Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 11:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> well, it would maybe a start to DROP packages which are still
> missing systemd-units
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/18/Fe
On 11/03/2012 08:17 AM, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 11:19 +0530, Rahul Sundaram a écrit :
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
well, it would maybe a start to DROP packages which are still
missing systemd-units
http:/
- Original Message -
> From: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Friday, November 2, 2012 9:20:05 PM
> Subject: Re: Revamping the non responsive maintainer process
>
> On 11/02/2012 06:27 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
> > Wrong. Do you know how few of the
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> My position is that the people who use Fedora and the kind of people we
> really _want_ to use Fedora can cope with it.
Maybe the majority can maybe they can't. But as evident by this thread
even fedora *developers* don't want to deal with
On Fri, 2012-11-02 at 13:22 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I disagree with that. Fedora releases had some small regression
> > introduced via updates from time but is is *very* usable as a stable
> > operating system.
>
> I disagree. It's usable by the kind of people who use Fedora. Who like
>
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:31 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:17:02 -0700
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> ..snip...
>
> In my experience, in the last few years, Fedora stable releases have
> become much more stable. My "stable" boxes here at home I have not
> really had to poke at si
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Henrique Junior wrote:
> It is difficult, for example, to understand why we have to wait until the
> next release to have LibreOffice 3.6, since this seems an non disruptive
> update that could bring major improvements in the productivity of users who
> rely on of
Compose started at Sat Nov 3 09:15:19 UTC 2012
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[dhcp-forwarder]
dhcp-forwarder-upstart-0.10-1801.fc18.noarch requires /sbin/initctl
[dnf]
dnf-0.2.14-2.git4831982.fc18.noarch requires python-hawkey >=
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 16:32:00 -0700,
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 00:18 +0100, drago01 wrote:
In a rolling release model, everyone deals with foo-1.0 to foo-2.0, then
a week later they deal with bar-1.0 to bar-2.0, then a week later they
deal with monkeys-1.0 to monkeys-2.0
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 12:35:08PM +0200, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> I understand that "regular users" are not Fedora's main target, but it
> is a general-purpose operating system in the sense that it can be used
> by people who want to have a stable working environment with all the
> latest things fro
Hans and I have been having a problem uploading the source for the
new version of hegdewars to the lookaside cache. There is some initial
network traffic, but then things hang.
Has anybody successfully uploaded a new file to the lookaside cache in
about the last 12 hours?
--
devel mailing lis
* Bruno Wolff III [03/11/2012 15:30] :
>
> Has anybody successfully uploaded a new file to the lookaside cache
> in about the last 12 hours?
Uploaded Queue-DBI-2.5.0.tar.gz just now.
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
* "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [02/11/2012 20:34] :
>
> That package would hardly be un-maintained if it has co-maintainers
> now does it...
Absolutely. Hence my request that any process we put in place be
package-focused rather than maintainer-focused.
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedo
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:29:07 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Hans and I have been having a problem uploading the source for the
new version of hegdewars to the lookaside cache. There is some
initial network traffic, but then things hang.
Has anybody successfully uploaded a new file to the
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:41:05 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 09:29:07 -0500,
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
Hans and I have been having a problem uploading the source for the
new version of hegdewars to the lookaside cache. There is some
initial network traffic, but then
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 10:52 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 12:58 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > My position is that the people who use Fedora and the kind of people we
> > really _want_ to use Fedora can cope with it.
>
> Maybe the majority can maybe they can't. But as evident by
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 11:28 +, mike cloaked wrote:
> Others may wish to compare Fedora with other distributions also - but
> one thought I had was that in Archlinux there are only two repos to
> maintain - whilst in Fedora it is 5 repos! One might wonder whether
> there is less effort needed t
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 09:37 -0200, Henrique Junior wrote:
> The guys behind openSUSE created a good approach with Tumbleweed. By
> adding this repo users can opt-in to the (semi)rolling model.
> Tumbleweed is more like a pool where updated, stable, non disruptive
> software can be installed and I
Am 03.11.2012 01:09, schrieb Adam Williamson:
> On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 01:07 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>> Am 03.11.2012 00:58, schrieb Adam Williamson:
>>> Microsoft don't really expect you to upgrade Windows. They expect you to
>>> buy a computer with Windows X on it, use it for three years, th
Am 03.11.2012 11:35, schrieb Nikos Roussos:
> In that sense, and from my point of view, if we had to rethink our release
> model and dedicate time and energy on a
> new approach, it would make more sense to have an extended support release
> (providing only security updates after
> 13 months)
Am 03.11.2012 15:38, schrieb Emmanuel Seyman:
> * "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" [02/11/2012 20:34] :
>>
>> That package would hardly be un-maintained if it has co-maintainers
>> now does it...
>
> Absolutely. Hence my request that any process we put in place be
> package-focused rather than maintainer
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 09:26:43 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I don't think rolling release and getting work done are incompatible.
> As I mentioned, I run Branched permanently on my desktop - so it
> rolls from 'pre-Alpha' state through to 'stable' state briefly and
> then back to 'pre-Alpha' agai
On 03.11.2012 18:26, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 10:52 +0100, drago01 wrote:
Eh? That's not what I said at all. What I said was that I think in a
well-managed rolling release model, users would actually run into
trouble only about as often as they already do anyway. I don't mean
On 03.11.2012 19:17, Alek Paunov wrote:
Adam, I think that the current "rolling release" discussion as many
other "high interest" general ones in the recent months are pointless
without some form of explicit definition and statistics of the current
(and desired) distinct Fedora user profiles.
J
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 11:11:18 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
In any case, I think we do need to look at release cycle changes or at
the very least Feature process revamp.
And get comments from other than developers. Marketting might have serious
concerns about the loss of exposure not having
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 11:28 +, mike cloaked wrote:
>
> > Others may wish to compare Fedora with other distributions also - but
> > one thought I had was that in Archlinux there are only two repos to
> > maintain - whilst in Fedora it is
Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 07:46 -0500, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
> I'd rather see us do a better job with rawhide so that more people use it and
> a better job at making upgrades go smoother so that people just trying
> to get stuff done with Fedora have a better experience.
Then the questio
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 00:26 +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
> Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 07:46 -0500, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
>
> > I'd rather see us do a better job with rawhide so that more people use it
> > and
> > a better job at making upgrades go smoother so that people just trying
> >
Adam Williamson wrote:
>On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 09:37 -0200, Henrique Junior wrote:
>
>> The guys behind openSUSE created a good approach with Tumbleweed. By
>> adding this repo users can opt-in to the (semi)rolling model.
>> Tumbleweed is more like a pool where updated, stable, non disruptive
>>
So, I have been thinking about rawhide.
I agree identifying the problems/issues would be good, and I think
there's something we can do to help with that:
Get a nice group of at least 10 or so folks who are active on this list
to agree to run it full time on their main machine.
As we get close
On Sun, 2012-11-04 at 02:12 +0200, Nikos Roussos wrote:
>
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> >On Sat, 2012-11-03 at 09:37 -0200, Henrique Junior wrote:
> >
> >> The guys behind openSUSE created a good approach with Tumbleweed. By
> >> adding this repo users can opt-in to the (semi)rolling model.
> >> Tum
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 06:12:02PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 06:05 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> >
> >No, they might simply have had nothing to do. Sometimes
> >applications are stable, have no releases, and have no bugs files
> >against them.
>
>
>
> Then those individual
On 04.11.2012 01:32, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
So, I have been thinking about rawhide.
I agree identifying the problems/issues would be good, and I think
there's something we can do to help with that:
Get a nice group of at least 10 or so folks who are active on this list
to agree to run it full time
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 00:26:08 +0100,
Michael Scherer wrote:
Le samedi 03 novembre 2012 à 07:46 -0500, Bruno Wolff III a écrit :
I do not run it, so I cannot judge, but I think the first step to fix
something is to know the exact problems to fix. If the issue is "too
much breakage", how can
On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 18:32:20 -0600,
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Additionally, if some number of these folks who pledge to run rawhide
full time were provenpackagers we could just go in and fix things as
they hit (or soon after) instead of waiting a while for fixes to go
out.
I'm in proven packag
I think we could, just for fun if you like, pursue making a good plan of
how the transition would be and what changes should be done.
Consider it objectively.
What changes would have to be done the OS?
What changes in infrastructure?
What tools do we need?
This could be a good exercise. The wik
36 matches
Mail list logo
