recently, I've seen few users running Fedora with nomodeset. They didn't
know about that and were just complaining about poor resolution and/or
performance (and those systems worked just fine without nomodeset). Also,
sometimes, users choose basic video driver because something is broken, but
Also, I have feeling that Lutris is far superior alternative, at least for
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 4:01 PM Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 9/10/19 8:35 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > This will lock me in the Steam only:)
> We ship wine-staging, which should handle any Windows game.
I don't think it's that late for FE for F31 Beta, but this is something we
can discuss on our meeting tomorrow.
devel mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> And that is sufficient. As long as it compiles, you can package it.
> upstream "supports" it or not is irrelevant.
It depends on package maintainer. If upstream dropped 32-bit support, I'd
stop building it for that arch in Fedora.
Why would package maintainer have to bear the
Personally, I am not at all against raising the bar for baseline x86_64. Of
course, it'd be ideal to have some sort of derived x86_64_avx arch, but if
we find out it'd require too much of an investment into infra/releng, I'd
be +1 for just changing the base x86_64. Sure, it'd make sense to
I've proposed some packaging changes  to Fedora wine package. TLDR: It
splits d3d libraries into subpackages and lays groundwork for future dxvk
packaging . Details are in the PR.
*What is DXVK?*
Vulkan-based D3D11 and D3D10 implementation for Linux / Wine. In short, you
this is probably question for mutter/gnome-shell maintainers. But as I see
it, there is a reason why are those patches not backported into stable
branches in upstream. There can be regressions, the thing that you have
zero issues doesn't mean anybody else won't have them. Backporting those
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:58 AM Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 7/15/19 11:34 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > Hello, Dridi Boukelmoune.
> > Mon, 15 Jul 2019 08:26:59 + you wrote:
> >> Emulate as in not run natively even though the hardware might be able
> > Sorry for
On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:17 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <
> On Tuesday, 25 June 2019 at 14:36, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 23:17:30 -0500,
> > Justin Forbes wrote:
> > >
> > > It is not a violent cheat. It was proposed this way 2
On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 1:22 PM Jan Pazdziora wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 12:53:35PM +0200, Jan Tulak wrote:
> > Hi guys
> > I'm trying to enable gating tests for package system-storage-manager.
> > The tarball contains upstream tests and I would like to use these
> > (with the ability
Why is this Self-Contained Change and not a System Wide Change?
It seems, at least to me, that it should be System Wide Change, according
On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 3:45 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:43 AM Kevin Kofler wrote:
> If you follow exactly this procedure, the set of "the multilib packages
> installed before" will be empty and you will not reproduce the issue at
> hand. Multilib cruft has not been installed by default for years now! (And
> that is a good
We have encountered a bug which seemingly “broke” offline updates after
systems were upgraded from an older Fedora to Fedora 29 and had some
multilib packages installed. After the discussion at last week's Release
Retrospective meeting, I am proposing some changes to our blocking
great, here it is:
On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:24 PM, Pavel Valena wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > From: "Fabio Valentini"
> > To: "Development discussions
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 3:50 PM, Fabio Valentini <decatho...@gmail.com>
> On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 3:29 PM Frantisek Zatloukal <fzatl...@redhat.com>
> > Hi,
> > I've tried to get updated rubygem-jekyll to fedora
I've tried to get updated rubygem-jekyll to fedora few months ago. It
stalled on old liquid unfortunately. I've been building new versions of
rubygem-jekyll in my COPR from time to time.
can't this be affected also by different disk vendors (drive vendor in
Lenovo laptop can vary even in same model) and different firmware of disks?
Also, drive FW is upgradeable in Lenovo laptops.
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 5:39 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
I am thinking about proposing this as Blocker Bug/PrioritizedBug, it's
pretty significant regression compared to current state on Fedora 26.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:06 PM, Kalev Lember wrote:
"Frantisek Zatloukal" <fzatl...@redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2016 4:46:20 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora Developer Portal as a application
Hi Petr and Frantisek,
Are there future plans for developing this further, or is the goal just to have
Mail list logo