On 3/4/2010 5:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 08:54:28AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
M A Young wrote:
I don't know if this has already been raised but I notice on the
package-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org list that several Fedora 13
packages keep getting
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:11 AM, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 00:14 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:19:48 -0800, Jesse wrote:
Extras had significantly fewer packages,
Well, Fedora Extras 6 (x86_64) contained 5129 packages, which is
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Rex Dieter wrote:
Like most any group making hard decisions, the KDE SIG bases them on the
best information available. Fact is, we extensively tested this new version
for over a month, and every serious issue/blocker that was reported or
identified was
Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said:
It's actually almost no extra work to build the updates also for the
previous stable release. We have to build them for the current stable
anyway. It just means doing the usual routine (copying the specfile,
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=555420
Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
On Thu, 04 Mar 2010 20:11:47 -0500, James wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 00:14 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 20:19:48 -0800, Jesse wrote:
Extras had significantly fewer packages,
Well, Fedora Extras 6 (x86_64) contained 5129 packages, which is only 300
less
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 16:19 -0500, Peter Jones wrote:
Obviously this would require some tools work, but isn't it worth
considering?
This is essentially serviced by KoPeRs
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/JesseKeating/KojiPersonalRepos
Except this is still vaporware.
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 02:41:46 -0500, James wrote:
% yum repolist --releasever=11 updates
repo id repo name status
updates Fedora 11 - x86_64 - Updates9,390
...
This probably won't go well unless you two are
Till Maas wrote:
F13 updates will be supported until F15 Alpha is created, so
everyone has a about a three month update window to get from FN-updates to
F(N+1)-updates or F(N+1)-updates-stable.
FN-updates to F(N+1)-updates-stable is unlikely to work, because FN-updates
will be including stuff
Adam Williamson wrote:
We have various different definitions of the Alpha, it seems. The
working definition that QA / rel-eng have always worked on when deciding
whether to ship it is, broadly, 'can you install it, boot it, get a
network connection, and install updates'. That's what the
Kalev Lember wrote:
If upstream really issues security fixes for 4.x-1,
Their security advisories include patches, which usually either apply just
fine to the old releases or have a version for the old releases included.
then this is pretty much perfect. We get 4 or 5 bug fix releases, and
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:15:50PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora.
If you would point me to such a bleeding edge policy then I could
agree but I believe this is merely assumed by some and if you want the
latest always you could use kde-redhat
On Thursday 04 March 2010 22:13:05 Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 13:59 -0700, Ryan Rix wrote:
The problem is that there _aren't_ bug fixes for these old releases. When
4.x comes out, upstream pretty much drops development on 4.x-1 except
for security issues which are backported
Juha Tuomala wrote:
On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
What bugfix releases would we be supposed to push? There are no further
4.3.x releases.
Nothing, if that's the case.
That means bugs will no longer be fixed, is that a price we want to pay just
to avoid the small risk of
On 4 March 2010 19:59, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
I think we
really need to be more conservative about what version of our default
updating tool we include in our releases (and in fact pushing PackageKit 0.6
as a post-release enhancement update once the issues with it are
Juha Tuomala wrote:
Was it so that mysqld wants to communicate through fs sockets
which does not work on NFS $HOME?
[akonadiserver] Failed to use database akonadi
[akonadiserver] Database error: Can't connect to local MySQL server
[through socket
On 03/05/2010 02:06 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
Maybe it isn't written down as a policy but in my mind it's a big part
of the four foundations. Unless we want to make them freedom friends
frozen frustration in the future ...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations
The four foundations have
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:52:56AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
One size does still not fit all, although this is a great idea for
most packages in Fedora for packages in certain niches this is a bad idea.
I've said this before (and got 0 response), I believe there should
be some divide made
(Starting a new thread because this hardly has anything to do with the
original infamous thread.
Dear hall monitors: I hope I won't get put on moderation for posting this,
but this subthread didn't have much to do with the original subject. If you
also want me to stop posting to this split
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 09:42 +0530, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I have taken over the maintainership from Robert, and the new
usb_modeswitch rpms are in rawhide now.
And F-13?
Let me know if you guys need anything fixed on that :)
--
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=493799
--- Comment #39 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2010-03-05 05:15:39
EST ---
Thanks Yulia, those are upstream here:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/05/2010 02:06 PM, Sven Lankes wrote:
Maybe it isn't written down as a policy but in my mind it's a big part
of the four foundations. Unless we want to make them freedom friends
frozen frustration in the future ...
On 03/05/2010 03:45 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
So I don't see that policy as backing your claims at all.
Of course you don't which is part of the problem since you continue to
not treat the risk of regressions as seriously as you should even though
the latest push did cause problems despite
On 03/05/2010 03:55 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
BZ as well?
A while back a kde update caused kmail to stop working on imap accounts
and I dont use the DE
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/05/2010 03:55 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
BZ as well?
A while back a kde
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 22:53 -0500, TK009 wrote:
We will be automatically changing the version all rawhide bugs to Fedora 13.
This will result in regular bugs reported against rawhide during the Fedora 13
development cycle being changed to version ‘13' instead of their
current assignment,
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:03:12 +0100, Kevin wrote:
Yeah, basically mash is a really brute force solution, I think directly
writing out only the new updates as the first prototypes of Bodhi did and as
the Extras scripts also did/do is a much smarter solution. Always
recomputing everything
On 03/05/2010 04:33 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
So you filed a bug. I will search for it. So you stop'd using it, BUT
you faced more problems like that. Now that's interesting. Or is it
that you blow into the same horn as others do? If so, i would have
expected more from you
I faced more
Here is now a review request for fedora-easy-karma:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570771
pgp3bH9mzb8w2.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/05/2010 04:33 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
So you filed a bug. I will search for it. So you stop'd using it, BUT
you faced more problems like that. Now that's interesting. Or is it
that you blow into the same horn as
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
Does that mean if Fedora N is released with KDE 4.x, the users get
4.x+1 only in Fedora N+1? It sounds diagonally opposite to the
latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Janssen
thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar
rajeeshknamb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/05/2010 10:16 AM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
Does
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:12:51AM +0200, shmuel siegel wrote:
On 3/4/2010 5:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 08:54:28AM -0600, Jon Ciesla wrote:
M A Young wrote:
I don't know if this has already been raised but I notice on the
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:53:54PM -0500, TK009 wrote:
I hope everyone is well. With the worst of the “snowpocalypse behind us
(here in the Northern Hemisphere) and the branching of Fedora 13, there
is a bit of ‘spring cleaning’ the the bugzappers need to do. This
e-mail is designed to
Hi,
I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to
this? I created a wiki page for this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Till/update_availability_speedup_ideas
The basic idea is to create new
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
Hi,
I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to
this? I created a wiki page for this:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Thomas Janssen
thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Thomas Janssen
thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar
rajeeshknamb...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Rahul Sundaram
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:08:09AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
Hi,
I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to
this? I created a wiki page for
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
the problem is you have to depsolve both sets of pkgs separately keeping
in mind stable vs unstable. And the depsolving impacts the multilib
selection (and vice versa).
I do not understand the problem, can you maybe give an example?
Does the current
On Wed, 03 Mar 2010 14:06:33 -0800, Adam wrote:
as we've explained several times,
It won't get more correct by simply repeating it over and over again.
most packages that go to
updates-testing for a few days *are* being tested, even if they get no
apparent Bodhi feedback.
Certainly not
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 21:06 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
I did explicitly explain to you and the other desktop SIGs at the start
of the F13 cycle that, because we just hadn't had time to discuss all
the thorny implications of the question, the desktop criteria would be
Compose started at Fri Mar 5 08:15:12 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires libboost_serialization-mt.so.5
On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go
to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently
stable N release is just plain wrong. That kills what Fedora stands
for out there in the wild. To be a leading
James Laska wrote:
Quality isn't something you staff and hope they cover all your testing
needs. Quality practices are expected of everyone at all stages of the
process. In the QA team, we work to provide a framework and guidelines
so people interested in making a difference have an
Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
I must be looking at the wrong places then... I could find no 4.4+
RPMs either in one of the mirrors:
http://apt.de.kde-redhat.org/kde-redhat/fedora/12/i386/unstable/RPMS/
4.4.0 is already an official update, why would kde-redhat carry it?
4.4.1 is not built yet. It
Till Maas wrote:
Before you do anything that is described on that wiki page, it needs to
be updated to match the current no frozen rawhide situation. Since it
requires FESCo approval, targeting 2010-03-09 seems to be kind of
unrealistic.
Quite the opposite, the switchover needs to happen ASAP
Seth Vidal wrote:
If only 3 of those 5 make it through updates-testing into updates, then
you have to figure out if the other 3 actually need the versions of the
other 2 or if they can work with what's already available in GA or
updates.
How's that relevant to his proposal? Or more precisely:
On 5 March 2010 13:51, Tareq Al Jurf wrote:
* When i'm using bugzilla, i've noticed that i have some limited options in
** flags
** fedora-review: i have only a ?, i dont have any +
** fedora-cvs: i can't change it, see the link below.
**
** my info:
** taljurf: Approved Groups: fedorabugs
For all those who're claiming users don't want upgrades like KDE 4.4.0:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-February/367266.html
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/2010-March/006102.html
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:11:23PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
Especially it needs to be made sure that only bugs created prior to
adding F13 to RedHat Bugzilla or the branching of F13, depending on
what happened later, are touched by the Rawhide bug rebase.
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
I must be looking at the wrong places then... I could find no 4.4+
RPMs either in one of the mirrors:
http://apt.de.kde-redhat.org/kde-redhat/fedora/12/i386/unstable/RPMS/
4.4.0 is already an
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:53:59AM -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
Also a link to an example spec would be helpful.
For just the #VCS key? Let me instead write up a formal proposal:
It helps to have something that is
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
For all those who're claiming users don't want upgrades like KDE 4.4.0:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-February/367266.html
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/2010-March/006102.html
Now, lets see you take the leap in
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Andrew Haley a...@redhat.com wrote:
On 03/05/2010 10:25 AM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
I can see the need and agree that maybe not every big push needs to go
to N-1 releases. But not pushing 4.x.x relases to the currently
stable N release is just plain wrong. That
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 05:31 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
We have various different definitions of the Alpha, it seems. The
working definition that QA / rel-eng have always worked on when deciding
whether to ship it is, broadly, 'can you install it, boot it, get a
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 05:32 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:53 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
We should change or refine the Freeze Policy page then. Having different
definitions of what is required for alpha to go out and what can go in
after
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
every upstream release into the updates repository
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:42:57PM +0100, Till Maas wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 03:11:23PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Till Maas wrote:
Especially it needs to be made sure that only bugs created prior to
adding F13 to RedHat Bugzilla or the branching of F13, depending on
what
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:27 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
Especially it needs to be made sure that only bugs created prior to
adding F13 to RedHat Bugzilla or the branching of F13, depending on
what happened later, are touched by the Rawhide bug rebase.
We already did that, though tk009 forgot to
2010/3/5 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:15 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
We have a written down policy that specifically recommends that our
maintainers consider the issue of regressions seriously and not push
every upstream release into
* Thomas Janssen [05/03/2010 17:03] :
If you ask me, i say, have a face, have a character and offer
something the others dont. Fedora is exactly that right now.
We're left with the problem that what Fedora is right now isn't
working (massive amounts of updates that our users have to download,
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 14:38 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
which go through updates-testing. They do not file positive
feedback for every single package because there's just too many, but if
they notice breakage, they file negative feedback.
And they simply don't and can't notice all
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:25 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
BZ as well?
(snip)
The nepomuk problem some face is something that falls under, damn,
that
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 21:47 +0530, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
That's because you're misreading Rahul's claims. Rahul was replying to a
post which claimed Fedora has a 'policy' of being 'bleeding edge'.
Uh, oh - it wasn't a *claim*. Its just the popular saying, urban
myth, a general feeling
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 11:25 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
I read about regressions all the time in KDE releases, over and over
again. What's a regression you Rahul have faced and can you provide a
BZ as well?
(snip)
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 17:40 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
There are regressions. But not just in KDE. But interesting that so
much people cry about KDE only.
I agree with that, and I said so earlier in the thread...
And Yes, it's always bad if terrible stuff happens. But you cant
reduce
Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said:
So what? That's not twice as much as FE6, which would not have taken
several hours to push into such a repo. Not even when running repoclosure
on the needsign repo prior to pushing and when updating repoview pages
afterwards. Simply because the
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
It doesn't change anything, though. No feedback = nothing to rely on.
These recent discussions on this list could have been fruitful, btw.
For some people it has become a game of I'm right - you aren't,
unfortunately.
Nothing like
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:11:10 -0800, Adam wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
It doesn't change anything, though. No feedback = nothing to rely on.
These recent discussions on this list could have been fruitful, btw.
For some people it has become a game of
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:52:56AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Make rawhide consumable as a semi-rolling release itself.
We already have this it is called early branching of the next release. I
would fully agree with you if it were not for the early branching
feature, which means we
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
It seems to be missing something - it says 'all rpms that are not included
in the prior metadata will be deleted', but there's nothing in that proposal
as written that will cause rpms to fall out of the metadata.
It was probably to unclear. This
On 03/05/2010 04:49 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Doug Ledford wrote:
So, I'm going to reiterate my policy suggestion:
Make Fedora releases (all of them) stable in nature, not semi-rolling.
Make rawhide consumable as a semi-rolling release itself.
And let me reiterate my objections, because you
Orcan Ogetbil (oget.fed...@gmail.com) said:
There is one more thing. Very important thing. We have been pushing
KDE releases asap so far, and although it hurt me at times (at school
and at work), I like it. I don't blame people who don't. Here is the
thing: The bugs need to be reported most
On 03/05/2010 02:52 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
One size does still not fit all, although this is a great idea for
most packages in Fedora for packages in certain niches this is a bad idea.
I've said this before (and got 0 response), I believe there should
be some divide made between core
Author: kasal
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-DBIx-Class/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27846
Modified Files:
perl-DBIx-Class.spec
Log Message:
- filter also requires for hidden package declarations
Index: perl-DBIx-Class.spec
Compose started at Fri Mar 5 09:15:06 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 7:07 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 05:10:41PM +, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 03/05/2010 03:25 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
So i (and others who think like me), have no reason to use Fedora
over one of the other mainstream Distros if
Mike McGrath wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
For all those who're claiming users don't want upgrades like KDE 4.4.0:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-February/367266.html
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/kde/2010-March/006102.html
Now, lets see
Subject: MMR: simultaneous total updates on the masters cause deadlock and data
loss
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570667
[Revised proposal]
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398089)
git patch file
I revised the previous patch to allow sending simultaneous
Hi all,
I am currently writing an IMAP client script in perl.
Since this script will only be used in one single use case and the IMAP
server supports Kerberos authentication, I thought it would be a good
idea to use Mail::ImapClient together with Authen:SASL
This works well until I want to
Bill Nottingham wrote:
The issue there is then you have to properly determine what packages
to remove from the repo (unless you just keep everything, which has its
own problems); in this case, recomputing actually makes the code simpler.
Sure, it makes the code simpler, but a lot slower!
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:16 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:12 +, Branched Report wrote:
koan-2.0.3.1-1.fc13.noarch requires mkinitrd
This should be blocked from composes already. What's the deal?
It is blocked, perhaps the block action took place after the
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:07 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
And since I was lost at the previous step, I wonder here what you think
Thomas wants that's rather specialized. If you think it's drink from the
firehose and that == rawhide, I agree that that's specialized. If it's
semi-rolling
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 19:17 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Mike McGrath wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
For all those who're claiming users don't want upgrades like KDE 4.4.0:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-February/367266.html
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to
this? I created a wiki page for this:
Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) said:
I'd like to propose moving comps to fedorahosted git.
Why? Because CVS is a pain.
I can work on fixing the automated releng tasks that use comps.
What I'd like to know is if doing this at some point over the
next few weeks (say, post-Alpha)
Bill Nottingham wrote:
If we are going down the road of providing absolute-latest-versions on
older releases, perhaps not pushing it to prior releases until it's
actually been in wide use on the next release? So, you have, for example:
- new version 4.6
- push it to rawhide, get testing
-
Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) said:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:16 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 18:12 +, Branched Report wrote:
koan-2.0.3.1-1.fc13.noarch requires mkinitrd
This should be blocked from composes already. What's the deal?
It is
On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Mike McGrath mmcgr...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:55:23PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Orcan Ogetbil (oget.fed...@gmail.com) said:
There is one more thing. Very important thing. We have been pushing
KDE releases asap so far, and although it hurt me at times (at school
and at work), I like it. I don't blame
Toshio Kuratomi (a.bad...@gmail.com) said:
If we are going down the road of providing absolute-latest-versions on
older releases, perhaps not pushing it to prior releases until it's
actually been in wide use on the next release? So, you have, for example:
- new version 4.6
- push it
Doug Ledford wrote:
On 03/05/2010 04:49 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Yet it is the only solution which really satisfies both groups of people.
You should always be more clear when writing emails such as this. The
Yet it is above is unclear. Are you referring to a stable rawhide, or
the two
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:33:02 -0800, Adam wrote:
No, not in a clear way. Instead, you keep emphasising that no negative
feedback is not equal to a package not having been tested at all. That's
just plain useless. Not even all broken deps are reported in bodhi.
Why do you keep talking
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:56:11 -0500, Doug wrote:
It seems obvious to me that even if
we made a policy that Fedora was primarily stable once released, that
there would always be exceptions to that rule and things that should be
updated more aggressively. So I would not advocate for any policy
On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
We have various different definitions of the Alpha, it seems. The
working definition that QA / rel-eng have always worked on when deciding
whether to ship it is, broadly, 'can you install it,
Interesting script. Nice idea, Till!
Comment? -1/0/1 -karma, other - skip 1
With defaults (no command-line args), it here prompted me to enter
the FAS password for localhost. I had to use --fas-username=...
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:27:53AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:07 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
And since I was lost at the previous step, I wonder here what you think
Thomas wants that's rather specialized. If you think it's drink from the
firehose and that ==
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 22:16 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 09:33:02 -0800, Adam wrote:
No, not in a clear way. Instead, you keep emphasising that no negative
feedback is not equal to a package not having been tested at all. That's
just plain useless. Not even all
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 10:21:37PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
With defaults (no command-line args), it here prompted me to enter
the FAS password for localhost. I had to use --fas-username=...
These are the two commands that are used to get the username, what do
they return for you?
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 12:49:09PM -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Till Maas (opensou...@till.name) said:
It seems to be missing something - it says 'all rpms that are not included
in the prior metadata will be deleted', but there's nothing in that
proposal
as written that will cause
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
