it get more and more a must
No, if you mist blame somebody please send insults to me instead. I
asked Lennarts advice on ho
Am 17.06.2012 06:08, schrieb Ben Rosser:
> In Fedora 17, when you install grub2 and generate a fresh config file, that
> config is produced by grub2-mkconfig.
> However, when you install a kernel update, the kernel's entry is added to the
> grub2 boot menu by grubby.
>
> This produces messy g
Am 17.06.2012 01:14, schrieb Chris Murphy:
> Please provide an example of a better option, with sufficient detail as to
> constitute a successful relay of the baton.
> The point of the thread from the outset was to explore alternatives, but so
> far those alternatives are vaporware.
why do peo
On 17 June 2012 10:53, Richard W.M. Jones 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, then instruct those
> packages to restart themselves. Job d
Ben Rosser 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 stop using grubby for this. Then everything would look
consistent- the "Fedora Linux" boot option w
On 16/06/12 00:15, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
.fesco 868
#topic ticket 869 F18 Feature: Offline Updates using systemd and
packagekit -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OfflineSystemUpdates
.fesco 869
Not much use to Xfce users.
--
Regards,
Frank
"Jack of all, fubars"
--
devel mailing list
de
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 only a few situations - like kernel updates -
> > which requires a reboo
On Sat, Jun 16, 2012 at 02:57:30PM +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:15:53PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> > #topic ticket 869 F18 Feature: Offline Updates using systemd and
> > packagekit -
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/OfflineSystemUpdates
> > .fesco 869
>
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 05:09:17PM -0600, Jerry James wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> > I'm having a problem with building the coq package for the new OCaml
> > 4.00.0, and I'm at my wits' end. There were some bad interactions
> > between the new OCaml, camlp5, and
On 17/06/12 05:08, Ben Rosser wrote:
In Fedora 17, when you install grub2 and generate a fresh config file,
that config is produced by grub2-mkconfig. However, when you install a
kernel update, the kernel's entry is added to the grub2 boot menu by grubby.
This produces messy grub boot menus.
fi
72 matches
Mail list logo
