Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-05-13 at 13:45 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
current karma next to each push request? Or maybe Bodhi could be
configured to automatically cancel stable requests when the karma drops
below 0?
I can look at doing this on the client side for pushes. That's a
Chen Lei wrote:
Andrea Musuruane wrote:
On F-12/x86_64:
[snip]
swami-0:0.9.4-6.fc12.x86_64
It seems to me that removing gtk+ won't be an easy task :(
Most of those applications are replaced, e.g. xmms2 for xmms, putty(svn)
for putty 0.60, since it's already done by some other
Juha Tuomala wrote:
They've modified the bugzilla way too much and thus logged in users
cannot for example change version or component which causes that
there is way too much of entries that would need some kind of manual
work and they lack the manpower to do that.
[...]
They do give these
Michael Schwendt wrote:
But that high-impact bugs in some Fedora Updates have slipped
through, because their package maintainers had been willing to take
the risk, and that has prompted some people to try to change that
part of Fedora.
That's *exactly* what I am afraid of... that Fedora is
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Here is where we have a definition problem. To me, unbaked stuff is
things that haven't had a good month of testing if its a large change
(a couple of days if its a small one).
If you count all the testing done on prereleases, KDE 4.4.0
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
similar distro isn't for them.
I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
working out a method that satisfies more users.
Ubuntu's
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/13/2010 03:01 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Maybe by chasing stable you will find more users, but I think you will
lose adventurous users in the doing. I also think that the sort of user
you are likely to pi^H^Hirritate are the ones more likely to contribute
Jon Masters wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:09 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Then in my opinion those users, and those maintainers who wish to cater
to those users, can go start their own project.
Even if those users are 70+% of the current Fedora users?
Prove it.
Prove
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 01:14 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
[...]
There is clearly no reason to continue this conversation with you Kevin.
We are just going to disagree.
That's what's really sad to me. Despite that the only hard evidence we
have seems to agree with what
Kevin Kofler wrote:
as long as you require only a few 32-bit packages, requesting them
explicitly is not the end of the world. So if we were to drop support
for that always install all libs as multilibs option
Eh? I didn't even know there was such an option. And I agree, /that/
should be
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/11/2010 02:14 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Can you leave bodhi feedback with an FAS account if you haven't signed a
CLA? (The thing about FAS accounts I am not crazy about is the CLA. What
about using a bugzilla account instead?)
What is the problem you have
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/11/2010 11:00 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
I tried to send you a reply, but it bounced; gmail says the address you
gave does not exist.
I got the mail. Thanks.
Yes, sorry. Must not have read the bounce close enough; I was trying to
forward a copy to myself
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
You forget people developing proprietary software...
Why would we want to encourage or even support that?
I don't expect Fedora to encourage it (nor should we, IMO)... but that
doesn't change the reality of $DAYJOB. If Fedora drops multilib, I
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
You forget people developing proprietary software...
Why would we want to encourage or even support that?
I don't expect Fedora to encourage it (nor should we, IMO)... but that
doesn't change the reality of $DAYJOB
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:29:42 -0600, Matthew wrote:
There are just too many -devel packages and their dependencies to be ever
relevant to someone for multi-arch installs. Far more users install i686 on
64-bit CPUs, and I have doubts that x86_64 installation users do
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:30:05 -0600, Matthew wrote:
Probably because
I need multilib and have never experienced multilib-related problems (or
if I have, they were so trivial as to be thoroughly forgettable).
Just out of interest, does enabling a separate 32-bit
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
Also thanks for packaging that immediately -- what about installing it
by default? It's a tiny package and we really do want our users to
provide feedback.
I do not mind, if it is installed by default, but I am not sure,
whether
Michael Schwendt wrote:
There are just too many -devel packages and their dependencies to be ever
relevant to someone for multi-arch installs. Far more users install i686 on
64-bit CPUs, and I have doubts that x86_64 installation users do much
development with i686 packages. At most they
Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Such as? We're filling a niche, this is one of our unique selling points,
you want to throw out the baby with the bathwater!
Who is this we you keep speaking of? When did huge dumps of updates
in supposedly
James Antill wrote:
The current state of play is (taking a random kde example):
kdeutils F11 GA 4.2.2-4.fc11
kdeutils F11 Updates 4.4.0-1.fc11
kdeutils F12 GA 4.3.2-1.fc12
kdeutils F12 Updates 4.4.0-1.fc12
...so if someone tries to update from F11 (with updates) using an F12 GA
Björn Persson wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
1. upgrades which disrupt, regress or break things. Those can only be
pushed to Rawhide, if at all.
Such as KDE 4.4, just to pick a recent example. I had to log out and log in
again before I could start Kmail again. That can be quite disruptive if I
Doug Ledford wrote:
One could argue that the current bodhi karma system is simply too
simplistic for real use cases. Maybe instead of just +1 -1, there
should be:
Fixes my problem
Works for me (someone testing that didn't necessarily have any of the
problem supposedly fixed by this update
Charley Wang wrote:
The details behind what this feature will do, along with how to
get failing packages to build can be found here :
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UnderstandingDSOLinkChange
a program that links with libxml2 and uses dlopen may not link with libdl
Nothing forbids linking to
23 matches
Mail list logo
