On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
The roles stuff? I have, though I'm not sure if I just failing to get it
or something but I don't see anything there that looks especially useful to
a server administrator.
Other than pulling in a group of packages it's not
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.orgwrote:
This doesn't mean I'm against doing Big Exciting New Things in general
or Fedora.next in particular, but I do want to stand up for the value of
just keeping your head down (hah, I know, Adam, practice what you
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:15:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Just to wax philosophical for a minute: I think there's a lot of value
in building boring stuff that works well, and I might be weird, but I
[snip eloquent defense of the virtues of boring basic distro work]
This doesn't mean
On 01/29/2014 02:57 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:15:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Just to wax philosophical for a minute: I think there's a lot of value
in building boring stuff that works well, and I might be weird, but I
[snip eloquent defense of the virtues of
On Wed, 2014-01-29 at 08:57 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 06:15:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Just to wax philosophical for a minute: I think there's a lot of value
in building boring stuff that works well, and I might be weird, but I
[snip eloquent defense of
Matthew Miller wrote:
Our mission and branding, including our foundations, tend to
steer away from the dull and towards new shiny. In fact, whenever we
do something that could be characterized as head-down plodding forward
progress instead of a bold leap, we hear *quite a bit* of sarcasm
about the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/29/2014 12:06 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
Our mission and branding, including our foundations, tend to
steer away from the dull and towards new shiny. In fact, whenever
we do something that could be characterized as
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:39:53PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Understood, but OTOH it makes me wonder if Fedora.next is a step to
big and needs to be split or something.
Well, in practical implementation, it probably _will_ be done as incremental
steps. For example, there's the possibility
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
[...]
So that's some of my thoughts. More later -- gotta take the kids to the
dentist now. :)
You forgot the part where you explain how / why Fedora.next solves all
this issues. Some like cloud and server usage is
On 28/01/14 14:42, Matthew Miller wrote:
* Fedora's drift towards being primarily a desktop OS (with other use areas
considered secondarily if at all) ends up practically restricting uses
which people really do want Fedora for. That's bad for people who want to
use Fedora in innovative
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:42:54AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
So, here's some things I see.
Oh, I forgot one...
* There is a lot of excitement about containers right now. It's not a new
idea, but one where a lot of things have come together to make
containerization interesting and viable
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:19:38PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
So that's some of my thoughts. More later -- gotta take the kids to the
dentist now. :)
You forgot the part where you explain how / why Fedora.next solves all
this issues. Some like cloud and server usage is more or less clear
(focus
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:33:43PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
I think the reason that people have trouble defining what Fedora
Server might mean is that it simply doesn't make a huge amount of
sense as a thing.
Yes, that has traditionally been the stumbling block. But have you looked at
what the
On 01/28/2014 05:33 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
And that's reasonable. But as we have defined Fedora server as not anything
in particular, that drifts closer and closer to not a thing. That leaves
define release criteria -- let alone blockers.
Why do you think we in QA are going to be defining
On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 17:40 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 01/28/2014 05:33 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
And that's reasonable. But as we have defined Fedora server as not anything
in particular, that drifts closer and closer to not a thing. That leaves
define release criteria -- let
On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 09:44 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Matthew's sentence does not parse grammatically at all, which makes it
hard for me to figure out what I'm saying,
what he's saying, I meant. Good grief, my fingers and brain are not
connected this morning.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:19:38PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
You forgot the part where you explain how / why Fedora.next solves all
this issues. Some like cloud and server usage is more or less clear
(focus product) but the rest is a bot hand weavy. For instance why
should any of the changes make
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 09:44:34AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
And that's reasonable. But as we have defined Fedora server as not
anything in particular, that drifts closer and closer to not a
thing. That leaves define release criteria -- let alone blockers.
Why do you think we in QA
On 01/28/2014 05:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Yeah, what? I'm not sure if that's lack of coffee or if I can blame my
computer in some way. I think that was supposed to be That leaves little
room to or something like that.
As for what I think... I expect the working groups will work with the QA
On 28/01/14 17:33, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 03:33:43PM +, Tom Hughes wrote:
I think the reason that people have trouble defining what Fedora
Server might mean is that it simply doesn't make a huge amount of
sense as a thing.
Yes, that has traditionally been the
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 6:47 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 04:19:38PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
You forgot the part where you explain how / why Fedora.next solves all
this issues. Some like cloud and server usage is more or less clear
(focus product)
On 28 January 2014 07:42, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
* General trend in Linux towards the base distribution being boring and
not mattering. I asked several dozen different people at a gigantic
Amazon
conference why everyone was using the distribution they chose
Hi,
* Although it's certainly not the only reason, Fedora as _solely_ a hobbyist
desktop is not ideal for an upstream for RHEL server and cloud products.
No other system can be reinstalled / upgraded every six months. That
single fact IMHO kills all other use cases.
If I need a stable
Hi,
what is a role? Is database-server a usefull role?
Or would that go more to owncloud-server or joomla-server ...
This would then pull all packages in.
And if Owncloud supports several databases, Fedora should make a choice
and install only one of them. A user which cares so deeply to
On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 19:04 +0100, drago01 wrote:
Second, give people what they *do* care about: choices of language stacks
above the base level, and a layer of separation so that there isn't a big
impact when the base layer changes. To quote someone I talked to: No
distribution does that
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:04:52PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
This is again hand wavy(sorry for overusing this term). I can
already have multiple language stacks
for instance python, java, ruby and php on fedora (or pretty much any
other distribution) just fine today.
And I don't expect it to
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 08:34:23PM +0100, Robert M. Albrecht wrote:
* Although it's certainly not the only reason, Fedora as _solely_ a
hobbyist desktop is not ideal for an upstream for RHEL server and
cloud products.
No other system can be reinstalled / upgraded every six months. That
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:16:40PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I will be giving a talk on Sunday, February 9th in at DevConf in Brno,
CZ, and I'll post slides from that (probably here as text as well), and
I assume there will be video.
That's great (I'll be there; Fosdem as well), but
On 28 January 2014 13:38, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 08:34:23PM +0100, Robert M. Albrecht wrote:
* Although it's certainly not the only reason, Fedora as _solely_ a
hobbyist desktop is not ideal for an upstream for RHEL server and
cloud
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:06 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:04:52PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
This is again hand wavy(sorry for overusing this term). I can
already have multiple language stacks
for instance python, java, ruby and php on fedora (or
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:20:33AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I for one waited (and still wait) for a text that gives a brief
overview; something like a four or five para text which outlines the
consequences and how Fedora will look like in the end. Something easy to
understand; so easy
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:58:55PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
The biggest things I can see from Fedora.Next is working on solving 1,2,3
by making it easier and faster to either port or carry your own versions of
the apps you need and making as much of the OS 'metric' as possible so that
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 10:00:25PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
Right now, the version of Python installed has to be the version that is
required for code in the base -- yum or dnf at the very least, possibly
puppet or chef, maybe firewalld or cloud-init. If your code isn't
Python3-ready when
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:11:08PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I wasn't being dismissive. I have seen no plans to alter the core of
how Fedora, at a package level, is built. In fact, if I did see a
proposal that said we're not going to ship repositories or RPMs I'd
be pretty damned
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 01:53:56PM +, Ian Malone wrote:
Cool. If I was to take this one step further then, an issue for Fedora
Jam is we were limited in the customisations the could be made for a
spin (e.g. defaulting users into certain groups to allow real time
audio). While there's not
On Tue, 2014-01-28 at 20:34 +0100, Robert M. Albrecht wrote:
Hi,
* Although it's certainly not the only reason, Fedora as _solely_ a hobbyist
desktop is not ideal for an upstream for RHEL server and cloud products.
No other system can be reinstalled / upgraded every six months. That
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:20:33AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi!
On 23.01.2014 19:26, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info
wrote:
The packaging guidelines are very daunting. Automating as much of
that as possible, either
On 23 January 2014 21:57, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:54 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
To be honest my concerns are more with
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/27/2014 05:36 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
So without, unfortunately, the time to read through reams of stuff
on this and with my user hat on (don't think I've seen any
discussion of this on the users list), if it means how fedora
actually works is
On 27 January 2014 13:06, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 01/27/2014 05:36 AM, Ian Malone wrote:
does this mean there will be things unavailable on some 'products'
that are not on others?
No.
The Products will be defining an environment and a standard install
set. They
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 12:04 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
After hacking a simple tool which provides a GUI for a repository file
it's possible to create repository packages complete with desktop and
appdata file. I have some 5-10 such repository packages under way, my
plan is to push them
On 01/27/2014 01:06 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
No.
The Products will be defining an environment and a standard install
set. They may have separate initial*installation* repositories if
they need to provide different options to Anaconda, but beyond that
the intent is for all of the Products
On 1/25/14, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 12:04 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
After hacking a simple tool which provides a GUI for a repository file
it's possible to create repository packages complete with desktop and
appdata file. I have some 5-10 such
- Original Message -
From: Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2014 11:22:36 AM
Subject: Re: Fedora.next in 2014 -- Big Picture and Themes
On 1/25/14, Adam Williamson awill
Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 25.01.2014 17:35, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 11:20 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Debian, who has a similar stance on
non-free Software, does a way better job in that area than Fedora
does.
Well, not really - they don't
On 1/26/14, Aleksandar Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com wrote:
I feel obligated to comment on this. JPackage and Fedora have taken
different routes years ago and installing JPackage rpm on top of Fedora will
likely break Fedora packages due to:
* additional OSGi metadata Fedora ships but JPackage
Hi!
On 23.01.2014 19:26, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info
wrote:
[…]
Thx for your answer, just replying to some parts of it where I feel that
making additional statements bring the discussion forward.
What really gives me the
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.infowrote:
[cut]
The Fedoraproject once again chose to leave non-free out of Fedora. I
appreciate that. I even think a lot of users understand why the
Fedoraproject acts like this (now and earlier, too). But: it utterly
Hi!
On 23.01.2014 20:57, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:03:02PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Okay, I'll bite (after thinking whether writing this mail is worth it):
Thanks. I hope that I can make you feel that it was.
Thx for your answer – yes, I think it was worth it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi!
On 23.01.2014 22:33, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100 Thorsten Leemhuis
fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
[…] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
else should
Hi!
On 23.01.2014 22:45, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:03 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
wikipedia page. Further: kororaproject.org, fedorautils-installer and
similar project show that there are people that want to make Fedora
better. But they do their work outside of
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 11:20 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Debian, who has a similar stance on
non-free Software, does a way better job in that area than Fedora does.
Well, not really - they don't have a 'similar stance', they have an
official non-free repository. That's kind of a significant
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 12:04 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote:
After hacking a simple tool which provides a GUI for a repository file
it's possible to create repository packages complete with desktop and
appdata file. I have some 5-10 such repository packages under way, my
plan is to push them into
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 08:43 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Guidelines is a link to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines :
Configuration for package managers in Fedora MUST ONLY reference the
official Fedora repositories in their default enabled and disabled state
(see the yum
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:16:40 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
...snip...
Agreed. For example, +1/like-Buttons for a mailing list would be
good afaics, to get a rough impression how people think (just
wondering: will hyperkitty or something from that camp of developers
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 09:59:12 -0700
Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2014 12:16:40 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
...snip...
Agreed. For example, +1/like-Buttons for a mailing list would be
good afaics, to get a rough impression how people think
On 25.01.2014 17:35, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 11:20 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Debian, who has a similar stance on
non-free Software, does a way better job in that area than Fedora does.
Well, not really - they don't have a 'similar stance', they have an
official
On 23/01/14 18:48, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Even the formation of the working groups was odd - the original decision to
form them, as I read it, was that they were to explore the idea of doing
these three streams but within days it
Colin Walters wrote:
People have been constantly confused by whether Fedora does DHCP by
default over the years, because we've flipped it several times. When
we introduced it for clients/workstations, I consider it to have been a
*massive* win to be able to plug in an ethernet cable and have it
On Jan 23, 2014 2:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
I'm still undecided if I overall like Fedora.next or fear it. But more
and more I tend to the latter position and wonder if it might be wise
to slow
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:58:07 -0700
Eric Smith space...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014 2:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
This is not practical. Lots of people are thinking about a
fedora.next, qa folks are coding away, lots of people who normally
would be working on the next
On Jan 24, 2014 10:29 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
The things they are working on have been known for years, but our 6
month release cycle with no hope of being able to work on tooling
hasn't allowed them to do so.
Thanks for the clarification. I'm certainly on board with lengthening
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/23/2014 06:13 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 02:16:23PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you
are technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 01/23/2014 06:12 PM, Lars Seipel wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 05:07:16PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Also possibly correct. However, that doesn't preclude the repos
as we know them today from still existing, with still the same
quality.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:58:07 -0700
Eric Smith space...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014 2:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
I'm still undecided if I overall like Fedora.next or fear it. But
more
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 09:58 -0700, Eric Smith wrote:
On Jan 23, 2014 2:33 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
I'm still undecided if I overall like Fedora.next or fear it. But
more
and more I tend to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi!
On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
[…] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
else should be included? What different directions should we
consider? How will we make Fedora more awesome than ever in the
coming
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
Verbose: Yes, I really think the Fedora needs changes -- at some point
a few years ago we mostly continued to do things as they have always
been done (read: since Core and Extras merged), without thinking if
those
On 23/01/14 18:26, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
And I really wonder if Fedora.next is really backed by those community
contributors that are not involved in Fedora to deeply. One reason for
I wonder the same. However, I
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:03:02PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Okay, I'll bite (after thinking whether writing this mail is worth it):
Thanks. I hope that I can make you feel that it was.
The main reason for that: Fedora.next is a huge effort that seems to
make everything even more
On 23 January 2014 11:48, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the way the whole thing
seemed
to be a fait accompli such that there seemed to be little point doing
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 January 2014 11:48, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Personally I think a lot of it has to do with the way the whole thing
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi!
On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
[…] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
else should be included? What different directions
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:03:02 +0100
Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi!
On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
[…] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
else should be included? What different
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:03 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi!
On 03.01.2014 19:14, Matthew Miller wrote:
[…] So those are my things. What do you think about them? What
else should be included? What different directions should we
consider? How will we make Fedora more awesome than ever
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 19:03 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
wikipedia page. Further: kororaproject.org, fedorautils-installer and
similar project show that there are people that want to make Fedora
better. But they do their work outside of Fedora and RPM Fusion;
fixing the issues directly at
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor
hat - that we will lose the gold standard unified packaging standards and
single source and mechanism for installing packages.
I haven't seen anything from any
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor
hat - that we will lose the gold standard unified packaging standards and
single source
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:54 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
To be honest my concerns are more with my user hat on than my contributor
hat - that we will lose the
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 13:57:38 -0800
Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
The repos will still exist, but things will be different. At present,
the Fedora repos are the single unified official Fedora method for
deploying software on Fedora products. Any other method you can use to
deploy
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 01:57:38PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
If these plans go ahead, we will have multiple official/blessed methods
for deploying software on Fedora, potentially with different policies
about what software they can include and how that software should be
arranged, how
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:57 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:54 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 4:49 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 13:48 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
To be honest my concerns are
On 23 January 2014 14:14, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com
wrote:
My view of the matter was pretty much the same as Tom's and I was at
FLOCK.
The language at the sessions I attended was not one of We would
quoting simplified: is Tom Hughes, is me, is Josh. Restored
part of Tom's original context.
The actual spins (or whatever you want to call them) aren't something
that bother me at all, as they are to my mind largely irrelevant for
anybody other than a new user. When I bring a new
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
quoting simplified: is Tom Hughes, is me, is Josh. Restored
part of Tom's original context.
The actual spins (or whatever you want to call them) aren't something
that bother me at all, as they are to my mind
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 17:26 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are
technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos,
the RPM format, or yum/dnf, their plans - under a reasonable
interpretation of the discussions so
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 17:26 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are
technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos,
the RPM format, or
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 23:37 +0100, drago01 wrote:
No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a
vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in Fedora: our
*only* way. If you want to install the Fedora-y version of a particular
piece of software, you use
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 23:37 +0100, drago01 wrote:
No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a
vacuum. Right now they are our way of shipping software in Fedora: our
*only* way. If you want
Am 23.01.2014 23:49, schrieb drago01:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:46 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
Am 23.01.2014 23:37, schrieb drago01:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:34 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com
wrote:
No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 05:07:16PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Also possibly correct. However, that doesn't preclude the repos as we
know them today from still existing, with still the same quality.
Server, desktop or embedded board, in today's Fedora it's all the same,
just with a different
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 02:16:23PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Read all the above sequentially. My point is that although you are
technically correct that no WG has proposed doing away with the repos,
the RPM format, or yum/dnf, their plans - under a reasonable
interpretation of the
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 23:50 +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 23:37 +0100, drago01 wrote:
No, I don't disagree with you there. But the repos don't exist in a
vacuum. Right now they are our way of
Josh Boyer (jwbo...@fedoraproject.org) said:
I wasn't being dismissive. I have seen no plans to alter the core of
how Fedora, at a package level, is built. In fact, if I did see a
proposal that said we're not going to ship repositories or RPMs I'd
be pretty damned upset, and I wouldn't
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 00:12 +0100, Lars Seipel wrote:
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 05:07:16PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
Also possibly correct. However, that doesn't preclude the repos as we
know them today from still existing, with still the same quality.
Server, desktop or embedded board, in
95 matches
Mail list logo
