Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 11:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
well, it would maybe a start to DROP packages which are still
missing systemd-units
On 11/03/2012 08:17 AM, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 11:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
well, it would maybe a start to DROP packages which are still
missing systemd-units
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, November 2, 2012 9:20:05 PM
Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
On 11/02/2012 06:27 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Wrong. Do you know how
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable as a stable
operating system.
I disagree. It's usable by the kind of people who use Fedora. Who like
shiny
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:17:02 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
..snip...
In my experience, in the last few years, Fedora stable releases have
become much more stable. My stable boxes here at home I have not
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Henrique Junior henrique...@gmail.com wrote:
It is difficult, for example, to understand why we have to wait until the
next release to have LibreOffice 3.6, since this seems an non disruptive
update that could bring major improvements in the productivity of
Compose started at Sat Nov 3 09:15:19 UTC 2012
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[dhcp-forwarder]
dhcp-forwarder-upstart-0.10-1801.fc18.noarch requires /sbin/initctl
[dnf]
dnf-0.2.14-2.git4831982.fc18.noarch requires python-hawkey =
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 16:32:00 -0700,
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:18 +0100, drago01 wrote:
In a rolling release model, everyone deals with foo-1.0 to foo-2.0, then
a week later they deal with bar-1.0 to bar-2.0, then a week later they
deal with
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 12:35:08PM +0200, Nikos Roussos wrote:
I understand that regular users are not Fedora's main target, but it
is a general-purpose operating system in the sense that it can be used
by people who want to have a stable working environment with all the
latest things from the
Hans and I have been having a problem uploading the source for the
new version of hegdewars to the lookaside cache. There is some initial
network traffic, but then things hang.
Has anybody successfully uploaded a new file to the lookaside cache in
about the last 12 hours?
--
devel mailing
* Bruno Wolff III [03/11/2012 15:30] :
Has anybody successfully uploaded a new file to the lookaside cache
in about the last 12 hours?
Uploaded Queue-DBI-2.5.0.tar.gz just now.
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
* Jóhann B. Guðmundsson [02/11/2012 20:34] :
That package would hardly be un-maintained if it has co-maintainers
now does it...
Absolutely. Hence my request that any process we put in place be
package-focused rather than maintainer-focused.
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:29:07 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
Hans and I have been having a problem uploading the source for the
new version of hegdewars to the lookaside cache. There is some
initial network traffic, but then things hang.
Has anybody successfully uploaded a
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:41:05 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:29:07 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote:
Hans and I have been having a problem uploading the source for the
new version of hegdewars to the lookaside cache. There is some
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 10:52 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
My position is that the people who use Fedora and the kind of people we
really _want_ to use Fedora can cope with it.
Maybe the majority can maybe they can't. But
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 11:28 +, mike cloaked wrote:
Others may wish to compare Fedora with other distributions also - but
one thought I had was that in Archlinux there are only two repos to
maintain - whilst in Fedora it is 5 repos! One might wonder whether
there is less effort needed to
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 09:37 -0200, Henrique Junior wrote:
The guys behind openSUSE created a good approach with Tumbleweed. By
adding this repo users can opt-in to the (semi)rolling model.
Tumbleweed is more like a pool where updated, stable, non disruptive
software can be installed and I was
Am 03.11.2012 01:09, schrieb Adam Williamson:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 01:07 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 03.11.2012 00:58, schrieb Adam Williamson:
Microsoft don't really expect you to upgrade Windows. They expect you to
buy a computer with Windows X on it, use it for three years, then throw
Am 03.11.2012 11:35, schrieb Nikos Roussos:
In that sense, and from my point of view, if we had to rethink our release
model and dedicate time and energy on a
new approach, it would make more sense to have an extended support release
(providing only security updates after
13 months)
Am 03.11.2012 15:38, schrieb Emmanuel Seyman:
* Jóhann B. Guðmundsson [02/11/2012 20:34] :
That package would hardly be un-maintained if it has co-maintainers
now does it...
Absolutely. Hence my request that any process we put in place be
package-focused rather than maintainer-focused
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:26:43 -0700
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
I don't think rolling release and getting work done are incompatible.
As I mentioned, I run Branched permanently on my desktop - so it
rolls from 'pre-Alpha' state through to 'stable' state briefly and
then back to
On 03.11.2012 18:26, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 10:52 +0100, drago01 wrote:
Eh? That's not what I said at all. What I said was that I think in a
well-managed rolling release model, users would actually run into
trouble only about as often as they already do anyway. I don't
On 03.11.2012 19:17, Alek Paunov wrote:
Adam, I think that the current rolling release discussion as many
other high interest general ones in the recent months are pointless
without some form of explicit definition and statistics of the current
(and desired) distinct Fedora user profiles.
Just
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 11:11:18 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
In any case, I think we do need to look at release cycle changes or at
the very least Feature process revamp.
And get comments from other than developers. Marketting might have serious
concerns about the loss of
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 11:28 +, mike cloaked wrote:
Others may wish to compare Fedora with other distributions also - but
one thought I had was that in Archlinux there are only two repos to
maintain - whilst in
Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 07:46 -0500, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
I'd rather see us do a better job with rawhide so that more people use it and
a better job at making upgrades go smoother so that people just trying
to get stuff done with Fedora have a better experience.
Then the question
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 00:26 +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 07:46 -0500, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
I'd rather see us do a better job with rawhide so that more people use it
and
a better job at making upgrades go smoother so that people just trying
to get
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 09:37 -0200, Henrique Junior wrote:
The guys behind openSUSE created a good approach with Tumbleweed. By
adding this repo users can opt-in to the (semi)rolling model.
Tumbleweed is more like a pool where updated, stable, non
So, I have been thinking about rawhide.
I agree identifying the problems/issues would be good, and I think
there's something we can do to help with that:
Get a nice group of at least 10 or so folks who are active on this list
to agree to run it full time on their main machine.
As we get
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 02:12 +0200, Nikos Roussos wrote:
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 09:37 -0200, Henrique Junior wrote:
The guys behind openSUSE created a good approach with Tumbleweed. By
adding this repo users can opt-in to the (semi)rolling model.
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 06:12:02PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/02/2012 06:05 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
No, they might simply have had nothing to do. Sometimes
applications are stable, have no releases, and have no bugs files
against them.
sigh
Then those individuals would
On 04.11.2012 01:32, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
So, I have been thinking about rawhide.
I agree identifying the problems/issues would be good, and I think
there's something we can do to help with that:
Get a nice group of at least 10 or so folks who are active on this list
to agree to run it full
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 00:26:08 +0100,
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 07:46 -0500, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
I do not run it, so I cannot judge, but I think the first step to fix
something is to know the exact problems to fix. If the issue is too
much
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 18:32:20 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
Additionally, if some number of these folks who pledge to run rawhide
full time were provenpackagers we could just go in and fix things as
they hit (or soon after) instead of waiting a while for fixes to go
out.
I'm
I think we could, just for fun if you like, pursue making a good plan of
how the transition would be and what changes should be done.
Consider it objectively.
What changes would have to be done the OS?
What changes in infrastructure?
What tools do we need?
This could be a good exercise. The
perl-OpenOffice-UNO has broken dependencies in the F-18 tree:
On x86_64:
perl-OpenOffice-UNO-0.07-3.fc17.x86_64 requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
On i386:
perl-OpenOffice-UNO-0.07-3.fc17.i686 requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
perl-OpenOffice-UNO-0.07-3.fc17.i686
perl-OpenOffice-UNO has broken dependencies in the rawhide tree:
On x86_64:
perl-OpenOffice-UNO-0.07-3.fc17.x86_64 requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
On i386:
perl-OpenOffice-UNO-0.07-3.fc17.i686 requires
perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.14.2)
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Queue-DBI:
69339069f20e465c16cd93df7c3af8c7 Queue-DBI-2.5.0.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
perl-Authen-Simple has broken dependencies in the epel-6 tree:
On ppc64:
perl-Authen-Simple-0.4-5.el6.noarch requires perl(Crypt::PasswdMD5)
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-WWW-GoodData has broken dependencies in the epel-5 tree:
On ppc:
perl-WWW-GoodData-1.6-1.el5.noarch requires perl(Getopt::Long) = 0:2.36
On i386:
perl-WWW-GoodData-1.6-1.el5.noarch requires perl(Getopt::Long) = 0:2.36
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora
perl-WWW-GoodData has broken dependencies in the epel-5 tree:
On ppc:
perl-WWW-GoodData-1.6-1.el5.noarch requires perl(Getopt::Long) = 0:2.36
On i386:
perl-WWW-GoodData-1.6-1.el5.noarch requires perl(Getopt::Long) = 0:2.36
Please resolve this as soon as possible.
--
Fedora
41 matches
Mail list logo
