On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 12:52 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-01-28 at 09:40 -0800, John Reiser wrote:
> > > How far away do we appear to be from having an installable rawhide? Any
> > > help needed there?
> >
> > I created install DVDs for myself last Saturday through Tuesday (Jan.23-
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 21:33 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I want to mention one thing: on opensuse the "base"
> system has a different schedule then the rest of the OS. i.e. the
> kernel, gcc, glibc and the low-level tools freeze first, while
> everything else may be hacked on a couple of wee
On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 13:39 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Would an 8[1] month cycle cause fewer slips per release? Fewer bugs?
For me, one of the guiding principles for Fedora QA's work on tools and
policies has been this: time, by itself, doesn't fix anything.
Making the schedules longer isn't
On Fri, 2011-04-08 at 20:27 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I will refrain from ranting, and just point out that something is
> pretty darn broken about this process. Why are the nagmails going
> to someone with no power to fix the problem? Shouldn't somebody
> with approval power be paying more than z
On Mon, 2010-03-01 at 11:57 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 03/01/2010 11:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> > If you think this isn't the right way
> > to provide a safety net for package maintainers - what is?
>
> With the understanding that you're not specifically asking me that
> question, I'd
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 13:15 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:04:31 -0800
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> > What do people make of this?
>
> I'm no expert on polls/polling, but I suspect that many of the people
> who are more interested in a 'stable/less updates' Fe
On Mon, 2010-11-15 at 13:02 +0100, Milan Broz wrote:
> On 11/14/2010 12:41 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> >> 1. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/NoDefaultLVM
>
> Info on this page is completely obsolete!
Yes. Note the prominent line reading:
* Last updated: December 17, 2008
The info
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 22:55 -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I'd say, report this as a bug and see where it leads. It's certainly not
> expected behaviour even if it is intentional.
One-line reproducer:
case x"" in x) echo matches x;; x?) echo matches x? but not x;; esac
I notice the bash-4.2 C
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I would be willing to accept *negative* karma from more than
> one proventester as being an override. But it is utterly unacceptable
> for inaction to represent a veto.
I would argue that it's utterly unacceptable for untested code to be
pushed
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:04 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Adam Williamson writes:
> > On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> The proposed policy might be workable if we had a surplus of
> >> proventester manpower available, but we obviously have not got that.
>
> > See above, you cann
On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 15:08 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Will Woods writes:
> > Is it really so hard for you to find someone to test the thing? If so,
> > maybe you could use the assistance of a co-maintainer?
>
> Huh? I don't need a co-maintainer, I need testers.
I was s
On Thu, 2010-07-01 at 06:33 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Fedora Legacy has shown how well this works… not!
>
> I completely agree with Ralf Corsepius and Tom Lane on this subject: this
> policy is very unhelpful, and applying it to security updates is just
> totally insane. We're going to see m
On Sat, 2010-07-03 at 12:27 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> [About automating this during the push process, it is possible to have
> a depchecker simulate a --skip-broken and exclude packages which break
> dependencies. There are different strategies. However, the procedure
> must be backed up by
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 19:21 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:40:01AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On 7/6/10 8:52 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> > > IMHO it should not be a +1 karma but some different flag that is set for
> > > updates that passed the tests.
> >
> > Using karma is vi
On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 12:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 11:34 -0400, Will Woods wrote:
>
> > If there are any other questions, feel free to ask.
> >
> > -w
>
> Did you get to look at the nss-softokn situation (details of which I
> se
On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 09:37 -0500, Major Hayden wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> I'm working with F20 and CentOS 7 to create some live booted images.
> I'm not looking to do live USB/CD media, but rather boot a server over
> the network with a kernel, initramfs, and squashfs. It's working well
> so far,
On Mon, 2014-07-28 at 21:26 -0500, Major Hayden wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2014, at 17:11, Will Woods wrote:
>
> > Since your systems have lots of RAM, why not just use a regular ext4
> > filesystem image as your root filesystem? Then you don't need to worry
> > about
[tl;dr: fedup is going away and should be re-implemented by the system
packaging tools.]
Hey all,
F22 is the fifth release we've handled with fedup. A lot has changed
since F17, and we've learned some valuable lessons about how upgrades
work (and how they fail).
We've come to the conclusion that
On Sun, 2015-06-07 at 07:41 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Uhh, this might be a stupid question, but what actually prevents us
> from integrating the FedUp process into install media (that is, not
> live images)? I mean, yeah, it's nice that we can do upgrades online,
> but what about when the system w
On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 14:20 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
> just behave like "yum --releasever=XX distro-sync" all the years
> before
> and just REFUSE to upgrade if there are conflicts
This is, in fact, the default behavior in dnf system-upgrade 0.5.x and
higher.
-w
--
devel mailing list
devel@
On Thu, 2015-10-29 at 15:00 +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 29.10.2015 v 13:24 Honza Šilhan napsal(a):
> > You can exclude the conflicting packages to proceed the system
> > -upgrade i.e.:
> > "dnf system-upgrade download --releasever=23 --distro-sync -x
> > rubygem-celluloid --allowerasing"
>
>
On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 21:04 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> All the actual logic of DNF is written in C, so I really don't see why
> we should be stuck with that Python wrapper.
...it's not just a "wrapper". DNF have replaced yum's depsolver but ~90%
of the code in yum *isn't* depsolving.
To repla
On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 11:15 -0600, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
>So does fedup or anything in that chain create connection files? I
> would imagine no since no one else is experiencing this issue but wanted
> to make sure.
Basically, no: all fedup does is install RPMs¹.
The only fedup-specifi
Hello friends,
The time has come for me to admit that I'm not maintaining these
packages anymore, and either let someone else do it, or let them
retire.
I've handed davfs2 over to the EPEL maintainer, but they might not
want to be primary maintainer, so feel free to get in touch if you'd
be willi
On Mon, 2015-01-26 at 13:26 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I note the ReplaceYumWithDnf Change page:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceYumWithDNF
>
> says nothing about fedup. However, fedup uses yum:
>
> [adamw@adam fedup (master %)]$ grep -R yum * | wc -l
> 74
>
> Has this be
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:14 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> I'd be super-interested in benchmarks comparing before and after
> install times. I guess since the plan is to do this _after_ the mass
> rebuild, we'll need to wait until after the *next* rebuild to see how
> much impact this has.
I don't
26 matches
Mail list logo
