Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org a écrit:
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 12:58 +0200 schrieb drago01:
How else would you install an extension globally for all users?
Or automate the installation of the addon ( like cobbler/pxe
installation )
I think for that, we need upstream to provide a way
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 11:14:45AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
How many multi-user systems run firefox from them? At the university
We sure do.
where I used to work we had this and it was awful because the tool
itself isn't written for this use case. This was a problem in 2008..
it
tis 2011-10-11 klockan 10:49 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
There obviously is a _legitimate_ question as to whether you ought to be
able to add your package into anyone else's update if you aren't a
provenpackager; it's not necessarily something we'd want to do. But I
think provenpackagers
On Wed, 2011-10-12 at 20:38 +0200, Henrik Nordström wrote:
tis 2011-10-11 klockan 10:49 -0700 skrev Adam Williamson:
There obviously is a _legitimate_ question as to whether you ought to be
able to add your package into anyone else's update if you aren't a
provenpackager; it's not
mån 2011-10-10 klockan 20:44 +0200 skrev Thomas Spura:
Forcing only critpath packages being in updates-testing and the rest
being allowed to push to stable directly would help to fix issues much
faster.
You could set stable karma threshold to 1. It's then sufficient one
tester gives positive
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 20:58:15 +0200
Henrik Nordström wrote:
mån 2011-10-10 klockan 20:44 +0200 skrev Thomas Spura:
Forcing only critpath packages being in updates-testing and the rest
being allowed to push to stable directly would help to fix issues
much faster.
You could set stable
ons 2011-10-12 klockan 21:41 +0200 skrev Thomas Spura:
I set them often to 1, but don't want to upkarma my own update because
it feels like cheating...
Especially updates, that fix a broken package, are an examples, that the
current path (with forcing updates in updates-testing) taken is
On Thu, 2011-10-13 at 00:04 +0200, Henrik Nordström wrote:
ons 2011-10-12 klockan 21:41 +0200 skrev Thomas Spura:
I set them often to 1, but don't want to upkarma my own update because
it feels like cheating...
Especially updates, that fix a broken package, are an examples, that the
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:18:10 -0400
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said:
On 10/10/2011 08:52 PM, Thomas Spura wrote:
So there doesn't need to be more co-maintainers (which is welcomed
anyway), but it would help to get such updates pushed to stable
Thomas Spura (toms...@fedoraproject.org) said:
If the required updates are due to version checks in the extensions,
it might be possible to have RPM have a dependency generator that
checks these and outputs the appropriate Requires/Conflicts lines,
such that this could be easily caught by
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:36:01 -0400
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thomas Spura (toms...@fedoraproject.org) said:
If the required updates are due to version checks in the
extensions, it might be possible to have RPM have a dependency
generator that checks these and outputs the appropriate
On 10/11/2011 10:36 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Thomas Spura (toms...@fedoraproject.org) said:
If the required updates are due to version checks in the extensions,
it might be possible to have RPM have a dependency generator that
checks these and outputs the appropriate Requires/Conflicts
On Sun, 2011-10-09 at 13:16 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 11:05:28 +0200
Till Maas wrote:
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 11:43:58PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
3. Can someone (I'm looking at you, QA) make sure all
extensions are still compatible?
The problem
On Sun, 2011-10-09 at 11:14 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 05:28, Christoph Wickert
christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 12:58 +0200 schrieb drago01:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Christoph Wickert
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 11:40 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 13:16:52 +0200
Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
It would be great, when bodhi would allow me to add an updated
mozilla-noscript to the firefox update, when I notice, that the new
firefox upadate in
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 12:01:00 -0400
David Michael wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:45 AM, Thomas Spura
toms...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
The automatic requires proposed in bug #745038, does this:
Requires: firefox = 3.0
Requires: firefox = 10.0a1
and seems to
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 10:49:54AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
There obviously is a _legitimate_ question as to whether you ought to be
able to add your package into anyone else's update if you aren't a
provenpackager; it's not necessarily something we'd want to do. But I
think
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 10:57:35 -0700
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 11:40 -0600, Tim Flink wrote:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 13:16:52 +0200
Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
It would be great, when bodhi would allow me to add an updated
mozilla-noscript to the
On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 20:46 +0200, Thomas Spura wrote:
Well, I do. It seems pretty simple: we only have a few extensions
packaged. We should consider extensions to be effectively API
dependencies of Firefox, which means any Firefox update must also
include updates for the dependencies -
Le dimanche 09 octobre 2011 à 13:28 +0200, Christoph Wickert a écrit :
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 12:58 +0200 schrieb drago01:
That just reminds me while packing firefox extensions is not a good idea.
How else would you install an extension globally for all users?
Or automate the
On 10/11/2011 09:32 PM, Thomas Spura wrote:
The main *BIG* difference is, that draft symlinks the extension
*directory* and the script expects a install.rdf file below that.
This means, the symlinking needs to happen one step below that, so that
all files inside of the extension_id folder are
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:07:17 -0600
Peter Gueckel wrote:
Vinzenz Vietzke wrote:
Yeah sometimes is okay of course. Happening every two or three weeks
it isn't.
So, why are you using devel?
This happened on F-15.
-Tom
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 03:41:43 +0530
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/10/2011 03:33 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 11:10:12PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/09/2011 10:59 PM, Vinzenz Vietzke wrote:
I'd prefer a bit less bleeding edge over breaking crucial
packages.
Thomas Spura wrote:
So, why are you using devel?
This happened on F-15.
This is the devel list, not the general list. Sorry.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 10:03:34AM -0600, Peter Gueckel wrote:
Thomas Spura wrote:
So, why are you using devel?
This happened on F-15.
This is the devel list, not the general list. Sorry.
Although the branch for rawhide was once named devel, the naming of this as
devel does not
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 11:05:28 +0200
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 11:43:58PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
3. Can someone (I'm looking at you, QA) make sure all
extensions are still compatible?
The problem is that testers seem to ignore test cases
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 23:43:58 +0200
Christoph Wickert christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:
3. Can someone (I'm looking at you, QA) make sure all extensions
are still compatible?
Anyone with a FAS account can pull updates from updates-testing and
provide karma to those updates.
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 13:16:52 +0200
Thomas Spura toms...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
It would be great, when bodhi would allow me to add an updated
mozilla-noscript to the firefox update, when I notice, that the new
firefox upadate in testing breaks it.
Otherwise, firefox is pushed to stable more
On 10/10/2011 08:52 PM, Thomas Spura wrote:
So there doesn't need to be more co-maintainers (which is welcomed
anyway), but it would help to get such updates pushed to stable directly
like it was without the forced period in updates-testing or a heads up
before doing such an update.
I think
Am 10.10.2011 18:03, schrieb Peter Gueckel:
This is the devel list, not the general list. Sorry.
...which doesn't solve the problem either. Sorry.
Regards,
--
Vinzenz Vietzke
Fedora Events Ninja / Coordination German L10N Team
Mail: viet...@b1-systems.de
B1 Systems GmbH
Osterfeldstraße 7 /
On 10/10/2011 11:40 AM, Tim Flink wrote:
On the bright side, I don't see how AutoQA could help in this situation
so my answer isn't that's the job of AutoQA. On the down side, I
don't really have any good answers on how to improve the situation.
How do we encourage people to use
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 11:30:19 -0600
Tim Flink wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 23:43:58 +0200
Christoph Wickert christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:
3. Can someone (I'm looking at you, QA) make sure all
extensions are still compatible?
Anyone with a FAS account can pull updates from
Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said:
On 10/10/2011 08:52 PM, Thomas Spura wrote:
So there doesn't need to be more co-maintainers (which is welcomed
anyway), but it would help to get such updates pushed to stable directly
like it was without the forced period in updates-testing or a
On Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:18:10 -0400
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said:
On 10/10/2011 08:52 PM, Thomas Spura wrote:
So there doesn't need to be more co-maintainers (which is welcomed
anyway), but it would help to get such updates pushed to stable
W dniu 08.10.2011 23:43, Christoph Wickert pisze:
Since Mozilla switched to the new rapid release model, Firefox in Fedora
is no longer fun: Every 6 weeks a new major version hits our stable
release and breaks Firefox horribly:
* My favorite extensions (and actually the only thing that
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 11:43:58PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
3. Can someone (I'm looking at you, QA) make sure all extensions
are still compatible?
The problem is that testers seem to ignore test cases provided for
updates, because there is an test case to check for
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Christoph Wickert
christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:
Since Mozilla switched to the new rapid release model, Firefox in Fedora
is no longer fun: Every 6 weeks a new major version hits our stable
release and breaks Firefox horribly:
* My favorite
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 11:34 +0200 schrieb drago01:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Christoph Wickert
christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:
Since Mozilla switched to the new rapid release model, Firefox in Fedora
is no longer fun: Every 6 weeks a new major version hits our stable
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Christoph Wickert
christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 11:34 +0200 schrieb drago01:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Christoph Wickert
christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:
Since Mozilla switched to the new rapid release model,
Am Samstag, den 08.10.2011, 23:51 +0200 schrieb Reindl Harald:
Am 08.10.2011 23:43, schrieb Christoph Wickert:
Since Mozilla switched to the new rapid release model, Firefox in Fedora
is no longer fun: Every 6 weeks a new major version hits our stable
release and breaks Firefox horribly:
On Sun, 9 Oct 2011 11:05:28 +0200
Till Maas wrote:
On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 11:43:58PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
3. Can someone (I'm looking at you, QA) make sure all
extensions are still compatible?
The problem is that testers seem to ignore test cases provided for
updates,
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 12:58 +0200 schrieb drago01:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Christoph Wickert
christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 11:34 +0200 schrieb drago01:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Christoph Wickert
christoph.wick...@googlemail.com
Dne 8.10.2011 23:43, Christoph Wickert napsal(a):
* My favorite extensions (and actually the only thing that keeps
me using FF) stop working. In the last 7 weeks I had to pitch in
three times and update packages to get things working again.
Sometimes there is
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 17:56 +0200 schrieb Matej Cepl:
Dne 8.10.2011 23:43, Christoph Wickert napsal(a):
* My favorite extensions (and actually the only thing that keeps
me using FF) stop working. In the last 7 weeks I had to pitch in
three times and update
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 05:28, Christoph Wickert
christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 12:58 +0200 schrieb drago01:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Christoph Wickert
christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 11:34 +0200 schrieb drago01:
Dne 9.10.2011 18:20, Christoph Wickert napsal(a):
I'm afraid I don't understand your question. What blue icon?
I thought there is some kind of Fedora fascism in play (Unless it is
packaged by Fedora community, it is no good.). I was apparently wrong.
I already gave a reason why we should
Am 09.10.2011 12:50, schrieb Christoph Wickert:
Which extensions are you talking about? The ones I use never caused an
such issues.
For example mozilla-adblockplus or chatzilla, also German language packs
or dictionaries.
use adblockplus from the mozilla-extensions page
works fine with
Am 08.10.2011 23:43, schrieb Christoph Wickert:
Since Mozilla switched to the new rapid release model, Firefox in Fedora
is no longer fun: Every 6 weeks a new major version hits our stable
release and breaks Firefox horribly:
* My favorite extensions (and actually the only thing that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/09/2011 10:59 PM, Vinzenz Vietzke wrote:
I'd prefer a bit less bleeding edge over breaking crucial packages.
Sometimes unavoidable due to security issues
Rahul
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 19:15 +0200 schrieb Matej Cepl:
Dne 9.10.2011 18:20, Christoph Wickert napsal(a):
I already gave a reason why we should maintain these packages as RPM,
but unfortunately you have trimmed that part of my mail: There is no way
to install and manage extensions
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 11:14 -0600 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 05:28, Christoph Wickert
christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 12:58 +0200 schrieb drago01:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Christoph Wickert
Am Sonntag, den 09.10.2011, 12:59 +0200 schrieb Reindl Harald:
problem is that the packaged extensions for FF/TB are NOT
updated as rapidly they should, but this is not a problem
of firefox itself
No, but it's a problem of Fedora and we should address it instead of
just throwing it over the
Am 09.10.2011 19:40, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
I'd prefer a bit less bleeding edge over breaking crucial packages.
Sometimes unavoidable due to security issues
Yeah *sometimes* is okay of course. Happening every two or three weeks
it isn't.
Regards,
--
Vinzenz Vietzke
Fedora Events Ninja /
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Am 09.10.2011 21:09, schrieb Vinzenz Vietzke:
Am 09.10.2011 19:40, schrieb Rahul Sundaram:
I'd prefer a bit less bleeding edge over breaking crucial
packages.
Sometimes unavoidable due to security issues
Yeah *sometimes* is okay of course.
Vinzenz Vietzke wrote:
Yeah sometimes is okay of course. Happening every two or three weeks
it isn't.
So, why are you using devel?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Dne 9.10.2011 20:31, Christoph Wickert napsal(a):
This is about installing extensions, not about actually *managing* them.
There are several manual steps involved here (download, extract, look up
app-id, create folder, copy to folder, register) and by *managing*
something efficiently I mean
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:20:56 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
I already gave a reason why we should maintain these packages as RPM,
but unfortunately you have trimmed that part of my mail: There is no way
to install and manage extensions globally for all users on a computer.
There is also no
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 09:28:45PM +0200, Heiko Adams wrote:
Why don't you blame *mozilla* to make it possible to easily install
and manage extensions centralized? This would IMHO be the best way for
all because it makes packaging extensions allmost unnecessary.
Using the same logic you
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 11:10:12PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/09/2011 10:59 PM, Vinzenz Vietzke wrote:
I'd prefer a bit less bleeding edge over breaking crucial packages.
Sometimes unavoidable due to security issues
Why was it unavoidable with Firefox? Afaik updated Firefox
On 10/10/2011 03:33 AM, Till Maas wrote:
On Sun, Oct 09, 2011 at 11:10:12PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 10/09/2011 10:59 PM, Vinzenz Vietzke wrote:
I'd prefer a bit less bleeding edge over breaking crucial packages.
Sometimes unavoidable due to security issues
Why was it unavoidable
Am 09.10.2011 21:28, schrieb Heiko Adams:
Why don't you blame *mozilla* to make it possible to easily install
and manage extensions centralized?
I do, but doing so doesn't get package maintainers out of duty.
We (Fedora) are responsible for working packages and if upstream is
messing up, we
On 10/08/2011 05:43 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Since Mozilla switched to the new rapid release model, Firefox in Fedora
is no longer fun: Every 6 weeks a new major version hits our stable
release and breaks Firefox horribly:
* My favorite extensions (and actually the only thing that
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 23:43:58 +0200
Christoph Wickert christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:
...snip...
So what can we do to improve the situation?
1. Can we bring back the language packs as part of the packages?
2. Can the FF maintainers make sure that all maintainers of
Am 08.10.2011 23:43, schrieb Christoph Wickert:
Since Mozilla switched to the new rapid release model, Firefox in Fedora
is no longer fun: Every 6 weeks a new major version hits our stable
release and breaks Firefox horribly:
* My favorite extensions (and actually the only thing that
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 23:43:58 +0200
Christoph Wickert christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote:
...snip...
So what can we do to improve the situation?
1. Can we bring back the language packs as part of the packages?
65 matches
Mail list logo
