Genes MailLists wrote:
> Some have argued that fedora itself is a rolling release - others
> look for something more closely resembling the kernel dev model (there
> are some differences between kernel dev and distro however ... tho more
> in detail than idea)
And others (like me) look for somethi
On 03/28/2011 09:24 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> As long as packages for Rawhide are not signed, any recommendation to
>> use them on production systems is a step backwards for Fedora. Actually
>> there should be more prominent recommendations not to use Rawhide on
>> production systems.
>>
> Ya
>
> As long as packages for Rawhide are not signed, any recommendation to
> use them on production systems is a step backwards for Fedora. Actually
> there should be more prominent recommendations not to use Rawhide on
> production systems.
>
Yah ... also rawhide, a rolling build, and a roll
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 10:28:50AM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Kevin Kofler writes:
>
> > Personally, I think we should just push the new stuff into updates
> > whenever it makes sense (i.e. not for something like KDE 3 to 4 or
> > GNOME 2 to 3 ;-) ).
>
> Or we can encourage more people to us
On 03/24/2011 01:38 AM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 03/23/2011 08:36 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 03/23/2011 07:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Jochen Schmitt wrote:
If you want to get firefox4 on Fedora 14 now, the only way is to use
the private firefox4 repository on
>>
>>
>>
Kevin Kofler writes:
> Personally, I think we should just push the new stuff into updates
> whenever it makes sense (i.e. not for something like KDE 3 to 4 or
> GNOME 2 to 3 ;-) ).
Or we can encourage more people to use Rawhide proper. I know it might
sound too wild for some, but it's my belief
"Joshua C." writes:
> Or maybe "being on the edge" isn't why we all use this distro?
Yeah maybe :-)
I like being as close as reasonable to the edge, but not closer.
--
Dodji
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/d
Am 25.03.2011 21:39, schrieb Felix Miata:
> What do you suppose
> http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/4.0/linux-x86_64/de/
>
> contains? mozilla.org predates mozilla.com many years. The former (via an
> alias) is the only place I look for Mozilla product downloads.
t
On 2011/03/25 21:23 (GMT+0100) Reindl Harald composed:
>> On 03/25/2011 12:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>> what fails and i could spit mozilla in the face because they
>>> are still ignoring x86_64, guys we are living in 2011 :-(
>> mozilla definitely puts out 64 bit firefox-4 and thunder
Am 25.03.2011 18:32, schrieb Genes MailLists:
> On 03/25/2011 12:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>>
>
>> what fails and i could spit mozilla in the face because they
>> are still ignoring x86_64, guys we are living in 2011 :-(
>>
>>
>mozilla definitely puts out 64 bit firefox-4 and thunderbird st
On 03/25/2011 12:21 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> what fails and i could spit mozilla in the face because they
> are still ignoring x86_64, guys we are living in 2011 :-(
>
>
mozilla definitely puts out 64 bit firefox-4 and thunderbird starting
swith 3.3 series as well.
fedora builds like
On 03/25/2011 05:07 PM, Ralf Ertzinger wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:16:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>>> We do have a rolling release, it's called rawhide.
>>
>> You are mixing up "rolling release" with "development" dump yard.
>
> I'm not yet conviced that there is a significant dif
Am 25.03.2011 17:12, schrieb Reindl Harald:
> and in the backrgound i try to build a firefox4-package based
> on the remi-srpms with target /opt to get both running without
> change my whole browser and get lost most extensions and themes
what fails and i could spit mozilla in the face because
On 03/24/2011 03:16 AM, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
>
> At first, you mean 'Fedora was know for offering the '
> But during the the update policy I think we will never see firefox-4.0
> as an official Fedora 14 package.
Firefox 4 wouldn't have been pushed as an update regardless of the
policy. It i
Am 25.03.2011 17:07, schrieb Ralf Ertzinger:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:16:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>>> We do have a rolling release, it's called rawhide.
>>
>> You are mixing up "rolling release" with "development" dump yard.
>
> I'm not yet conviced that there is a significant
Hi.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2011 13:16:41 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > We do have a rolling release, it's called rawhide.
>
> You are mixing up "rolling release" with "development" dump yard.
I'm not yet conviced that there is a significant difference in the
long term.
--
devel mailing list
devel@l
On 03/25/2011 12:38 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 24.03.2011, 14:48 -0700 schrieb Henrique Junior:
>
>> It may sound a little off-topic to this thread, but since we are
>> talking about bring new stuff into F14 I would like to know the
>> opinion of you, guys, about the new open
On 03/25/2011 07:38 AM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 24.03.2011, 14:48 -0700 schrieb Henrique Junior:
>
>> It may sound a little off-topic to this thread, but since we are
>> talking about bring new stuff into F14 I would like to know the
>> opinion of you, guys, about the new ope
Henrique Junior wrote:
> It may sound a little off-topic to this thread, but since we are talking
> about bring new stuff into F14 I would like to know the opinion of you,
> guys, about the new openSUSE's tumbleweed [1] [2] repo, that tries to
> bring to openSUSE some "rolling release" behaviour.
>
Am Donnerstag, den 24.03.2011, 14:48 -0700 schrieb Henrique Junior:
> It may sound a little off-topic to this thread, but since we are
> talking about bring new stuff into F14 I would like to know the
> opinion of you, guys, about the new openSUSE's tumbleweed [1] [2]
> repo, that tries to bring t
Henrique Junior wrote:
> It may sound a little off-topic to this thread, but since we are talking
> about bring new stuff into F14 I would like to know the opinion of you,
> guys, about the new openSUSE's tumbleweed [1] [2] repo, that tries to
> bring to openSUSE some "rolling release" behaviour.
>
On 03/24/2011 07:31 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Kevin Kofler
>> wrote:
>>> Adam Williamson wrote:
In the particular case of Firefox, this isn't a problem, as it just
gives you one giant static executable...so it's very easy to
'unins
On 24.03.2011 19:23, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> In the particular case of Firefox, this isn't a problem, as it just
>> gives you one giant static executable...so it's very easy to
>> 'uninstall'. :)
> Did they really manage to stuff even the resources into the binary? Wow,
> ve
On 24.03.2011 19:23, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> In the particular case of Firefox, this isn't a problem, as it just
>> gives you one giant static executable...so it's very easy to
>> 'uninstall'. :)
> Did they really manage to stuff even the resources into the binary? Wow,
> ve
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 3:47 PM, Joshua C. wrote:
> I think this discussion goes in the wrong direction. Firefox 4 is (for
> me) a working browser that I want to use. Without a proper rpm the
> tarball is the only solution left. Spot's solution circumvents the
> xulrunner nightmare and Remi's idea
2011/3/24 Kevin Kofler :
> drago01 wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Kevin Kofler
>> wrote:
>>> Adam Williamson wrote:
In the particular case of Firefox, this isn't a problem, as it just
gives you one giant static executable...so it's very easy to
'uninstall'. :)
>>>
>>>
drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> In the particular case of Firefox, this isn't a problem, as it just
>>> gives you one giant static executable...so it's very easy to
>>> 'uninstall'. :)
>>
>> Did they really manage to stuff even
On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 7:23 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> In the particular case of Firefox, this isn't a problem, as it just
>> gives you one giant static executable...so it's very easy to
>> 'uninstall'. :)
>
> Did they really manage to stuff even the resources into the bi
Adam Williamson wrote:
> In the particular case of Firefox, this isn't a problem, as it just
> gives you one giant static executable...so it's very easy to
> 'uninstall'. :)
Did they really manage to stuff even the resources into the binary? Wow,
very un-unixy! ;-)
Kevin Kofler
--
deve
On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 18:39 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> but it is also hard to uninstall without leaving residual files, which also
> implies that upgrades sometimes leave old versions of the files sitting
> around.
In the particular case of Firefox, this isn't a problem, as it just
gives you
http://rpms.famillecollet.com/
http://rpms.famillecollet.com/fedora/14/remi/i386/repoview/
http://rpms.famillecollet.com/fedora/14/remi/x86_64/repoview/
Never install any software without a RPM if there is no really good
reason and "firfox 4 is available" is really no reason even if
that would me
Genes MailLists wrote:
>Or you can simply download it direct from mozilla.org and install it
> in /usr/local/
I don't think bypassing package management is something we want to
recommend.
Not only is stuff installed that way not built according to Fedora
guidelines, which leads to issues li
On 03/24/2011 04:36 AM, Pete Zaitcev wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:36:33 -0400
> Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 03/23/2011 07:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Jochen Schmitt wrote:
>
If you want to get firefox4 on Fedora 14 now, the only way is to use
the private firefox4 repository on
>
>
On 10:33:31 AM Wednesday, March 23, 2011 Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 16:41 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:35:55PM +0100, Joshua C. wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > fedora is known for offering the "latest and greates software" and
> > > "being on the edg
2011/3/24 Pete Zaitcev :
> On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:36:33 -0400
> Genes MailLists wrote:
>> On 03/23/2011 07:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> > Jochen Schmitt wrote:
>
>> >> If you want to get firefox4 on Fedora 14 now, the only way is to use
>> >> the private firefox4 repository on
>
>> Or you can
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 20:36:33 -0400
Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 03/23/2011 07:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> >> If you want to get firefox4 on Fedora 14 now, the only way is to use
> >> the private firefox4 repository on
>Or you can simply download it direct from mozil
On 03/23/2011 08:36 PM, Genes MailLists wrote:
> On 03/23/2011 07:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jochen Schmitt wrote:
>>> If you want to get firefox4 on Fedora 14 now, the only way is to use
>>> the private firefox4 repository on
>>>
>
>
>Or you can simply download it direct from mozilla.org
On 03/23/2011 07:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jochen Schmitt wrote:
>> If you want to get firefox4 on Fedora 14 now, the only way is to use
>> the private firefox4 repository on
>>
Or you can simply download it direct from mozilla.org and install it
in /usr/local/
--
devel mailing list
devel@
Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> If you want to get firefox4 on Fedora 14 now, the only way is to use
> the private firefox4 repository on
>
> http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/spot/firefox4
There's also Remi Collet's repository:
http://blog.famillecollet.com/
Spot's firefox4 repository provides a para
Am Mittwoch, den 23.03.2011, 22:46 +0100 schrieb Jochen Schmitt:
> Perhaps, we have luck and get a so-called 'Feature Repository'.
I'm working on that...
> If you want to get firefox4 on Fedora 14 now, the only way is to use
> the private firefox4 repository on
>
> http://repos.fedorapeople.org/
On Wednesday 23 March 2011 21:46:07 Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> For KDE-4.6 we have the same situation. In this case you can
> get it from the http://apt.kde-redhat.com which is maintained
> by Rex Dieter.
It is .org not .com
The url is
http://apt.kde-redhat.org
--
José Abílio
--
devel mail
2011/3/23 Jochen Schmitt :
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am 23.03.2011 22:35, schrieb Joshua C.:
>> fedora is known for offering the "latest and greates software" and
>> "being on the edge" etc. So I was just wondering if the latest f14
>> will ever get the latest firefox
2011/3/23 Nathaniel McCallum :
> On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 16:41 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:35:55PM +0100, Joshua C. wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > fedora is known for offering the "latest and greates software" and
>> > "being on the edge" etc. So I was just wondering if the lat
On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 16:41 -0500, Adam Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:35:55PM +0100, Joshua C. wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > fedora is known for offering the "latest and greates software" and
> > "being on the edge" etc. So I was just wondering if the latest f14
> > will ever get the latest
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 23.03.2011 22:35, schrieb Joshua C.:
> fedora is known for offering the "latest and greates software" and
> "being on the edge" etc. So I was just wondering if the latest f14
> will ever get the latest firefox 4.0?
>
At first, you mean 'Fedora was
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:35:55PM +0100, Joshua C. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> fedora is known for offering the "latest and greates software" and
> "being on the edge" etc. So I was just wondering if the latest f14
> will ever get the latest firefox 4.0?
>
> Recompilation of the packages from f15 is not su
Hi,
fedora is known for offering the "latest and greates software" and
"being on the edge" etc. So I was just wondering if the latest f14
will ever get the latest firefox 4.0?
Recompilation of the packages from f15 is not such a good option.
--jason
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproje
47 matches
Mail list logo
