On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Brandon Lozza wrote:
I think an exception should be made for Chromium too.
No. Just no.
The exceptions for Firefox need to stop NOW, i.e. no new ones should be
granted and the ones that have already been granted
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
There was also talk about whether or not it would be allowed for there
to be a separate Iceweasel package in Fedora. This might be done to
test the feasibility of maintaining it. There were mixed
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Adam Jackson a...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-10-14 at 01:39 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
Er, really? I don't see where I offered any insult or un-excellent-ness.
I just meant it as a vaguely humorous way of wondering why Kevin was
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com wrote:
- remove any features
Michal
How do you guys update Gnome then? ;)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 12 Oct 2010 09:43:16 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 6:17 AM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
- remove any features
Gnome is known for removing features, it was a joke.
Perhaps you're confusing me
On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
However, this here is Fedora, a project that once was aiming at
Freedom - As trivial as it is, restrictive trademark policies simply
do not fit into this philosophy.
If we don't
I think an exception should be made for Chromium too. Having a more
secure browser would benefit the main repositories.
On 10/7/10, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
On 10/6/10, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 16:41 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
However
On 10/5/10, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2010-10-05)
===
Meeting started by nirik at 19:30:01 UTC. The full logs are available at
On 10/6/10, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
I won't comment on the trademark issue (because that's just pure lunacy),
but let me comment here they don't accept my patches, so they are non-
free. That's just nonsense ...
Yes it is, that's not the issue. They aren't letting us distribute it
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote:
On 10/05/2010 12:37 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 11:08 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you
change the name, in which case you may loose
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
that's the entire point of having trademarks. Free software projects are
obliged to allow you to access and modify their code. They are not
obliged to allow you to benefit from their reputation. It doesn't make
any
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
We knew that this would happen. We would lose some people. When a
project like us goes basically directionless for years it picks up
people who have different ideas about what they want to create and where
they want to
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question
that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never
bothered to ask it in public, but I'll do now:
* Why haven't those that
: Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org
To: Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca
In-reply-to: aanlkti=whj55xtdwfpfxylzuuccyrgqdjwedlkdsv...@mail.gmail.com
(message from Brandon Lozza on Mon, 4 Oct 2010 09:26:34 -0400)
Subject: Re: Trademarks make software nonfree?
Reply-to: r...@gnu.org
References
On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/05/2010 06:26 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Maybe I'm missed something, but there is a (relative) simple question
that always pops up in my head when I read things like this. I never
bothered to ask it in public,
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
el
Fedora shouldn't include software it doesn't have the resources to
maintain.
Fedora doesn't have resources to fork it. Not the same thing at all.
Rahul
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free
software? Good luck getting anyone including FSF to agree with that
interpretation.
Rahul
I'm sure they will. Trademark restrictions violate one of the
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
We have been through this before. If you take Fedora and modify it, you are
not allowed to use the Fedora name either. Trademark cannot be ever free as
in freedom.
Rahul
Exactly the point I brought up Rahul, thanks
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:37 AM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
It would be really helpful if instead of calling programs
unmaintainable and similar non-sense you would research a bit what
really is the problem ... take
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:28 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
It would be really helpful if instead of calling programs
unmaintainable and similar non-sense you would research a bit what
really is the problem ... take a look at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free
software? Good luck getting anyone including FSF
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
So according to you any free software with a trademark is non-free
software? Good luck getting anyone including FSF
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
GNU Icecat doesn't tell you something?
You said you are going to ask FSF. How about you just ask them if the
presence of a trademark is enough to call software
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
No need to call it “political reasons” (on the side of MoFo) ... nowhere
in the definition of free software is written, that upstream has to
accept your patches. It may happen upstream (any upstream) disagrees with
your patch,
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/04/2010 06:50 PM, Florent Le Coz wrote:
On 04/10/10 14:52, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Trademark cannot be ever free as in freedom.
That's why Fedora should not ship Firefox, but Iceweasel, or Icecat, or
Minefield,
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Florent Le Coz lo...@louiz.org wrote:
On 04/10/10 15:23, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ignoring upstream and patching without consent is only feasible if you
have the amount of resources to do a good job with that. Fedora doesn't
have that.
Rahul
I'm not talking
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn
denni...@conversis.de wrote:
On 10/04/2010 03:34 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Rahul Sundarammethe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/04/2010 06:53 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Rahul
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
That's what i've been saying all day. It's only free software if you
change the name, in which case you may loose brand recognition.
Imagine if Linus forbid
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 11:24:30 -0400 Brandon Lozza wrote:
Firefox doesn't just include source code. It includes intellectual
property with specific restrictions on what you're allowed to do with
it.
Did you use the term
On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
Brandon Lozza wrote:
Let's say I recompile Firefox and make a bunch of my own changes and
REFUSE to change the name. How long do you think it'll take for
Mozilla's lawyers to start threatening me with trademark
On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 11:05 PM, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 2 Oct 2010 20:56:21 -0400, you wrote:
Fedora is just going to end up having a million repos for all the
software that will not be updated for six months. And that makes us
look silly. Windows doesn't have
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
Look, I realise you are passionate about KDE, and want the best KDE
experience in Fedora. But most people are not developers, they
instead are using their desktop environment of choice to get regular,
everyday things
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:01 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 7:25 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
It shouldn't be. Never be afraid of learning, even in the tightest of
situations. It is good for your brain. It helps with analytical
thinking.
Once constant
What does matter to Fedora is having an updates policy that is
designed to minimize disruption to users during a release is pointless
if a significant part of Fedora - KDE - is going to be allowed to
ignore the updates policy and deliberately introduce visible to the
user changes in the
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Gerald Henriksen ghenr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:41:38 +0200, you wrote:
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:53:49 -0400
Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
It would be nice to list
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 09:48:34AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
Say you ship with 50 bugs in a package. As you update it through the
lifetime of a release, that number should decrease more or less
monotonically. The bugs
It would be nice to list it somewhere as an exception, to avoid panics :)
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu wrote:
Brandon Lozza wrote:
It seems like the policy would kill the use of an upgraded KDE (4.5 to
4.6) because KDE almost always makes UI changes
Wasn't this exception allowed for KDE at Fesco? Considering that a
typical KDE upgrade contains bug fixes, security fixes as well as new
features and UI changes.
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 4:02 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 15:53:49 -0400
Brandon Lozza bran
to backports like everyone else, how does that make Fedora better? And
we do want to be better than everyone else if we want to compete with
Apple and Microsoft.
On Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 9:57 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
Wasn't this exception allowed for KDE at Fesco? Considering
Er, whut? I didn't post anything advocating people use Rawhide for
day-to-day purposes. I wouldn't suggest such a thing. All I said was
that I haven't noticed the speed difference between debug and non-debug
kernels, because I haven't. I know it's measurably present, but it
doesn't affect any
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 8:06 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 09:58:53PM -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com:
2010/9/21 Toshio Kuratomi
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
I should add that whether this testing happens in Koji or in AutoQA
isn't material. AutoQA is probably better. *Provided* that if the
basic sanity tests fail they must prevent the packages from going into
the
something like sidux, but fedora based im thinking
stable f14 with the goodies stable vision blocks because people want
stale software, and i'd rather not use rawhide or opensuse
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Richard W.M
One thing I wanted to point out. Windows users get to install the
latest Firefox, KDE, and other apps without having to wait for a new
Windows release. If users had to wait for Windows 8 to get the latest
Firefox, things would be messy. I don't understand what the fear is of
doing this on
Is GNU/Linux supposed to be a mirror into software's past?
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
One thing I wanted to point out. Windows users get to install the
latest Firefox, KDE, and other apps without having to wait for a new
Windows release. If users
On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/21/2010 07:20 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
One thing I wanted to point out. Windows users get to install the
latest Firefox, KDE, and other apps without having to wait
If I have to wait for the next release of Fedora (14 for example) to
get KDE 4.5 then it's looking like the stable updates vision has made
Fedora incompatible with what I need. I will need to consider another
distribution (OpenSUSE most likely, their GCC 4.5 also doesn't suck;
LTO = enabled).
1) I was the one who put a google wave link in the wiki, I tought it might
be a good way of comunication because anyone with a Gmail account can acess
to a wave and use it. If someone do not have a Gmail account he/she simply
can use the IRC, can contact anyone that's helping via their
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 1:48 AM, Léon Keijser keij...@stone-it.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 03:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The lesser of 2 evils is no solution. Only NO evil at all will keep the
user's freedom. Users should NEVER use proprietary software, be it as
JavaScript or using
You are requesting people participate in discussions via Google Wave. This
is problematic for two reasons:
a) Google Wave is dead
b) Noone wants to use Google Wave. See a)
Rahul
a) you're a troll
b) you're a troll
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Well, that's not what HTML, nor the underlying HTTP, was designed for. I
don't see it as being an appropriate platform for software at all. (And I
don't see plugins such as Flash as being the solution either. I believe
this
needs a completely different protocol, e.g. NX is something going
I've already seen websites exploit firefox tabs and they made use of my
gmail account to send spam.
Why should we make firefox easier to exploit?
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 5:07 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 1:15 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at
wrote:
By your logic we should ban gcc, java, mono, python, perl, bash ... as
one can use them to create and/or run non free software.
Also you may be aware that javascript has its uses *outside* of the
web too (just like you can write apps in python you can do it in JS;
and having a JIT that
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.comwrote:
Michał Piotrowski on 08/11/2010 09:28 AM wrote:
I downloadedhttp://
alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/nightly-composes/desktop/desktop-x86_64-20100810.15.iso
- it is too large to fit on the CD.
This is the Green Age
2010/8/11 Michał Piotrowski mkkp...@gmail.com
2010/8/11 Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca:
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com
wrote:
Michał Piotrowski on 08/11/2010 09:28 AM wrote:
I
downloadedhttp://
alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/nightly-composes
Which is great and I understand that but systemd will basically cover
the release time frame for F-13 and F-14 and in that timeframe the
support and issues for PA are going unfixed or even un triaged. Not
great for a core sub system. So maybe it would be a good idea to train
up a few people
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:57 AM, Nicu Buculei nicu_fed...@nicubunu.ro wrote:
On 07/28/2010 01:08 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
On 07/27/2010 10:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been released
recently and I am wondering if we can go with it if it fits
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:49 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/28/2010 04:15 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
We're NOT allowed to make changes (patches) without their permission.
This is defacto non-free. I understand we work with upstream but that
shouldn't prevent us from
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/28/2010 04:22 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote
The FSF drafted up the four freedoms and it's not offtopic, we're
discussing Firefox4 and the fact that we won't be able to make changes
to it to fix it without
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/28/2010 05:47 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 6:55 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/28/2010 04:22 PM, Brandon Lozza wrote
The FSF drafted up the four freedoms and it's
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28/07/10 13:52, Mike McGrath wrote:
snip
Maybe as firefox4 available in
updates-testing, but certainly not a core default package.
+1
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded
Friend of Fedora
--
devel mailing
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Martin Sourada
martin.sour...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-07-28 at 09:57 +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote:
On 07/28/2010 01:08 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
On 07/27/2010 10:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been
Doesn't our version already support WebM?
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:53 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Are we skipping Firefox 4 for Fedora 14? Beta 2 has been released
recently and I am wondering if we can go with it if it fits into the
schedule. There are dozens of new
F11 or F12 had a beta version of firefox
spot's chromium builds do support webm, it works great :)
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 6:11 PM, Athmane Madjoudj athma...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/27/2010 11:08 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Tue, 27 Jul 2010, Athmane Madjoudj wrote:
On 07/27/2010 10:53 PM,
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:28 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2010-07-24 at 15:31 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 09:10:24AM -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
Hey all! It's
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
Hey all! It's that time again, we're gearing up to branch for Fedora 14
this coming Tuesday! There is a major twist this time around, we're
going to attempt a roll out of dist-git!
--snipped---
I'm just curious but
On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Horst H. von Brand
vonbr...@inf.utfsm.cl wrote:
Jonathan MERCIER bioinfornat...@gmail.com wrote:
LLVM itself could allow for much greater flexibility in programming
language choice. It can allow for anyone to take any language and output
it in bytecode, machine
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Przemek Klosowski
przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote:
On 07/13/2010 11:55 AM, Brandon Lozza wrote:
I'm going to keep a personal note of the apps which do perform faster
and grab the src rpm's so that I can compile them myself with LTO.
Jakub Jelinek said
A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce faster
code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking into. For
example I noticed a significant difference on the OpenSUSE distro when GCC
was upgraded and they repackaged their software with it in their
On 7/8/10, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-07-08 at 11:31 -0400, Brandon Lozza wrote:
A mass rebuild would be recommended as the new compiler will produce
faster code. I believe everything will benefit and it's worth looking
into. For example I noticed
ok :)
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim
michael.silva...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/SRPMS
http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/RPMS
Working F13 packages are available if anyone wants to try
you're in now Michel
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 10:37 AM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
ok :)
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Michel Alexandre Salim
michael.silva...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
http://www.pwnage.ca/dist
http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/SRPMS
http://www.pwnage.ca/dist/RPMS
Working F13 packages are available if anyone wants to try or make comments
on them. (Might not meet package guidelines yet)
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
I got it setup for the feature
I got it setup for the feature wrangler too
On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 8:41 PM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_Programming
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_ProgrammingHere is the
feature page
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:58 PM
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_Programming
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Go_ProgrammingHere is the feature
page
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Rakesh Pandit rakesh.pan...@gmail.comwrote:
2010/6/27 Brandon Lozza :
No I have not actually, didn't know I had to. I saw
I know this might be slightly off topic because of python but:
I would love to see a feature for GCC 4.5 if its not already assumed
to be in F14 (OpenSUSE will have GCC 4.5 in 11.3 out soon)
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:02 AM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2010-06-22 at 08:40
I think you guys are experiencing the infinite loop bug
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:52 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:07:16 +0200, Kevin wrote:
It fails for a Yum install. I warn about such competing Obsoletes, because
they strictly require the user
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Luke Macken wrote:
This report definitely conveys the shortcomings in our testing, however,
it does show us improving with each release. For Fedora 13, we implemented
the No Frozen Rawhide process with improved Critical
78 matches
Mail list logo
