On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:45:46PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I don't really have a problem in believing that but it would be useful to
know in more detail how the initial proposals came to be (who were
involved? what problems are we trying to solve? what are failures of the
current model?
Hi
On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
I did discuss the idea with my manager (Denise Dumas, Director of Platform
Engineering) to make sure she would support me in spending time developing
it. She has promised (including to everyone at Flock) to provide resources
where we
tor 2013-11-07 klockan 09:14 + skrev Peter Robinson:
I don't see many people forcing things through, I believe that the
vast majority of contributors either like the change or aren't
bothered by it.
Just so that my silence is not counted as approval. I disapprove.
Mattias
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:55:12PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de
wrote:
On Thu, 07.11.13 20:09, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
Is there a technical reason why we can't use their packaging format,
interpreting it
Michael scherer wrote:
SELinux is still pretty RH/Fedora specific,
even if Debian and gentoo support it in theory ( in practice, Debian didn't
seems to
support it that well ).
Millions of Android devices now have SELinux. Android 4.3 enabled SELinux and
defaults to Permissive. Android 4.4
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 02:45:46PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm still slightly out of sync with the fedora.next stuff (REALLY picked
a bad time to go on vacation), but it does seem to me that a decent
amount of 'mature
On Fri, 2013-11-08 at 08:37 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Michael scherer wrote:
SELinux is still pretty RH/Fedora specific,
even if Debian and gentoo support it in theory ( in practice, Debian didn't
seems to
support it that well ).
Millions of Android devices now have SELinux.
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Michael scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:55:12PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de
wrote:
On Thu, 07.11.13 20:09, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
Is there a
Le vendredi 08 novembre 2013 à 21:24 +0100, Miloslav Trmač a écrit :
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Michael scherer m...@zarb.org wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 09:55:12PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de
wrote:
On
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
The definition given by Frank Murphy is totally different and doesn't
align with above. Above also doesn't relate to developers.
These align a lot with what I wrote though. :-)
On 7 Nov 2013 03:05, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
What you say makes some sense. It also makes me very tired thinking
about the threads coming when the details start getting presented by
the WGs :). I guess that's what we've signed up for though.
Well
On 7 Nov 2013 03:20, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:00:16AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Bastien Nocera wrote:
Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on
the various bundling techniques that were
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:24:20 -0400
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller cscha...@redhat.com wrote:
Will the other DE's still exist after workstation
Will a dev be able to use Xfce, Lxde as graphical choice.
What would encourage say an xubuntu dev //* devs are still users */
working on foo, to
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
is based upon systemd.
That means it will exclude the most popular distribution out there.
I fail to see the point of discussing
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 04:01:09AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Well yes, each time you try to force a change through which actually makes
things worse, there WILL be resistance. In fact, this is already what is
happening in this thread, the app proposal coming from (parts of) the
Workstation
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:50:59AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:00:16AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Bastien Nocera wrote:
Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on
the various bundling techniques that were explored
2013/11/7 Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the
distribution
is based upon systemd.
That means it will exclude the most popular distribution out
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:17:28 +0100
Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the
distribution is based upon systemd.
That means it will exclude the most
Kevin,
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 04:12 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
So where's the strawman?
please stop with this.
Simo wrote a rather long email post and argued he's view on users'
freedom and all you did in reply was to nitpick on a footnote.
Or in Simo's words again:
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at
On 11/06/2013 11:30 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:55:30PM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
Has this sanboxed-bundled-from-upstream proposal been discussed with
other distributions? If the final result is that the Universal Linux
Package only works in Fedora we are not gaining
- Original Message -
On 11/06/2013 11:30 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:55:30PM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
Has this sanboxed-bundled-from-upstream proposal been discussed with
other distributions? If the final result is that the Universal Linux
Package only
Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 19:24, Josh Boyer a écrit :
I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the intense focus on a
new app packaging technology when the entire distro is making massive
changes to how it's produced.
Because all distributions can and do ship the same software and the
Le Jeu 7 novembre 2013 11:17, Olav Vitters a écrit :
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the
distribution
is based upon systemd.
That means it will exclude the most popular distribution
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:33:57AM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
2013/11/7 Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the
distribution
is based upon systemd.
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 02:28:09PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
I fail to see the point of discussing non-GNOME-specific problems on a
GNOME development list. A bit more logical to include people who actually
work on non-GNOME software and don't want to discuss non-GNOME app
distribution on a
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 10:45:29AM +, Frank Murphy wrote:
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 11:17:28 +0100
Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 12:58:37PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
On 11/06/2013 11:30 PM, Olav Vitters wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:55:30PM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
Has this sanboxed-bundled-from-upstream proposal been discussed with
other distributions? If the final result is that the
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Le Mer 6 novembre 2013 19:24, Josh Boyer a écrit :
I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the intense focus on a
new app packaging technology when the entire distro is making massive
changes to how
Le Jeu 7 novembre 2013 14:57, Josh Boyer a écrit :
And yet, now we have Coprs. Which lets people easily upload
unreviewed, possibly bundled application SRPMs for easy distribution
outside of the main Fedora repos. Everyone seems to think Coprs are
awesome, but they can be used for the same
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Le Jeu 7 novembre 2013 14:57, Josh Boyer a écrit :
And yet, now we have Coprs. Which lets people easily upload
unreviewed, possibly bundled application SRPMs for easy distribution
outside of the main Fedora
Le Jeu 7 novembre 2013 15:19, Josh Boyer a écrit :
So if we call containerized apps Appers and host it somewhere on
Fedora infrastructure and tell people about it, you'd be totally OK
with that?
I think that would remove a lot of the emotion in this thread.
People seem to already be
Peter Robinson wrote:
I don't see many people forcing things through, I believe that the vast majority
of contributors either like the change or aren't bothered by it. There's
certainly no proof that it'll make anything worse. That doesn't mean its going
to be perfect or without teething
Peter Robinson wrote:
Just because you can't see a way to fix it doesn't mean its either
unfixable or that there aren't people willing to step up to do so.
It's not that I can't see a way to fix it, it's that I can see that there is
no way! The whole system relies on bundling, so it is
@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2013 4:16:58 AM
Subject: Re: Draft Product Description for Fedora Workstation
On Fri, 01 Nov 2013 10:24:20 -0400
Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller cscha...@redhat.com wrote:
Will the other DE's still exist after workstation
Will a dev
Peter Robinson wrote:
I don't see many people forcing things through, I believe that the vast
majority of contributors either like the change or aren't bothered by it.
Ah, the silent majority hypothesis, always a fun argument to bring (with
no evidence whatsoever) when one is clearly losing a
Josh Boyer wrote:
Everyone seems to think Coprs are
awesome, but they can be used for the same things you deride
containerized apps for.
Please don't count me as everyone.
How is Coprs a benefit?
-Allows easy Fedora fragmentation. Why bother with package reviews ever again?
Were Ubuntu's
Hi
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:06 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Robinson wrote:
I don't see many people forcing things through, I believe that the vast
majority of contributors either like the change or aren't bothered by it.
Ah, the silent majority hypothesis, always a fun argument to
On Thu, 07.11.13 03:53, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
is based upon systemd.
That means it will exclude the most popular distribution out there.
If you are referring to Ubuntu,
Olav Vitters wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 11:33:57AM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
2013/11/7 Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:53:48AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the
distribution
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 15:45:13 +0100
Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
...snip...
It's not blinders it's the natural reaction of people to tactless
pronouncements and dismissals. I do wish the people complaining about
this list focused more on technical aspects and less on hype
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 09:06:43 -0600
Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
Everyone seems to think Coprs are
awesome, but they can be used for the same things you deride
containerized apps for.
Please don't count me as everyone.
How is Coprs a benefit?
-Allows
Bastien Nocera wrote:
- [Florian Weimer wrote:] -
Wayland and systemd strongly suggest no Ubuntu interoperability
whatsoever. Shouldn't this be a top priority for bundled applications?
If we get any traction on this, their customers/users will ask them for it
themselves.
Hahaha,
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
(My guess: Canonical will come up with their own Ubuntu App model requiring
Ubuntu technologies
If you had read Lennart's previous reply to this thread, you'd be
aware that they already did.
--
devel mailing list
Josh Boyer wrote:
So if we call containerized apps Appers
The name Apper is already taken!
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Thu, 07.11.13 03:53, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
is based upon systemd.
That means it will
On 11/05/2013 10:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 16:32 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 15:23 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Adam Williamson
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Like repos.fedorapeople.org ?
I don't have a beef with r.f.o. They're no different from hosting a repo on a
personal server. The top of the root page even contains a disclaimer.
How on earth do you get to 'does away with them' ?
It's a Fedora infrastructure server
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 08:57:06AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Which basically says that the working group is going to work on that.
There's actually 0 technical details on how the implemetation will work
out, or even if it will.
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 04:06:04PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Robinson wrote:
I don't see many people forcing things through, I believe that the vast
majority of contributors either like the change or aren't bothered by it.
Ah, the silent majority hypothesis, always a fun argument to
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 03:45:13PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Maybe that's because Coprs were never announced with huge rants about
market-share and how Fedora packaging sucked and was irrelevant?
I'm pretty sure you're misunderstanding what people are saying if you
think above. What I wrote
On Thu, 7 Nov 2013 20:50:28 +0100
Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote:
On Thu, Nov 07, 2013 at 08:57:06AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Which basically says that the working group is going to work on
that. There's actually 0 technical details on how the implemetation
will work out, or even if
On Thu, 07.11.13 20:09, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de
wrote:
On Thu, 07.11.13 03:53, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you
On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Lennart Poettering mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Thu, 07.11.13 20:09, Miloslav Trmač (m...@volny.cz) wrote:
Is there a technical reason why we can't use their packaging format,
interpreting it with our technologies but staying compatible?
Well, the most
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 16:15 +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Thu, 07.11.13 03:53, Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) wrote:
Olav Vitters wrote:
AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
is based upon systemd.
That means it will exclude the most
On Thu, 2013-11-07 at 16:58 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Bastien Nocera wrote:
- [Florian Weimer wrote:] -
Wayland and systemd strongly suggest no Ubuntu interoperability
whatsoever. Shouldn't this be a top priority for bundled applications?
If we get any traction on this,
- Original Message -
Bastien Nocera wrote:
Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on the
various bundling techniques that were explored and the API/ABI guarantees
we want to offer? I'll stop short of paraphrasing you.
The fact that bundling is even
Am 06.11.2013 10:56, schrieb Bastien Nocera:
- Original Message -
Bastien Nocera wrote:
Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on the
various bundling techniques that were explored and the API/ABI guarantees
we want to offer? I'll stop short of
- Original Message -
Am 06.11.2013 10:56, schrieb Bastien Nocera:
- Original Message -
Bastien Nocera wrote:
Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on the
various bundling techniques that were explored and the API/ABI guarantees
we want to
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:59:00AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
In short: Make the defaults as sane as possible, but still allow the user to
change them if they disagree with you on what is sane. The more options,
the better.
The definition given by Frank Murphy is totally different and
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:00:16AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Bastien Nocera wrote:
Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on the
various bundling techniques that were explored and the API/ABI guarantees
we want to offer? I'll stop short of paraphrasing you.
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
So let me step into my handy Tardis and bring back a vignette from the
Real World after Fedora and other distributions bless upstream app
distribution as a preferred channel:
Could you give some practical programs which are
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:25:29AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
But many of those concerns are inherent to the concept of sandboxed
applications or the methods of delivery they'd enable and cannot possibly
be addressed, ever. The whole concept is fatally flawed.
I'd suggest trying a different
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 12:35:59AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I think users will not understand why all the vendor repositories with non-
free crap are there and the stuff they are actually looking for is not.
Whether or not proprietary is crap or not is offtopic.
--
Regards,
Olav
--
devel
SNIP
So sure, we can have software that will pull things in if the user has
done some manual intervention. We just cant, currently, do that thing
for them.
Right, that's exactly what I was saying. I just think this is all the
_original poster_ was talking about, not any kind of
SNIP
I would actually like to go a little further, and make it easy to enable
'clean' third-party repositories. If we imagine a future where e.g.
valve is hosting a repository with their steam client, or say, the
chromium web browser is available from the a fedora people page, I would
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.com wrote:
SNIP
I would actually like to go a little further, and make it easy to enable
'clean' third-party repositories. If we imagine a future where e.g.
valve is hosting a repository with their steam client, or say, the
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:19 AM, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.com
wrote:
SNIP
I would actually like to go a little further, and make it easy to enable
'clean' third-party repositories. If we imagine a future
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 01:23:01PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-04 at 23:50 +0100, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le lundi 04 novembre 2013 à 21:02 +0100, Reindl Harald a écrit :
Am 04.11.2013 20:56, schrieb drago01:
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 8:49 PM, Reindl Harald
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
In this situation what we should do is carefully consider the relative
possibilities of the good, bad and mixed outcomes with as much precision
as we can, and try to come up with a path forward which makes the
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl wrote:
This highlights a concern, not a fatal flaw. The flaw IMO is within
the distribution method.
No, the fatal flaw is that we don't really have an OS one can build
applications on: the ABI is unstable and insufficient. So the
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the intense focus on a
new app packaging technology when the entire distro is making massive
changes to how it's produced.
I think the trouble here is that the Linux Apps
On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 10:24:20AM -0400, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller
wrote:
Hi everyone,
Attached is the draft PRD for the Workstation working group. The
proposal tries to be relatively high level and focus on goals and
principles, but I have included some concrete examples at times
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Miloslav Trmač m...@volny.cz wrote:
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the intense focus on a
new app packaging technology when the entire distro is making massive
changes
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 13:24 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
In this situation what we should do is carefully consider the relative
possibilities of the good, bad and mixed outcomes with as much precision
as we can, and try
Hi
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'm still slightly out of sync with the fedora.next stuff (REALLY picked
a bad time to go on vacation), but it does seem to me that a decent
amount of 'mature reflection' was done on it before it was approved, at
least.
I don't
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 19:10 +0100, Michael scherer wrote:
So if that's the problem, then the solution is to demonstrate the value
of packaging and rpm rather than restricting all others alternatives.
So to me this is the nub of the debate, and it's both fantastically
interesting and
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 13:24 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
In this situation what we should do is carefully consider the relative
possibilities of
On 6 November 2013 15:14, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.com wrote:
so if they also do the work of putting in an appdata file there...
Note, we can easily ship a google-chrome.appdata.xml file in the
fedora-appstream project. This has a quite a few appdata files for
important applications
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 16:33 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote:
On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 12:44 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
Haven't read the whole thread yet, but in case it hasn't been said:
Build a way would be great. I've said a few times that it'd be nice
for there to be a cross-distro
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 07:26:48PM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
places - _the_ distribution, _the_ app store, _the_ amazon.com. And
the difficulty of getting a set of bits to amazon.com / an app store /
a RPM is very similar.
If one will immediately solve it for multiple distributions, then
2013/11/6 Olav Vitters o...@vitters.nl
If one will immediately solve it for multiple distributions, then the
gain is immensely higher. An IMO, it is not about RPM vs another
packaging format. To get into Fedora, you need an account, reviews, etc.
It is a pretty long process.
Has this
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 10:55:30PM +0100, Sergio Pascual wrote:
Has this sanboxed-bundled-from-upstream proposal been discussed with
other distributions? If the final result is that the Universal Linux
Package only works in Fedora we are not gaining anything.
A lot of this is being based on
Christian Schaller wrote:
So it is item 3 that the PRD is addressing. An example here would be
Google Chrome. Google provides a yum repo for Google Chrome for Fedora and
Google stands behind Chrome legally, so if they also do the work of
putting in an appdata file there we should figure out a
Josh Boyer wrote:
I don't think we need to force the same policy across all 3 products.
I DO think we need to discuss adjusting the policy with the people
that set the current policy though. That would be FESCo and the
Board. I'm going to guess they have reasons for not allowing third
party
Alberto Ruiz wrote:
Application sandboxing/bundling is not mutually exclusive with a
coherent system and with keeping control, it's just not an RPM as we
know it. What we need to acknowledge is that delivering integral parts
of the operating system and delivering third party apps are
Olav Vitters wrote:
The definition given by Frank Murphy is totally different and doesn't
align with above. Above also doesn't relate to developers.
These align a lot with what I wrote though. :-)
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/power_user
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_user
Kevin
Olav Vitters wrote:
AFAIK (not sure), it should come somewhat easy once you the distribution
is based upon systemd.
That means it will exclude the most popular distribution out there.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Josh Boyer wrote:
Isn't that very let's try it and see what happens! approach exactly
what we're doing with Fedora.next?
I also have strong doubts that what you call Fedora.next is going to be of
any benefit to us. The existing system with the Spins and SIGs just worked,
what's the point of
Josh Boyer wrote:
What you say makes some sense. It also makes me very tired thinking
about the threads coming when the details start getting presented by
the WGs :). I guess that's what we've signed up for though.
Well yes, each time you try to force a change through which actually makes
Michael scherer wrote:
PPA are populars, so does OBS. They are not perfect, but they work good
enough for people ( and it seems good enough for us to replicate, despites
PPAs being a time bomb, breaking Ubuntu upgrade in various way ).
Well, these ARE the way if you really need to ship
Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 01:13 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Simo Sorce wrote:
* and *ideally* I mean SELinux sanbdboxed with specific APIs that must
be used to interact with the rest of the system, so that the
application doesn't have free reign over users files.
So you
Olav Vitters wrote:
On Wed, Nov 06, 2013 at 01:00:16AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Bastien Nocera wrote:
Might not want to put answers in people's mouths. Did you read up on
the various bundling techniques that were explored and the API/ABI
guarantees we want to offer? I'll stop short of
Adam Williamson wrote:
It's not a clear calculation _at all_, and it's a pure counterfactual,
so more or less impossible to determine with any certainty. An equally
possible result is that fewer parties _relatively speaking_ have a
strong interest in aiding distro packaging but more parties
Hi
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I don't believe in that at all. I think that the Free Software community is
happy with the system as it stands now
Well you should speak for yourself instead of assuming that a large
community has only one view.. I think there is room
On Nov 6, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
I don't believe in that at all. I think that the Free Software community is
happy with the system as it stands now;
In my estimation, there's a better statistical chance you know what makes a
frog happy, than what the
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 11:05:21PM +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
As all such schemes it works as long as you ignore the fact that apps
process data and communicate with other apps.
That's not being overlooked. Probably the presentation already addresses
this concern.
--
Regards,
Olav
--
On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 06:19:48PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
I disagree with the premise that to get anywhere, we would need to bend over
backwards to the proprietary market and adopt their inferior software
distribution strategies. If that were true, we could give up right here,
we'd have
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 23:02, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
The problem is not to get code in the hands of developers. You don't need
distros for that. The problem is to get the code to end-users and
developers spend more time fighting the constrains it involves than trying
to understand this
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 23:02, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
The problem is not to get code in the hands of developers. You don't need
distros for that. The problem is to get the code to end-users and
developers
On Tue, Nov 5, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Nicolas Mailhot
nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
Le Lun 4 novembre 2013 23:02, Nicolas Mailhot a écrit :
The problem is not to get code in the hands of developers. You don't need
distros for that. The problem is to get the code to end-users and
developers
1 - 100 of 288 matches
Mail list logo
