On 07/10/2013 09:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Fedora is an operating system that supports a range of desktop
environments, defaulting to the GNOME desktop environment. An OS that
supports headless servers but not desktop environments might be based on
Fedora, but it wouldn't be Fedora. As such,
- Original Message -
From: Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:56:40 PM
Subject: Re: F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at
On 07/10/2013 10:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As I said elsewhere in the thread, the criteria should be subsidiary to
the primary arch designation. If we decide we want to take ARM as a
primary arch in any form in which the current release criteria don't
apply, we should amend the release
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 21:56:40 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 04:17:47PM +0100, Caolán McNamara wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 08:28 -0400, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
I still have serious concerns regarding build times:
* arm -
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 23:18 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 07/10/2013 10:12 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
As I said elsewhere in the thread, the criteria should be subsidiary to
the primary arch designation. If we decide we want to take ARM as a
primary arch in any form in which the current
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 02:12:03 -0400 (EDT)
Aleksandar Kurtakov akurt...@redhat.com wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent:
Thanks Brendan. My Fedora doesn't even use a GNOME desktop. I've happily used
XFCE for years. And I make no secret that I care about servers more than
desktops (you know, that part of the market where general purpose Linux has a
huge footprint and stands a chance). I would hate to look back in
On 07/10/2013 07:53 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jul, 2013 at 04:35:58 GMT, Alex G. wrote:
We shouldn't be surprised that update descriptions are crap. They are
just an annoyance for a lot of us, especially since we've put all that
information in a bunch of other places.
Where else
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:15:37PM +0100, M A Young wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 11:32:46AM -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote:
Excellent proposal. I of course think this would be just awesome!
This proposal doesn't address virtualization!
I
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 10:24:05PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:43 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 06:14:24PM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I was working on adding 2 more SOC's for packagers earlier this
Sérgio Basto wrote:
On Qui, 2013-07-04 at 16:47 +0400, Andrey Ponomarenko wrote:
Starting with 1.6 version of pkgdiff if you compare debug packages
and
add --details option on the command line then the tool will
automatically run abi-dumper to dump ABI of old and new shared
objects
found in
= Proposed Self Contained Change: SDDM as the default KDE display manager
instead of KDM =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SDDMinsteadOfKDM
Change owner(s): Martin Briza mbr...@redhat.com and KDE SIG
Retire KDM as the default display manager of the KDE Fedora Spin in favor of
SDDM.
On 07/10/2013 09:28 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2013-07-10 at 13:56 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/10/2013 12:36 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Plus, in relation to this - the llvmpipe issue brings up that one of
the 'release blocking desktops'*does not work*. This would, by
Hi,
On 07/10/2013 06:14 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I was working on adding 2 more SOC's for packagers earlier this week.
I wanted to see how much call there was for these... should I try and
make them accessable by all packagers? Or just have a group and
interested people
- Original Message -
Hi,
On 07/10/2013 06:14 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I was working on adding 2 more SOC's for packagers earlier this week.
I wanted to see how much call there was for these... should I try and
make them accessable by all packagers? Or just
Hi,
Due to some concerns that were raised regarding further KDM inclusion, I'm
adding this information to the change description:
KDM will still be included in the repositories of Fedora, the change
affects only new installations of Fedora 20, which will have SDDM enabled
as the default
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/10/2013 09:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Fedora is an operating system that supports a range of desktop
environments, defaulting to the GNOME desktop environment. An OS that
supports headless servers but not desktop
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
Speaking about hardware - and that's more a question for Spot - could
be possible to organize another round of HW give away as we did with
Raspberries? With a different HW, that's supported in Fedora and it
seems like
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:55 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
The all or nothing element in the above simply serves to discourage further
contribution and is harming Fedora's growth. The relentless I don't want
I
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:43:36AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
Stack protector is not a new requirement in Fedora. It's been part of
the distribution for years.
xterm has been part of the distribution for years also,
I appreciate that some people cannot or don't want to buy hardware,
but if you did have roughly $300 available, then you should probably
get the Oct 2012 Samsung Chromebook or the Arndale development board.
The Chromebook has the advantage IMHO that it's a decent netbook.
$45 will get
So, wondering...
a) What is the fastest available arm hardware that works today with
fedora ?
b) The fedora builders are currently just one arm per build, right ? Any
benefit to throwing distcc/icecream at the problem ? Wouldn't help the
java builds, but would likely help e.g. the LibreOffice
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
Speaking about hardware - and that's more a question for Spot - could
be possible to organize another round of HW give away as we did with
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/10/2013 09:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Fedora is an operating system that supports a range of desktop
environments, defaulting to the GNOME
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:35:36PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
Speaking about hardware - and that's more a question for Spot - could
be
= Proposed Self Contained Change: KDE Plasma Workspaces 4.11 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/KDE411
Change owner(s): Rex Dieter rdie...@fedoraproject.org and KDE SIG
Rebase to version 4.11 of: the KDE Plasma Workspaces including the Plasma
Desktop and Netbook workspaces, the KDE
= Proposed System Wide Change: Enable kdump on secureboot machines =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Kdump_with_secureboot
Change owner(s): Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com
Currently kexec/kdump is disabled on machines with secureboot enabled. This
feature aims to enable kexec/kdump on such
And following the legitimate concerns about stack-protector this was raised by
ARM into core Linaro as an urgent action for which engineering resource is
being assigned to correct this deficiency ASAP. Thus within a day an issue has
been noted that we were unaware of and is being worked through
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:04:51PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
The all or nothing element in the above simply serves to discourage
further contribution and is harming Fedora's growth. The relentless
I don't want ARM to sully the good name of Fedora is absurd: User
for user, ARM is
- Original Message -
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:04:51PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
The all or nothing element in the above simply serves to discourage
further contribution and is harming Fedora's growth. The relentless
I don't want ARM to sully the good name of Fedora is
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/10/2013 09:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Fedora is an operating
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Caolán McNamara caol...@redhat.com wrote:
So, wondering...
a) What is the fastest available arm hardware that works today with
fedora ?
At the moment the build hardware we have is Calxeda quad core A9 with
4Gb of RAM and a local HDD.
b) The fedora builders
Compose started at Thu Jul 11 08:15:02 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[community-mysql]
community-mysql-embedded-5.5.32-6.fc20.i686 requires /usr/sbin/ldconfig
community-mysql-embedded-5.5.32-6.fc20.i686 requires
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:01:46AM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
But spins are Fedora, same as cloud image is still Fedora (and I don't
see complaints it does not run Gnome Shell ;-). Desktop spin is one
spin of the many spins but we promote it (for several reasons) more than
others. So again
= Proposed Self Contained Change: Yesod Web Framework =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/YesodWebFramework
Change owner(s): Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com, Michel Salim, Ben
Boeckel
Yesod is a Haskell web framework for productive development of type-safe,
RESTful, high performance web
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Test-Warnings:
66779108a5c974114f3a6a709270b0a0 Test-Warnings-0.007.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
I've just spotted usr-move has been completed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout
states:
In addition, Fedora packages MUST NOT place files or directories in the
/bin, /sbin, /lib or /lib64 directories. Instead, the /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin,
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 01:23:21PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:01:46AM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
But spins are Fedora, same as cloud image is still Fedora (and I don't
see complaints it does not run Gnome Shell ;-). Desktop spin is one
spin of the many
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:48:56PM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
I've just spotted usr-move has been completed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout
states:
In addition, Fedora packages MUST NOT place files or directories in the
/bin,
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Test-Tester:
d8fd872ee7e959f89a4af0371a7e782d Test-Tester-0.109.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, 11.07.13 12:34, Martin Briza (mbr...@redhat.com) wrote:
= Proposed Self Contained Change: SDDM as the default KDE display manager
instead of KDM =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SDDMinsteadOfKDM
Change owner(s): Martin Briza mbr...@redhat.com and KDE SIG
BTW, I have some
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:48:56PM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
I've just spotted usr-move has been completed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout
states:
In
Summary of changes:
c141955... Update to 0.109 (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 07/11/2013 01:40 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
=== Build and ship ima-evm-utils package ===
/sbin/kexec will be signed by evmctl. This utility will put an xattr
security.ima on /sbin/kexec file and kernel will leverage IMA infrastructure in
kernel to verify signature of /sbin/kexec upon
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 06:49:10PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
That's correct and you'll find that that's what I've been doing for
2.5+ years now, but we're talking about Primary here... and in primary
it's everyone's
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Each sub-community ( be it spins be it various arch ) should need to provide
the necessary QA/Releng resources from their sub-community ( if no such
thing the relevant party needs to build one )
That would be
On 07/10/2013 11:05 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 9.7.2013 17:52, Orion Poplawski napsal(a):
On 07/09/2013 12:16 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 8.7.2013 12:00, nob...@fedoraproject.org napsal(a):
ruby-mysql [devel] was orphaned by orion
A Ruby interface to MySQL
= Proposed Self Contained Change: ARM on x86 with libvirt/virt-manager =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Virt_ARM_on_x86
Change owner(s): Cole Robinson crobi...@redhat.com
Fix running ARM VMs on x86 hosts using standard libvirt tools libvirt virsh,
virt-manager and virt-install.
==
= Proposed Self Contained Change: VM Snapshot UI with virt-manager =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Virt_Manager_Snapshots
Change owner(s): Cole Robinson crobi...@redhat.com
Add UI to virt-manager for easily managing VM snapshots.
== Detailed description ==
qemu and libvirt have all
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:30:11PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:48:56PM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
I've just spotted usr-move has been completed.
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
Please consider the idea that there is a useful middle ground Primary and
Secondary.
With the FESCo-member-as-elected-by-contributors hat on, there really
isn't a middle: The individual packagers are either responsible for
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:35:36 +0100,
Peter Robinson pbrobin...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree, not sure what the contribution to the RPi stuff was like but
for the XOs that were given away I'm not aware of a single
contribution to any of the Fedora/OLPC/Sugar projects as a result of
it.
I've
Summary of changes:
140dd48... Initial import (perl-Test-Warnings-0.007-1) (*)
(*) This commit already existed in another branch; no separate mail sent
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 16:24:49 +0200,
Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:04 AM, Brendan Conoboy b...@redhat.com wrote:
Please consider the idea that there is a useful middle ground Primary and
Secondary.
With the FESCo-member-as-elected-by-contributors hat on,
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-Warnings-0.007-1.fc18' was created pointing to:
140dd48... Initial import (perl-Test-Warnings-0.007-1)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:57:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/11/2013 01:40 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
=== Build and ship ima-evm-utils package ===
/sbin/kexec will be signed by evmctl. This utility will put an xattr
security.ima on /sbin/kexec file and kernel will leverage IMA
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-Warnings-0.007-1.fc19' was created pointing to:
140dd48... Initial import (perl-Test-Warnings-0.007-1)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
That's the point. You don't get to be a primary architecture until
you've demonstrated that doing so won't slow down the other
architectures
Is that
The lightweight tag 'perl-Test-Warnings-0.007-1.fc20' was created pointing to:
140dd48... Initial import (perl-Test-Warnings-0.007-1)
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
= Proposed Self Contained Change: Application Installer =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AppInstaller
To improve some problematic aspects of the updates user experience
(long waits, locks), we will use the new hawkey backend for
PackageKit.
(echo issue with a different backend that
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 07:22 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I'll note that this does slightly undercut one of the tenants of UsrMove --
that people won't have to guess as to which directory a file lives in; it's
always in /usr/bin. That will still hold true for someone who is the author
of a
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:02 PM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
= Proposed Self Contained Change: Application Installer =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AppInstaller
== Scope ==
Other developers:
* Use gnome-software instead of gpk-update-viewer when dealing with updates
Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) said:
Release engineering:
* Make metadata available for packaged applications in Fedora (screenshots,
icons, ratings,...). Not all of this needs to be in place for F20
Policies and guidelines:
* No immediate changes needed; longer-term, we probably want
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Enable kdump on secureboot machines =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Kdump_with_secureboot
Change owner(s): Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com
Currently kexec/kdump is disabled on machines with secureboot
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 03:33:27PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
That's the point. You don't get to be a primary architecture until
you've
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:14:24PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:43:36AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
Stack protector is not a new requirement in Fedora. It's been part of
the distribution
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 04:01:15PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
That's the point. You don't get to be a primary architecture until
you've
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:53:42AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jaroslav Reznik (jrez...@redhat.com) said:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Enable kdump on secureboot machines =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Kdump_with_secureboot
Change owner(s): Vivek Goyal vgo...@redhat.com
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 07:48:50AM -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote:
And following the legitimate concerns about stack-protector this was
raised by ARM into core Linaro as an urgent action for which engineering
resource is being assigned to correct this deficiency ASAP. Thus within
a day an issue
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:46:03AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 07:22 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I'll note that this does slightly undercut one of the tenants of UsrMove --
that people won't have to guess as to which directory a file lives in; it's
always in
Am 11.07.2013 15:05, schrieb Richard W.M. Jones:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:48:56PM +, Petr Pisar wrote:
I've just spotted usr-move has been completed.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Filesystem_Layout
states:
In addition, Fedora packages
On 07/11/2013 04:33 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
I don't think it would make sense to add more and more
Fedora-specific patches which implement security functionality. I
don't want Fedora to become the next Android.
I don't see those patches going upstream in near term. First of all
base
On 07/11/2013 05:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 07:48:50AM -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote:
And following the legitimate concerns about stack-protector this was
raised by ARM into core Linaro as an urgent action for which engineering
resource is being assigned to correct
=
#fedora-meeting: FESCO 2013-07-10
=
Meeting started by abadger1999 at 18:01:56 UTC. The full logs are
available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2013-07-10/fesco.2013-07-10-18.01.log.html
.
Meeting summary
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:02:27PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote:
Promotion is supposed to benefit Fedora, not the architecture being
promoted.
Yes, but that is _net_ benefit (benefit - cost). Requiring zero cost
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 07:48:50AM -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote:
And following the legitimate concerns about stack-protector this was raised
by ARM into core Linaro as an urgent action for which engineering resource is
being assigned to correct this deficiency ASAP. Thus within a day an
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:33:05 AM Vivek Goyal wrote:
Secondly, there are disagreements upstream w.r.t how locking down
executable should happen. IMA folks want some functionality behind
security hooks (as opposed to what I have done). So I am expecting
that once patches do get merged
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:35:36PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Jaroslav Reznik jrez...@redhat.com wrote:
Speaking about hardware - and that's more a question for Spot - could
be
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:04:51PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
The relentless I don't want ARM to sully the good name of Fedora is
absurd: User for user, ARM is considerably more popular than Fedora.
No, this is completely wrong. It's entirely propaganda, and you need to
stop saying things
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:50:05AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 07/11/2013 07:33 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Promotion is supposed to benefit Fedora, not the architecture being
promoted.
And you think it would not benefit Fedora.
On the contrary, I think a solid ARM port benefits Fedora
On 07/11/2013 08:47 AM, Till Maas wrote:
IMHO it is also not that easy to get something going with ARM on Fedora.
For example I bought a Sheeva-ARM devices to get upstream release
monitoring running on it . But even when I got it installed,
the device crashed with a kernel soft lockup.
BZ#?
On 07/11/2013 07:33 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Promotion is supposed to benefit Fedora, not the architecture being
promoted.
And you think it would not benefit Fedora.
So promoting ARM comes at a cost to every individual package maintainer,
who now has to do additional work.
Do you really
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:19:58PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 07/11/2013 04:33 PM, Vivek Goyal wrote:
I don't think it would make sense to add more and more
Fedora-specific patches which implement security functionality. I
don't want Fedora to become the next Android.
I don't see
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:45:34AM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Thursday, July 11, 2013 10:33:05 AM Vivek Goyal wrote:
Secondly, there are disagreements upstream w.r.t how locking down
executable should happen. IMA folks want some functionality behind
security hooks (as opposed to what I
On 07/11/2013 08:34 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
That's why I'd like to see all of these things fixed *before* promotion.
Yes, you've been very consistent, it can be summarized in 3 points:
1. Provide a list of every ARM deficiency.
2. Provide a fix for everything listed in 1.
3. After #1 and
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 07:22:39AM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
The former is easier... but it then makes me ask, what is the point? If
we're thinking that the /usr/bin/sh location is more correct then we should
be patching dependents to use that location. If we think the /bin/sh
Okay, so,
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 16:56 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The llvm maintainer hasn't fixed llvmpipe. Nobody working on gcc has
bootstrapped ada.
The llvm maintainer would like to reiterate that he took the package
more out of necessity than desire, has no love for llvm itself, is not
paid to
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 09:25:43AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 07/11/2013 08:34 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
That's why I'd like to see all of these things fixed *before* promotion.
Yes, you've been very consistent, it can be summarized in 3 points:
1. Provide a list of every ARM
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:01:46AM -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
But spins are Fedora, same as cloud image is still Fedora (and I don't
see complaints it does not run Gnome Shell ;-). Desktop spin is one
Not commenting on the bigger debate at this point, but I want to note that
you can, in
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 08:12:42PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
There probably is a minimal packageset, though. the kernel, glibc, gcc,
and rpm would all be on my list. Given that fesco has a policy about the
package depsolver having to be the same on all spins, probably the current
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:41:40 +0100
Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:35:36PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 16:38 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
= Proposed Self Contained Change: Application Installer =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AppInstaller
To improve some problematic aspects of the updates user experience
(long waits, locks), we will use the new hawkey
Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
If we really wanted to talk about graphics on arm, we'd be talking about
writing drivers for GPUs.
Is there any use to shipping freedreno and similar projects in Fedora ARM
before they get to the upstream kernel? (I expect a brickbat from Josh
fairly
See http://jenkins.cloud.fedoraproject.org/job/389-ds-base/67/changes
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-devel
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 16:46 +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
Policies and guidelines:
* No immediate changes needed; longer-term, we probably want to make changes
to way applications are distributed and installed
* The update experience will also benefit from proposed changes to batch
On 07/10/2013 01:03 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
Compared to the current DM, KDM, it currently lacks a few features (such as
XDMCP) but adds some other ones (QtQuick themes) or is currently adding them
(Keyboard layout switching in the greeter).
Is XDMCP on the roadmap? It's a pretty darn
On 07/11/2013 03:55 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
I will note that it is not x86 alone. If one is simply going by as
close to the current Fedora experience the current Primary offers,
then the PowerPC secondary arch team is actually ahead of ARM. I'm
not saying they are a better candidate, but I am
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@redhat.com wrote:
Adam Jackson (a...@redhat.com) said:
If we really wanted to talk about graphics on arm, we'd be talking about
writing drivers for GPUs.
Is there any use to shipping freedreno and similar projects in Fedora ARM
before
Brendan Conoboy (b...@redhat.com) said:
I'm not up-to-date on the current condition of Power: Are you
specifically referring to GNOME KDE? If so I'd posit that this is
because GNOME KDE make a lot more sense on Power than they do on
ARM. Developer energy goes where it's needed wanted.
On 07/11/2013 04:11 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
To expand on this a bit, how do you believe that merging ARM into the
build system is going to encourage growth in Fedora? What will it buy
you that you don't already have? At first glance, it gets you
slightly more timely builds. However, you've
1 - 100 of 178 matches
Mail list logo
