There is one good update of gstreamer with include gstreamer-bad-free.
And it has file conflict with gstreamer-bad of rpm-fusion and with
gstreamer-good
It seem to me that fedora needs a stable update policy.
Go ahead Jesse
Oscar Bacho
P.D. I'm a user
--
devel mailing list
On 03/16/2010 11:54 AM, Oscar Bacho wrote:
2010/3/16 Oscar Bacho ob.sys...@gmail.com mailto:ob.sys...@gmail.com
There is one good update of gstreamer with include
gstreamer-bad-free.
And it has file conflict with gstreamer-bad of rpm-fusion and with
gstreamer-good
It
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Updates policy won't necessarily help in this case. AutoQA might but
then cross repo coordination is at times tricky esp with much less
people taking care of administration of third party repos.
There's no problem to fix here at all. An updated gstreamer-plugins-bad is
Oscar Bacho wrote:
There is one good update of gstreamer with include gstreamer-bad-free.
And it has file conflict with gstreamer-bad of rpm-fusion and with
gstreamer-good
It seem to me that fedora needs a stable update policy.
You just need to update gstreamer-plugins-bad from RPM Fusion
Dne 14.3.2010 19:29, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please don't
generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. no is a strong word!
And yes, these are users who have subscribed to updates-testing. My wife
bitterly complains about the
Dne 15.3.2010 01:59, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
Where's the evidence for that? I haven't noticed anything like that at all!
Isn't it because KDE was always pushing huge amounts of updates, so
there is no change for you? Just asking ...
I (and especially my wife who started to bitterly copmlain
On 03/15/2010 12:54 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 14.3.2010 19:29, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please don't
generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. no is a strong word!
And yes, these are users who have subscribed to
Dne 14.3.2010 09:59, Jon Masters napsal(a):
Somewhat shockingly, some people do use Fedora for day to day stuff.
Don't worry they will stop soon. After all (quoting one post which I am
sorry got burried somewhere down the thread leaves):
$ Contributors are what makes Fedora grow and advance as
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Matěj Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 14.3.2010 19:29, Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please don't
generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. no is a strong word!
And yes, these are users who have
On 03/15/2010 09:43 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
what we want to encourage?
I'm going to hazard a guess and say all of them. It's basic
psychology; people don't do things that have no
On 03/15/2010 05:36 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Progressive and aggressive is all fine as part of development branches
as far as I am concerned. Several other distributions take care of this
disjoint nature by splitting up the repository and having two different
update streams. With a smaller
On 03/15/2010 10:37 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 03/15/2010 05:36 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Progressive and aggressive is all fine as part of development branches
as far as I am concerned. Several other distributions take care of this
disjoint nature by splitting up the repository and
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 15.03.2010 18:15, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
You did read it incorrectly. Splitting up the update stream doesn't
involve going back to core+extras at all. KDE has a additional repo
already in kde-redhat.sf.net where they have first builds
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 21:23 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
If we assumed that the people who had been registered in FAS for over
6 months and had signed the CLA met the first two definitions, you
would need to randomly select about 3000 of them and have at least 600
answer the poll to
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:27 PM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 21:23 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
If we assumed that the people who had been registered in FAS for over
6 months and had signed the CLA met the first two definitions, you
would need to
On 03/13/2010 03:24 AM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
So now users who don't contribute are leeches? Wow. Just wow. Without
users, contributors wouldn't have much of a motivation to contribute.
Yes.
Interesting how you define users as people that give a warm fuzzy
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 21:48 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
Why, do you think, should just a single user change to Fedora, away
from Ubuntu or any other Distro? Because we're blue?
If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is because Fedora shoves
out updates at a higher pace into stable
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
the same just in RPM? Some slow-it-down-people do really think that
a half baken X-server 1.7beta will make users of other distros go away
because they use just 1.6, or our release kernel is 2.6.31.3 and
others have
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 21:48 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
Why, do you think, should just a single user change to Fedora, away
from Ubuntu or any other Distro? Because we're blue?
If the only reason to choose Fedora
Peter Hutterer wrote:
Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
implement the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll
did not represent a significant user sample?
Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora as
it is now!
On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Hutterer wrote:
Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
implement the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll
did not represent a significant user sample?
Not a very credible one, given
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
rawhide?
My changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT disruptive. They're minor
feature releases which are backwards
On 03/14/2010 10:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
rawhide?
My changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT disruptive.
Jon Masters wrote:
If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is because Fedora shoves
out updates at a higher pace into stable releases, then something is
severely wrong.
Why? It's exactly what's happening out there in the real world you chose to
ignore, yet I don't see anything wrong
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If Fedora is only usable for contributors and
contributors only,
It's called focus (where have I heard that?). Some people(1) want
*contributors* to be focus is all.
-- Rex
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/14/2010 10:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
rawhide?
My changes, or really KDE SIG's changes,
On 03/14/2010 11:10 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
If Fedora is only usable for contributors and
contributors only,
It's called focus (where have I heard that?). Some people(1) want
*contributors* to be focus is all.
How many contributors are interested in only
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Rex Dieter wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/14/2010 10:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
rawhide?
Frank Murphy wrote:
Then why not change the way Fedora is presented in the release notes.
(said in half jest yesterday, by myself)
That to keep Fedora fully updated
A highspeed internet connection is recommended
I've been recommending that all this time, I've been ignored. (In fact I
think
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora
as it is now!
Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users clearly
are not.
Yet they haven't left over it. So why would that
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
what we want to encourage?
Contributors are what makes Fedora grow and advance as a project. Users are
only benefitting from our (the contributors') work as a side effect.
Kevin Kofler
--
Simo Sorce wrote:
Same here, and it is a pity, up to F-10 the number of updates was just
fine, recently it has exploded to unsustainable levels for a *stable*
release.
Huh? I didn't collect any stats on that, but I haven't noticed any
difference in that area between F-10 (or F-9) and now.
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 19:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
How many contributors are interested in only serving themselves? Is that
what we want to encourage?
Contributors are what makes Fedora grow and advance as a project. Users are
only benefitting from our (the
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 19:07, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using Fedora
as it is now!
Can we drop the absolutes which are clearly not true? Some users
Jon Masters wrote:
I don't need to conduct extensive surveys to understand that no user is
desperate to have the number of updates that are going out these days.
Nonsense. There ARE users who want this kind of updates. Please don't
generalize your own opinion to ALL users in that way. no is a
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010, Rex Dieter wrote:
Mike McGrath wrote:
My last KDE update was disruptive as I mentioned earlier, in addition
though now my taskbar is freezing even after blowing my .kde dir away.
BZ on it's way soon as I can get some logs to send with it.
If you don't see the
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 18:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jon Masters wrote:
If the only reason to choose Fedora over Ubuntu is because Fedora shoves
out updates at a higher pace into stable releases, then something is
severely wrong.
Why? It's exactly what's happening out there in the real
Jon Masters wrote:
If you would confine your concerns to KDE, which it sounds is all you
are really worried about, then let's give KDE a giant exemption for KDE
updates if the rest of the distribution could benefit from less churn.
It's not just about KDE. It's also about the kernel, about
On Sun, 2010-03-14 at 20:21 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jon Masters wrote:
If you would confine your concerns to KDE, which it sounds is all you
are really worried about, then let's give KDE a giant exemption for KDE
updates if the rest of the distribution could benefit from less churn.
On 3/14/2010 10:50 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
stable so you don't have to deal with other people disruptive changes in
rawhide?
My changes, or really KDE SIG's changes, are NOT disruptive.
Am Sonntag, den 14.03.2010, 19:33 +0100 schrieb Mathieu Bridon:
Some others arrive and say hi, their first update (the 300MB one you
get when installing 2 months after release) breaks something, they
leave (some will not even finish downloading such a huge amount and
leave).
Finally, even
Simo Sorce wrote:
Because the situation worsened dramatically recently.
Where's the evidence for that? I haven't noticed anything like that at all!
You (and others defending the same or a similar viewpoint) are quick to
point out the lack of statistical rigor in Adam Williamson's poll, but
Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
implement
the changes as well? Especially given the chance that the poll did
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 8:14 PM, Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu wrote:
Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
implement
On 03/15/2010 01:40 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 19:07:53 +0100
Kevin Koflerkevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/14/2010 10:13 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Not a very credible one, given that those users are happily using
Fedora as it is now!
Can we drop the
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 09:14:06PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
implement
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 19:33:30 +0100,
Mathieu Bridon boche...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Once every months, I install Fedora on some users system (recurring
release party the first saturday of each months) using the liveCD so I
can teach them how to do it themselves. After the install is
On 3/14/2010 8:14 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
Peter Hutterer wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 09:14:48PM -0700, Orion Poplawski wrote:
On Sat, March 13, 2010 4:58 pm, Peter Hutterer wrote:
Isn't there a mere RISK to lose 70-80% of our users if we do _not_
implement
the changes
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:43 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Neither can be done without an outside/neutral polling agency
contacting and getting responses from at least 600-3000 random Fedora
users. The poll that was given was one that could be easily stuffed
and not easily proven that it
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 07:55 +, Frank Murphy wrote:
Then why not change the way Fedora is presented in the release notes.
(said in half jest yesterday, by myself)
That to keep Fedora fully updated
A highspeed internet connection is recommended
No, I'm not trying to help create a
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 07:05 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As usual, a pragmatical solution/compromise would be inbetween.
This is the fallacy of the middle way. it's simply not always true. If I
say I'd like to steal $100 from you, and you'd prefer me not to steal
any of your money, is the
Le samedi 13 mars 2010 à 06:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
Rawhide is not the answer. It comes with disruptive changes (and there's no
real way to avoid this problem,
So the right solution is to let you do your own disruptive changes in
stable so you don't have to deal with other people
On 03/13/2010 09:54 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 07:05 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
As usual, a pragmatical solution/compromise would be inbetween.
This is the fallacy of the middle way. it's simply not always true.
I disagree: fanatical radicalism is naive and will always
On 13 March 2010 01:46, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Kevin, you are continually talking as if you represent a vast majority
of all Fedora users and the Fedora project itself. You say we do
something, when you really mean the KDE SIG. Please stop trying to
speak for everybody else.
On 03/12/2010 05:07 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/12/2010 08:46 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
This is extremely poor attitude Kevin and reeks of arrogance. Talking
down on users and contributors who don't have the privilege of high
bandwidth connections isn't what I expected from you. Nothing
pe, 2010-03-12 kello 15:20 -0800, Jesse Keating kirjoitti:
Keeping that cutting-edge release practice, but adding to that stability
once released would indeed be a very unique and desirable niche for
Fedora to fill.
I've avoided participating in these threads, since I don't really want
to feed
On 03/13/2010 11:52 AM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
pe, 2010-03-12 kello 15:20 -0800, Jesse Keating kirjoitti:
As Fedora is the distribution I'm most familiar with, I've also
installed it on some of my family members' systems but lately I've been
considering switching those to Ubuntu once the
Le 13/03/2010 12:46, Ralf Corsepius a écrit :
You actually want a different distribution, likely a Fedora LTS, not
current Fedora.
Unfortunately, Fedora's leadership repeatedly had brushed off a Fedora
LTS as unmaintainable and redirected people to CentOS.
Ralf
Our primary mission is
On 03/13/10 11:46, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
On 03/13/2010 11:52 AM, Ville-Pekka Vainio wrote:
pe, 2010-03-12 kello 15:20 -0800, Jesse Keating kirjoitti:
As Fedora is the distribution I'm most familiar with, I've also
installed it on some of my family members' systems but
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 19:56 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Jon Masters wrote:
And prove your point that users are desperate for intrusive
rolling updates and won't just use Rawhide instead if they want to get
the very latest and greatest unbaked stuff.
First off: I'm not asking for
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at 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
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 21:43 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
Neither can be done without an outside/neutral polling agency
contacting and getting responses from at least 600-3000 random Fedora
users. The poll that
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 09:27:00 -0500
Jon Masters jonat...@jonmasters.org wrote:
Dealing with the number of Fedora updates getting shoved out to
unsuspecting users is a bigger pain. I don't even bother to update my
system daily now because I know I may need to schedule some time to
fix something
On Friday 12 March 2010 04:54:43 pm Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 14:56 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
How does this proposal go with upgrades? I think stable updates +
upgrades are tight together. Are we going to be more conservative in new
releases too? Extend stable release
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:05 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
I'd expect people that want 100% Free to use gNewSense. I'm not sure how
you define more ammeniable to new contributors, so that's harder to
address. Still, I
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 9:15 PM, Thomas Janssen
thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:05 -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
I'd expect people that want 100% Free to use gNewSense. I'm not sure how
you
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 1:02 AM, Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sat, 2010-03-13 at 00:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Fundamental point of view difference. You take the point of view of
push everything all the time /unless/ there is a good enough reason not
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/03/10 19:27, Adam Williamson wrote:
--snipped--
Bringing it back to dialup.
Fedora liveCD 500-700mb
CentOS DVD 3.5GB app.
Fedora 1, CentOS 0
In my experience, many users with restricted bandwidth actually
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 03:20:02AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
Right after you _prove_ that this IS the case. How quick would you be
to reject that poll as unscientific and meaningless if it didn't go your
way? I thought it was a bad idea and didn't even take a look.
On 12/03/10 03:42, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Chris Adams wrote:
There's a difference between not supporting third-party software (is
that actually documented somewhere or another Kevin Kofler rule?) and
intentionally breaking it.
There's no policy saying we support it, ergo by default, we don't.
On 03/12/2010 01:12 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 12.3.2010 02:24, Rahul Sundaram napsal(a):
I disagree. Imagining that we are living in a island where no software
exists outside the repository is just delusional and the assumption that
everyone has the bandwidth to deal with all that churn
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 20:12, Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net wrote:
Why not handle those cases similar to how GNOME and Firefox (and IIRC
OpenOffice.org?) have been handled in the past, where a test/RC release
was in Fedora leading up to the Fedora release, and the final upstream
release is
On 03/11/2010 11:36 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
If a user has built an application against a library, it's not
especially reasonable to then break that application by bumping a soname
in a stable release.
If the
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. Breaking ABI stability
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com 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
On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
-snipped--
If I can be indulged.
it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
stubborn
It's not the endusers fault,
they have bad infracture.
and use Fedora
Because that is what they want.
(and even worse try to change it)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
-snipped--
If I can be indulged.
it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
stubborn
It's not the endusers fault,
they have bad infracture.
Oh, so
On 12/03/10 11:56, Thomas Janssen wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Frank Murphyfrankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
-snipped--
If I can be indulged.
it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
stubborn
It's not the endusers
On 12/03/10 12:04, Frank Murphy wrote:
--snipped--
That is not, you are not intitled to voice your concerns,
s /That is not to say, you are not intitled to voice your concerns,
---snipped-
--
Regards,
Frank Murphy
UTF_8 Encoded, Fedora 12, 13, Rawhide: x86_64
--
devel mailing
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/03/10 11:56, Thomas Janssen wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Frank Murphyfrankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/03/10 11:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
-snipped--
If I can be indulged.
it's because i can't believe
On 03/12/2010 05:03 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
I wasn't answering the ABI stability part. But the people-in-dial-up-land
part.
It is interconnected in my argument and doesn't make sense to debate in
parts. If you avoid breaking ABI stability, you can avoid unnecessary
churn and one of the
On 03/12/10 00:45, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-) You
should be using some repository and that repository is responsible for
rebuilding the package.
I tend to agree with what you have been writing but this seems
On 12/03/10 12:12, Thomas Janssen wrote:
--sniped--
Oh, so it's our fault?
It's just life, in all it's forms.
Exactly. And if i live in an area where i cant have everything, i
can't choose everything.
Bringing it back to dialup.
Fedora liveCD 500-700mb
CentOS DVD 3.5GB app.
Fedora 1,
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/12/2010 05:03 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
I wasn't answering the ABI stability part. But the people-in-dial-up-land
part.
It is interconnected in my argument and doesn't make sense to debate in
parts. If you
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 1:26 PM, Frank Murphy frankl...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/03/10 12:12, Thomas Janssen wrote:
--sniped--
Oh, so it's our fault?
It's just life, in all it's forms.
Exactly. And if i live in an area where i cant have everything, i
can't choose everything.
Bringing it
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
You'd be looking at a typical peak of around 5 months between upstream
release and Fedora release, with an average of more like 2-3 months,
which is a lot different from the 6 months that keeps being repeated as
the waiting time for
On Thursday 11 March 2010 09:59:46 pm Simo Sorce wrote:
On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:56:05 -0500
Konstantin Ryabitsev i...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
(And if the answer is backport the security fixes to 1.8.1 then I'm
afraid I don't really have the skills nor have the time to spend on
such
- Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 12:21 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
Paul: Jesse Keating provided a draft policy for what updates should
be
done. Board will take this into consideration, if necessary, in
another round of discussions (not this meeting).
On Thursday 11 March 2010 07:36:34 pm Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 12:21 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
Paul: Jesse Keating provided a draft policy for what updates should be
done. Board will take this into consideration, if necessary, in
another round of discussions (not this
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:23:58PM +, Andy Green wrote:
However I agree this isn't a real issue, the packages with the homegrown
apps should choke the yum update because they see the lib versions they
depend on would go away, so nothing breaks.
Only if they're using the packaging
On Fri, 12 Mar 2010, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:23:58PM +, Andy Green wrote:
However I agree this isn't a real issue, the packages with the homegrown
apps should choke the yum update because they see the lib versions they
depend on would go away, so nothing
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 04:39:30AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
If the software is not maintained within Fedora, there's no notification
of soname bumps.
There is, soname bumps are supposed to be announced on this public list.
A list that is targetted at developers of
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
I don't see why we should cripple our distribution just to support
communication technologies from the 80s or 90s. It's 2010 now, those
Frank Murphy wrote:
Should we ask the community, to change our community focus:
Fedora is a community of people, who come from well developed
lifestyles. Have access to high-speed internet, do not download,
or feel you belong unless this is satisfied.
I've been advocating for adding
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It is interconnected in my argument and doesn't make sense to debate in
parts. If you avoid breaking ABI stability, you can avoid unnecessary
churn and one of the benefits ( think resource cost - infrastructure,
mirrors etc) of that is users with low bandwidth systems
Terry Barnaby wrote:
I really strongly disagree that ABI interfaces of the mainly used
shared libraries could be allowed to change in a stable release.
We develop internal applications that are packaged and go out to a few
users. We use Fedora primarily as an OS to run applications we need
Matthew Garrett wrote:
users do do things like download stuff and run ./configure; make; make
install
Why would we even try to support that? Packaging exists for a reason.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 03/12/2010 03:54 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 03/12/2010 08:24 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.
I don't see why we should cripple our distribution
On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 16:07 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Fedora CURRENTLY does NOT provide
any ABI guarantees. There ARE ALREADY updates which change the ABI (you
recognize them as they are normally grouped with rebuilds of other stuff for
the bumped ABI). The people who want to change
1 - 100 of 207 matches
Mail list logo
