On 03/02/2012 08:36 AM, Xibo Ning wrote:
Hi all,
Just as the subject. I did not find this perl module Pod::Plainer.
This module is required by LSB dist test for LSB 4.1. But I did
not find in LSB DB tables.
LSB should be fixed. Pod::Plainer was obsoleted by the Perl upstream:
On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 17:43 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 16:39 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin group checkbox when
adding the initial user, not sure if it is checked on or off
# F17 Beta Blocker Review meeting #1
# Date: 2012-03-02
# Time: 17:00 UTC [1] (12:00 EST, 09:00 PST)
# Location: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
It's that time again! The first F17 beta blocker bug review meeting
will be this Friday at 17:00 UTC in #fedora-bugzappers. We'll be
running
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the
hundreds and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers policy is a
tremendous work thus I'm wondering if there is something preventing us
from automating the non
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=799237
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
On 03/02/2012 11:20 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the
hundreds and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers policy is a
tremendous work thus I'm wondering if
On 03/02/2012 11:02 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
different component for whole month. He might be working on a new
upstream release and not paying
Dne 2.3.2012 12:02, Marcela Mašláňová napsal(a):
On 03/02/2012 11:20 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the
hundreds and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.comwrote:
On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 17:43 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 16:39 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin
Here is a weird example of how Fedora currenty handles some permission
procedures. I created a standard user account (no admin rights) and I'm
trying to install a package. When I press apply I'm prompted to enter a
password. Since I have no admin rights I would expect to be asked for the
root
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:20:10 PM
Subject: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
I am a feature owner for a feature that
On 03/02/2012 12:12 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:02 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
different component for whole month. He might be
On 03/02/2012 12:52 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:20:10 PM
Subject: Automating the
On 03/02/2012 11:16 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Actually I support such initiative. We have also filled a few bugs
against Ruby components which needs some love due to Ruby update and
it happens that we have no response. If there would be tool that
reports yes, the maintainer was active in some
- Original Message -
From: Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 1:57:11 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 03/02/2012 12:52 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
so he/she can fix it himself.
I kind a' like this proposal. You're speaking of current package
maintainers getting commit
Dne 2.3.2012 12:56, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson napsal(a):
On 03/02/2012 11:16 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Actually I support such initiative. We have also filled a few bugs
against Ruby components which needs some love due to Ruby update and
it happens that we have no response. If there would be
On 02/03/12 12:53, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
I'm afraid we end up with more bureaucracy than we have now. I'm not
against tracking some statistics, so you can look up who is active and
probably will answer in few days, but I'd rather not use it for the
unresponsive process.
Marcela
I'm
On 03/02/2012 01:00 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
so he/she can fix it himself.
I kind a' like this proposal. You're speaking
Dne 2.3.2012 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundssonjohan...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedoradevel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 12:20:10 PM
Subject: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers
- Original Message -
From: Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:00:32 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar
On 03/02/2012 11:47 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Some developers prefer ignore it until they have time. Why should I
write yes, yes, it's broken, I'll look at it next month. That's not
helping anyway.
I disagree it certainly does matter.
For example let's take these two [1] [2] bugs that are
On 02/03/12 13:10, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
What about bug reporter being unable to fix the mentioned bug?
Oh no. I'm mean unable to fix because of missing knowledge, not
unable because of missing commit rights.
I might file a bug against kernel, but I'm definitely not the right
person to
On 03/02/2012 02:00 PM, Matthias Runge wrote:
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
so he/she can fix it himself.
I kind a' like this proposal. You're speaking
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 05:21 -0600, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote:
For printers, currently installing printers does not require superuser
privileges, but managing those printers installed by that user does.
Is it possible to make it so that printers installed by that user can
be managed by the
On 03/02/2012 11:52 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
So I would make a contra-proposal.
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status new in a week -
give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb so he/she can fix it himself.
I really think this is way more fare and people that
- Original Message -
From: Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:05:07 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 12:53, Marcela Mašláňová
On 03/02/2012 01:13 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:47 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Some developers prefer ignore it until they have time. Why should I
write yes, yes, it's broken, I'll look at it next month. That's not
helping anyway.
I disagree it certainly does matter.
- Original Message -
From: Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:15:51 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 13:10, Aleksandar
On 03/02/2012 12:21 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Units again:)
Are you trying create some metrics because of units on whole
distribution? It simply won't fit to all groups.
No I'm only using units or rather the systemd migration process since
i'm most familiar with it.
( been doing it for 3
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:16:28 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 03/02/2012 11:52 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
So I would make a
On 02/03/12 13:06, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Yes, I would be afraid that reporters won't be able to fix it
properly. Even if I'm a provenpackager, I don't commit into
packages not related to mine.
Yes, I guess, that's a more general problem. But since we have proven
packagers, they might jump in
- Original Message -
From: Aleksandar Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:27:04 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
- Original Message -
On 02/03/12 13:24, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Well, the whole idea came in a second so someone should refine it.
FWIW the period should be long enough - in my eyes not less than a
months so if noone responded in like 3 months the fix would no longer
be at least quick. And as always we trust
On 03/02/2012 12:27 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Well, Fedora ships packages. I might be stupid but would someone please explain
me how can one deliver fixed/improved packages to users without do at least a
bit of packaging work. I don't see a way this to happen.
Spec files are no rocket
- Original Message -
From: Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:34:11 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 02/03/12 13:24, Aleksandar
Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message -
From: Matthias Rungemru...@matthias-runge.de
To: Development discussions related to Fedoradevel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:05:07 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers
On 03/02/2012 12:03 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Are the changes enforced? I don't think so ...
Interesting which begs the question to which purpose do the guideline
serve if no one is actually making sure that it's being followed?
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 02/03/12 13:16, Panu Matilainen wrote:
Not to mention bug reporter not necessarily understanding the full
consequences of a change - change that might look trivial but has
world-breaking effects.
And FWIW, four week vacations are common in this part of the world...
- Panu -
I've orphaned buoh and libsoup22 in all active branches of Fedora. Buoh
is a GTK online comics reader that I haven't used in forever and
libsoup22 is a compat version of libsoup required for buoh. I don't
think any packages other than buoh require libsoup22, but I could be
wrong.
Buoh's
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:34:10 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 03/02/2012 12:27 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Well, Fedora ships
On 02/03/12 13:37, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
I really have no idea nor I would have the time to deal with such
thing anytime soon as it will also require development work if
accepted. The current process works fine for me. I just wanted to
show that there are better way than throwing out
- Original Message -
From: Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:37:53 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message -
On 2012-03-01, Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 1.3.2012 17:52, Petr Pisar napsal(a):
where to get public key for verifying RPM signatures.
The keys are at: https://fedoraproject.org/keys
And F16 primary key (A82BA4B7) is signed by... 1 guy. Awesome.
And ISO images propagated on
On 03/02/2012 12:37 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Don't be so touchy please. The truth is somewhere in between. There
are maintainers who do not respond for whatever reason and there are
others who are solving reported issue in a minute. I don't believe
that it was meant to threaten anybody. You
Dne 2.3.2012 13:47, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message -
From: Vít Ondruchvondr...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:37:53 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
Dne 2.3.2012 13:19, Aleksandar Kurtakov
- Original Message -
From: Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:54:52 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
Dne 2.3.2012 13:47, Aleksandar Kurtakov napsal(a):
- Original Message -
- Original Message -
From: Aleksandar Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 3:08:26 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
- Original Message -
Il giorno ven, 02/03/2012 alle 14.41 +0200, Jonathan Dieter ha scritto:
I've orphaned buoh and libsoup22 in all active branches of Fedora. Buoh
is a GTK online comics reader that I haven't used in forever and
libsoup22 is a compat version of libsoup required for buoh. I don't
think any
* Dan Williams
0.9.4 snapshots do not require both methods to complete (with either
success or failure) before saying the machine is connected. Thus if
IPv4 completes first, NM will say it's connected, and continue IPv6 in
the background. And vice versa.
That is true, however, if IPv6
On 03/02/2012 12:41 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Nope, if you are a packager already and you have a unit file you want to push
in my package just ask me about commit rights via pkgdb and a mail explaining
it and I'll definetely approve your request and I'm pretty sure that a number
of
Daniel J Walsh wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 02/29/2012 04:03 PM, Scott Doty wrote:
On 02/29/2012 08:46 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 07:02 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
I think he's got a point
Hi,
there is F17 espeak bug:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799137
requesting drop of portaudio from espeak to lower the
number of deps. Is anybody against?
Thanks regards
Jaroslav
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Hi,
* Adam Williamson
If there's a bug against this, it could be nominated as a Beta or Final
blocker.
Here's a few:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=538499
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=552099
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591630
On 03/02/2012 12:12 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:02 AM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
different component for whole month. He might be
On 03/02/2012 08:43 AM, Nicola Soranzo wrote:
Il giorno ven, 02/03/2012 alle 14.41 +0200, Jonathan Dieter ha scritto:
I've orphaned buoh and libsoup22 in all active branches of Fedora. Buoh
is a GTK online comics reader that I haven't used in forever and
libsoup22 is a compat version of
On 03/02/2012 01:34 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
I other words, all is proposal would be doing is to cause bureaucratic
churn.
Well it only causes bureaucratic churn or otherwise inconvenience for
non responding maintainers as in maintainers that do not respond to a
report in timely manner +
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/305
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/305/0001-Ticket-305-Certain-CMP-operations-hang-or-cause-ns-s.patch
Thanks,
Mark
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 05:36, Nikos Roussos ni...@autoverse.net wrote:
Here is a weird example of how Fedora currenty handles some permission
procedures. I created a standard user account (no admin rights) and I'm
trying to install a package. When I press apply I'm prompted to enter a
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 21:53 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
In case anyone's wondering what that actually does, here's what I can
figure out.
What it does directly is to add the user to the 'wheel' group. I'm not
sure what all the consequences of that are, but there's two I've been
able to
The kernel has several widespread bugs that are affecting all releases,
that are impacting a lot of users.
* Hibernation
There are so many bugs here it's hard to know where to begin.
- We have cases where it fails to sleep, or resumes instantly.
- There are cases where it looks to be
On 03/02/2012 03:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Process looks like this:
* Guidelines updated
* Someone notices that the package does not follow the guidelines (Note that
this step does not require that the Guidelines were updated... the
packaging bug could have been missed during review
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=768846
Joe Orton jor...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 09:07 -0500, Jaroslav Skarvada wrote:
Hi,
there is F17 espeak bug:
http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=799137
requesting drop of portaudio from espeak to lower the
number of deps. Is anybody against?
I'm very much in favor of it - we don't want both
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:16:28 +,
\Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 03/02/2012 11:52 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
So I would make a contra-proposal.
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status new in a
week - give commit rights to the
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 20:49 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
On 03/01/2012 05:43 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 16:39 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin group checkbox when
adding the initial user, not sure if it is checked on or off by
how can it be that migration-kernel-threads have
107h when the uptime is around 4 days and the
machine is mostly not cpu-bound?
see screenshot
seems to affect only the 3.x kernels (Fedora 15 2.6.4x)
attachment: screen.png
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
devel mailing
Am 02.03.2012 12:02, schrieb Marcela Mašláňová:
Ok, so you'll automatically start non-responsive maintainer process,
because maintainer didn't work on a one bug. But he might be working on
different component for whole month. He might be working on a new
upstream release and not paying
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:34:10 +,
\Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote:
One way to achieve that would be that one could do so by becoming
proven packager through some kind of mentoring process ( which does
not exist btw ) I would think.
I would think the implied process
Am 02.03.2012 12:47, schrieb Marcela Mašláňová:
Some developers prefer ignore it until they have time. Why should I
write yes, yes, it's broken, I'll look at it next month. That's not
helping anyway.
IT DOES HELP
it is a hughe difference for a bugreporter if he feels
a month ignored or
Am 02.03.2012 13:00, schrieb Matthias Runge:
On 02/03/12 12:52, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
If a maintainer doesn't respond to a bug repord with the status
new in a week - give commit rights to the reporter in pkgdb
so he/she can fix it himself.
I kind a' like this proposal. You're
On 03/02/2012 04:27 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 03:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Process looks like this:
* Guidelines updated
* Someone notices that the package does not follow the guidelines
(Note that
this step does not require that the Guidelines were updated...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03/02/2012 10:38 AM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 20:49 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
On 03/01/2012 05:43 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 16:39 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:20:10AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the hundreds
and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive maintainers policy is a
tremendous work thus
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 13:55:11 +,
\Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not a packager already nor can I become one since I dont want to
maintain a single package in the distribution since it does not
scratch my ich but I would like to be able to fix things if I do
come
- Original Message -
From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:09:00 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
Am 02.03.2012 13:00, schrieb
Am 02.03.2012 16:47, schrieb Karel Zak:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 10:20:10AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
I am a feature owner for a feature that involves components in the hundreds
and is heavily depended on maintainers responsiveness.
For me to start enacting the non responsive
On 03/02/2012 03:47 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
What's your project boy? .. create a huge collection of dirty words?;-)
Sorry not following where you are going with this?
IMHO it's bad idea.
Why do you think it's a bad idea automating a process that is now done
manually?
JBG
--
devel
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:09:00PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
you are missing the differences between ignored, assigend and fixed
where did you see a line that a bug must be fixed in whatever time?
you did not because it is not there
the point is that if a reporter takes time to file a
On 03/02/2012 03:45 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote:
You are looking for re-review of packages mentioned many times before.
But we have problems to find reviewers for new one, so I don't believe
we would find enough people for this.
If it's an manual process sure I can understand why it's hard to
Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net:
what are all these maintainers doing?
it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
services
Some packages need a bit more love, especially when the sysv init
scripts did more than just starting / stopping a
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 04:13:44PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Why do you think it's a bad idea automating a process that is now done
manually?
because:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
* After 2 attempts of no contact, the reporter asks if
On 03/02/2012 04:23 PM, Thomas Moschny wrote:
Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Haraldh.rei...@thelounge.net:
what are all these maintainers doing?
it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
services
Some packages need a bit more love, especially when the sysv init
scripts
Be careful what you wish for. btrfs is not a clear win on performance.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=articleitem=linux_33_btrfsnum=1
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 03/02/2012 06:59 AM, Neal Becker wrote:
I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin group checkbox when
adding the initial user, not sure if it is checked on or off by default.
Actually, FC16 has this feature (and I use it). But this is sometimes even more
confusing. Does that dialog
- Original Message -
From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 5:56:10 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
Am 02.03.2012 16:47, schrieb Karel
On 03/02/2012 04:29 PM, Karel Zak wrote:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 04:13:44PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Why do you think it's a bad idea automating a process that is now done
manually?
because:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers
* After 2
On 03/02/2012 10:04 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Yes the automation would just automate these steps ending with posting
the formal request to devel for fesco to pick up.
The best way to convince people is to actually just do it. Post a
script and show that it can be done.
Rahul
--
0001-init-txn-thread-private-data-for-all-database-modes.patch
Description: application/mbox
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
Hi,
2012/3/2 Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com:
Be careful what you wish for. btrfs is not a clear win on performance.
More frightening benchmarks are shown here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FegjLbCnoBw
This does not surprise me. Btrfs has more features than Ext4, so it
may be slower.
If
On 03/02/2012 04:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Yes the automation would just automate these steps ending with posting
the formal request to devel for fesco to pick up.
The best way to convince people is to actually just do it. Post a
script and show that it can be done.
Do we have
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 12:53:35 + (UTC)
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com wrote:
On 2012-03-01, Michal Schmidt mschm...@redhat.com wrote:
Dne 1.3.2012 17:52, Petr Pisar napsal(a):
where to get public key for verifying RPM signatures.
The keys are at: https://fedoraproject.org/keys
And F16
Am 02.03.2012 17:20, schrieb Karel Zak:
On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 01:09:00PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
you are missing the differences between ignored, assigend and fixed
where did you see a line that a bug must be fixed in whatever time?
you did not because it is not there
the point is
Am 02.03.2012 17:23, schrieb Thomas Moschny:
Am 2. März 2012 16:56 schrieb Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net:
what are all these maintainers doing?
it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
services
Some packages need a bit more love, especially when the sysv init
Am 02.03.2012 17:35, schrieb Aleksandar Kurtakov:
it takes exactly 5 minutes to write a systemd-unit for most
services like postfix/dbmail and nothing happens, even
not if the one you called boy submits patches, unit-files
and pinging maintainers since 3 releases with the result get
ignored
On 03/02/2012 10:15 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 03/02/2012 04:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Yes the automation would just automate these steps ending with
posting
the formal request to devel for fesco to pick up.
The best way to convince people is to actually just do it. Post
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 6:45:24 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers policy
On 03/02/2012 04:42 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Yes the automation would just
- Original Message -
From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Cc: Aleksandar Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com
Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 6:45:14 PM
Subject: Re: Automating the NonResponsiveMaintainers
On 03/02/2012 10:15 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
* writing the systemd-unit takes 2 minutes for postfix
* no need for package anything, install put it locally in /etc/systemd/system
* so testing takes another 3 minutes, no compile needed
This timeline is not reasonable. It typically takes half an
https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/305
https://fedorahosted.org/389/attachment/ticket/305/0001-Ticket-305-Certain-CMP-operations-hang-or-cause-ns-s.patch
Thanks,
Mark
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
--
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
