Hi All,
Is there currently an issue with the koji repo process? A pair of
rawhide chain builds that I ran last night failed and when I tried
them again this morning the previous package still wasn't in the repo
to build against. Similarly a F-11 build override that was tagged 10
or so hours ago is
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 02:02 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Braden McDaniel wrote:
> > The number of people chiming in on this thread to the effect, "I've
> > regenerated configure/Makefile.in for years and I've never had a
> > problem," is testament to the fact that backward compatibility of
> > auto
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 16:36 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On 07/06/2009 03:57 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> > On 7/6/09 6:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> Introducing side-effects is something to watch out for but
> >> patching configure instead of the true source is a short
Just a reminder that we are kicking off our 'fit and finish' initiative
with a test day on display configuration tomorrow, in
#fedora-fit-and-finish. If you go to
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2009-07-07_Fit_and_Finish:Display_Configuration
you'll find more information. We will also
Orcan Ogetbil writes:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
I specifically cited the potential danger from rebuilding configure that
came out of a different version of autoconf than what the upstream used --
and I explicitly stated this three or four times.
Yes you did say
Peter Gordon writes:
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 21:24 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Yes, well, that might be one of the reasons why KDE is sweeping over the
Linux desktop, and Gnome is just a fading memory for most.
Please don't claim such obviously fallacious things. Like it or not,
GNOME has bee
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 21:24 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Yes, well, that might be one of the reasons why KDE is sweeping over the
> Linux desktop, and Gnome is just a fading memory for most.
Please don't claim such obviously fallacious things. Like it or not,
GNOME has been - and continues to
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>>>
>>> Orcan Ogetbil writes:
>>>
Wow! 78 messages and still, no one gave solid examples of what might
go wrong unnoticed if one uses autotools in a s
Kevin Kofler writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Gee, I didn't know that rediffing is a mandatory step.
It is when your patch no longer applies after you upgraded the package to a
new upstream version.
Which, as I pointed out, is still the case if you were to patch configure.ac
instead.
But,
Kevin Kofler writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Just because you can't read it, it's not gibberish.
It's not that *I* can't read it, it's that it is just plain hard to read,
especially because it contains workarounds for bazillions of broken
proprietary *nix shells (trying to use Bourne-style s
On 07/06/2009 09:19 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jeroen van Meeuwen (kana...@kanarip.com) said:
These two are my big concerns - doing this badly is worse than not
doing it, IMO. When it comes to user's security, I don't want to give
promises we can't keep, or leave them in a bind.
This has been a
Orcan Ogetbil writes:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Orcan Ogetbil writes:
Wow! 78 messages and still, no one gave solid examples of what might
go wrong unnoticed if one uses autotools in a specfile.
I already did, several times. You just ignored it.
Would you kin
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Milestone_Adjustment_Proposal what
> used to be called "Beta" is now called "Alpha". This matches industry
> nomenclature for what we were actually producing.
Uh, I kinda recalled that the feedback on the mailing list for this renaming
p
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 12:18:51AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>Josh Boyer wrote:
>> Without a concrete group of people large enough to make this wory saying
>> that they are signing up to do that work, I don't have high hopes for this
>> succeeding in the long run.
>
>We'd just need some minimal in
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 02:23 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> John Poelstra wrote:
> > This checkpoint is important to know if currently accepted features are
> > on track for a successful Fedora 12 landing or if contingency plans need
> > to be considered at Feature Freeze as we prepare for the Alpha r
John Poelstra wrote:
> This checkpoint is important to know if currently accepted features are
> on track for a successful Fedora 12 landing or if contingency plans need
> to be considered at Feature Freeze as we prepare for the Alpha release.
… for the what? ;-)
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Gee, I didn't know that rediffing is a mandatory step.
It is when your patch no longer applies after you upgraded the package to a
new upstream version.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Just because you can't read it, it's not gibberish.
It's not that *I* can't read it, it's that it is just plain hard to read,
especially because it contains workarounds for bazillions of broken
proprietary *nix shells (trying to use Bourne-style shell code as a portable
Braden McDaniel wrote:
> The number of people chiming in on this thread to the effect, "I've
> regenerated configure/Makefile.in for years and I've never had a
> problem," is testament to the fact that backward compatibility of
> autotools releases has gotten a lot better in recent years. The
> au
On 07/06/2009 03:57 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> On 7/6/09 6:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Introducing side-effects is something to watch out for but
>> patching configure instead of the true source is a short term fix, not a
>> long term solution.
>
> *Any* patch should be viewe
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Orcan Ogetbil writes:
>
>> Wow! 78 messages and still, no one gave solid examples of what might
>> go wrong unnoticed if one uses autotools in a specfile.
>
> I already did, several times. You just ignored it.
>
Would you kindly give quotes
On 7/6/09 6:29 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
a) it will cause some moderate stir-up to those packages whose
upstreams
are still abusing the autotools.
s/ab// ;-)
Why can't we just move to a better build system with higher focus on
Orcan Ogetbil writes:
Wow! 78 messages and still, no one gave solid examples of what might
go wrong unnoticed if one uses autotools in a specfile.
I already did, several times. You just ignored it.
pgpdHQQtrG9tX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel
Greetings.
I have setup some machines/virtual instances here to assist maintainers
that might not have access to all versions/arches Fedora runs on.
Please see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers
For more information on the instances, how to use the
One thing we overlooked by dropping the Alpha Release (as we knew it in
Fedora 11 and before) is the built-in feature check at Alpha freeze. As
a result we need all feature owners to update their feature pages with
current completion information by July 14, 2009.
I'll be forwarding a list of
The logist...@lists.fedoraproject.org mailing list has been created to
meet the requirements discussed here:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-July/msg0.html
Anyone is welcome to join the list at:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/logistics and
parti
Hi, folks.
We in the QA and BugZappers groups have been working for a while on a
proposal to use the severity and priority fields in Bugzilla. With the
help of various groups, and after considerable feedback both within our
groups and from the development group, we're ready to put this into
place
Please see below from our fabulous releng team!
-- Forwarded message --
From: Josh Boyer
Date: Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 6:24 PM
Subject: Last call for F9 updates
To: fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
F9 will be EOL'd very very soon. This is probably the last call for updates
to F9.
I
Up'ing to GraphicsMagick-1.3.x in rawhide, which involves an ABI break.
I'll take care of (re)building dependant apps, dvdauthor and koffice.
Issue tracked here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487605
If you're aware of any other deps I missed, please comment or block the
aforemen
Wow! 78 messages and still, no one gave solid examples of what might
go wrong unnoticed if one uses autotools in a specfile.
"Using autotools in a specfile is bad" started to sound like an urban
legend to me.
I'll keep reading.
Orcan
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.c
Matej Cepl wrote:
Well, I always understood, that documentation which is part of normal
package is OK, but source package which contains nothing else than
documentation isn't. But then yes we have man-pages. Hmm.
man-pages appears to be misnamed glibc-doc (well, okay, glibc + kernel).
If we s
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:20:50 +0200
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>
> On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:57:34 -0600, Kevin Fenzi
> wrote:
...snip...
> > - The issue I have with this plan (and the others very like it) is
> > that if you say "we will just do updates for the things we have
> > people willing to do
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 12:43 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I'm not sure how distributable the KJV is or isnt'
It's been out of copyright for some little time, now. Probably.(*)
* Of course, one could potentially make some quite interesting legal
arguments about the autho
Kevin Kofler writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Oh, no! You mean, the tarball I downloaded from upstream, labeled "source
code", did not actually contain the source code?
It contains both the actual source code and some unreadable generated
gibberish which is NOT source code and which is being
On 7/6/09 6:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
[snip]
Introducing side-effects is something to watch out for but
patching configure instead of the true source is a short term fix, not a
long term solution.
*Any* patch should be viewed as a short-term fix. A patch that needs to
persist indefinite
Toshio Kuratomi writes:
On 07/06/2009 02:53 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
As was discussed previously in this thread, when creating packages the
objective is not to patch the correct semantic level.
Actually, in Fedora, it is. We work closely with upstream. If you
patch the correct semantic le
Adam Jackson writes:
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 17:53 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
So, the choices are, once it's identified where configure goes wrong are:
1) Fix the configure script, with shellcode whose contents are well
understood
2) Patch configure.ac, and feed it to a code generator tha
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 00:18:51 +0200
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote:
> > Fedora Legacy (the original one) failed.
>
> It failed because of excess bureaucracy (they didn't even trust
> Bugzilla's authentication, requiring GPG signing of all Bugzilla
> comments with impact on the procedures,
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Oh, no! You mean, the tarball I downloaded from upstream, labeled "source
> code", did not actually contain the source code?
It contains both the actual source code and some unreadable generated
gibberish which is NOT source code and which is being passed off as such
(w
On 07/06/2009 03:07 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Bugzilla spam. If we keep the release open for random bug filing, we
> have no good way of telling bugzilla that only specific users should get
> bugs for specific releases of Fedora. Ownership is at a product level,
> not at the product version lev
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
a) it will cause some moderate stir-up to those packages whose upstreams
are still abusing the autotools.
s/ab// ;-)
Why can't we just move to a better build system with higher focus on
backwards compatibility?
Because
a) the
Josh Boyer wrote:
> Fedora Legacy (the original one) failed.
It failed because of excess bureaucracy (they didn't even trust Bugzilla's
authentication, requiring GPG signing of all Bugzilla comments with impact
on the procedures, and QA requirements were also unrealistic given the
manpower).
>
On 07/06/2009 02:53 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Adam Jackson writes:
>
>> On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 18:50 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>>> Richard W.M. Jones writes:
>>> > On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 10:45:46AM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>>> >> What line number changes? You cut a patch against config
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 23:58 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
> 12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
>
> You can find more details at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle
When we talked at B
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 17:53 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> So, the choices are, once it's identified where configure goes wrong are:
>
> 1) Fix the configure script, with shellcode whose contents are well
> understood
>
> 2) Patch configure.ac, and feed it to a code generator that spits out a
Adam Jackson writes:
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 18:50 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones writes:
> On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 10:45:46AM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
>> What line number changes? You cut a patch against configure, and you're
>> done. That's it.
>
> And you get a big pa
On 07/05/2009 08:03 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
They already have 7 months of time to move to the next version. It's just if
they absolutely want to skip a version that they only have 1 month.
In the field I've often found that a Fedora at GA+0 isn't really ready
to deploy. A bunch of fixes come
Kevin Kofler writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
How exactly would that violate the GPL?
You aren't patching the actual source code.
Oh, no! You mean, the tarball I downloaded from upstream, labeled "source
code", did not actually contain the source code?
Looks like I've been snookered.
On 07/05/2009 11:46 AM, Jon Stanley wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 6:12 AM, Jos Vos wrote:
>
>> I don't completely agree that "desktops tend to need to run the latest and
>> greatest" (when we're talking about business desktops), but desktops
>
> I don't agree with that position either - note my
On 07/06/2009 04:05 PM, Christoph Höger wrote:
> Am Montag, den 06.07.2009, 16:02 -0400 schrieb Casey Dahlin:
>> On 07/06/2009 03:58 PM, Christoph Höger wrote:
>>> What I forgot to mention: Obviously it is not enough to know that there
>>> is a gnome session running. My programs should inherit the
Am Montag, den 06.07.2009, 16:02 -0400 schrieb Casey Dahlin:
> On 07/06/2009 03:58 PM, Christoph Höger wrote:
> > What I forgot to mention: Obviously it is not enough to know that there
> > is a gnome session running. My programs should inherit the environment.
> >
>
> I'll point out that upstart
On 07/06/2009 03:58 PM, Christoph Höger wrote:
> What I forgot to mention: Obviously it is not enough to know that there
> is a gnome session running. My programs should inherit the environment.
>
I'll point out that upstart will do all this to some point, but I don't expect
you to wait around f
What I forgot to mention: Obviously it is not enough to know that there
is a gnome session running. My programs should inherit the environment.
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.re
Jeroen van Meeuwen (kana...@kanarip.com) said:
> > These two are my big concerns - doing this badly is worse than not
> > doing it, IMO. When it comes to user's security, I don't want to give
> > promises we can't keep, or leave them in a bind.
>
> This has been addressed in another response to t
On 07/06/2009 11:28 AM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Peter Lemenkov writes:
>>> Why we should approve manually requests to watching bugzilla and
>>> cvs changes for packages? I'm sure we need to change policy in
>>> order to automatically approve all such requests.
>>
>> Isn't there
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:56:43 -0400, Bill Nottingham
wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
>> - The issue I have with this plan (and the others very like it) is that
>> if you say "we will just do updates for the things we have people
>> willing to do updates" it means the entire end of
Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Lemenkov writes:
>> Why we should approve manually requests to watching bugzilla and
>> cvs changes for packages? I'm sure we need to change policy in
>> order to automatically approve all such requests.
>
> Isn't there a security issue there? I'm not sure I want any rando
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 02:14:27PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Lemenkov writes:
> > Why we should approve manually requests to watching bugzilla and cvs
> > changes for packages? I'm sure we need to change policy in order to
> > automatically approve all such requests.
>
> Isn't there a securi
2009/7/6 Tom Lane :
> Peter Lemenkov writes:
>> Why we should approve manually requests to watching bugzilla and cvs
>> changes for packages? I'm sure we need to change policy in order to
>> automatically approve all such requests.
>
> Isn't there a security issue there? I'm not sure I want any r
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:57:34 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:58:52 +0200
> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>
>> I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
>> 12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
>>
>> You can find more details at
>> https://fedo
Peter Lemenkov writes:
> Why we should approve manually requests to watching bugzilla and cvs
> changes for packages? I'm sure we need to change policy in order to
> automatically approve all such requests.
Isn't there a security issue there? I'm not sure I want any random
person watching every
Hello All!
Why we should approve manually requests to watching bugzilla and cvs
changes for packages? I'm sure we need to change policy in order to
automatically approve all such requests.
--
With best regards!
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.c
> ps u -C gnome-session | egrep -q "^till " && offlineimap
Yeah, that would be a hack ;).
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
> - The issue I have with this plan (and the others very like it) is that
> if you say "we will just do updates for the things we have people
> willing to do updates" it means the entire end of life distro is not
> covered and the likelyhood of an outstand
On Mon July 6 2009, Christoph Höger wrote:
> since I sync my mail with the experimental gnome ui of offlineimap, I
> encounter a small problem:
> How do I tell cron to only invoke the job when I am logged in under
> gnome only? Since consolekit (correct me if I am wrong on that) does not
> Do you
Hi,
since I sync my mail with the experimental gnome ui of offlineimap, I
encounter a small problem:
How do I tell cron to only invoke the job when I am logged in under
gnome only? Since consolekit (correct me if I am wrong on that) does not
provide a way to get that information (it is even uncle
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:58:52 +0200
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
> 12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
>
> You can find more details at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle
>
> Kind regards,
Using rawhide and gdm-2.26.1-13.fc12.i586 when I do a ck-list-sessions I see
Session4:
unix-user = '500'
realname = 'darrell pfeifer'
seat = 'Seat5'
session-type = ''
active = FALSE
x11-display = ':0'
x11-display-device = ''
display-device = ''
remote-host-name = ''
is-local = TRUE
on-since = '2009
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Interestingly with -ggdb it builds fine with out without -O0.
>>>
>>> That makes it a lot more likely to be a compiler flaw (though not
>>> guaranteed).
>>
>> Of course, it turns out this is very likely not a compiler flaw.
>> Compiler au
On 07/06/2009 09:59 PM, Patrice Dumas wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 09:50:53PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>> The FAQ should also answer
>> "How is this going to succeed, where Fedora Legacy failed?". You should
>
> this was debated a lot in the previous attempts, and I still think that
>
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 09:50:53PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> The FAQ should also answer
> "How is this going to succeed, where Fedora Legacy failed?". You should
this was debated a lot in the previous attempts, and I still think that
any attempt to do this with fedora infra (not necessar
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 11:16:45AM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>
> > I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
> > 12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
> >
> > You can find more details at
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Ext
On 07/05/2009 03:28 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
> 12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
>
> You can find more details at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle
Instead of saying "yet to be dete
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
> 12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
>
> You can find more details at
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Extended_Life_Cycle
As one who could directly benefit (@ work) and participa
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 11:59:48 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 05:36:25PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
If it doesn't take too much infrastructure work, I see no reason why we
shouldn't let them _try_. It doesn't hurt Fedora at all, does it?
>>>
>>> There is minimal pa
>>> Interestingly with -ggdb it builds fine with out without -O0.
>>
>> That makes it a lot more likely to be a compiler flaw (though not
>> guaranteed).
>
> Of course, it turns out this is very likely not a compiler flaw.
> Compiler authors everywhere are shocked I'm sure.
>
> See: http://bugzill
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 05:13:45PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>
>On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:13:07 +0100, Christopher Brown
>
>wrote:
>> Honestly, I'm impressed by your persistence but I think simply trying
>> to re-instate Fedora Legacy (which it sounds like this is what you are
>> trying to do) i
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 05:36:25PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>>>If it doesn't take too much infrastructure work, I see no reason why we
>>>shouldn't let them _try_. It doesn't hurt Fedora at all, does it?
>>
>> There is minimal pain, yes. Mostly to infrastructure and rel-eng. What
>I
>> d
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 04:25:08PM +0100, Christopher Brown wrote:
> The more you try and give Fedora some kind of LTS, the more you stray
> into territory already covered by RHEL (paid support) or CentOS
> (unpaid support).
The term "unpaid support" sounds very misleading. You can also buy
paid
On 07/05/2009 08:47 AM, Brad wrote:
> I have rpms for older versions of vpython and a tutorial on how to make
> rpms. Here is some information that might be
> useful(http://rpmbuildtut.wordpress.com/). Let me know if you need any
> help.
>
This thread is years old. It probably shouldn't be bumped
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 16:25:08 +0100, Christopher Brown
wrote:
> 2009/7/6 Jeroen van Meeuwen :
>>
>> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:13:07 +0100, Christopher Brown
>>
>> wrote:
>>> Honestly, I'm impressed by your persistence but I think simply trying
>>> to re-instate Fedora Legacy (which it sounds like this
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:30 AM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 9:20 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> Interestingly with -ggdb it builds fine with out without -O0.
>
> That makes it a lot more likely to be a compiler flaw (though not guaranteed).
Of course, it turns out this is very l
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 07:11:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> No, the sky does not fall. There are a few hurdles though.
>
> 1) Master mirror space. This used to be an issue, in that we had to move
> older releases to alt.fp.o in order to make space for the new release. I
> believe we still do that,
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009, Christopher Brown wrote:
The sooner Fedora gets out of its identity crisis the better. I
believe the following:
Fedora is the distribution for those who love computers.
CentOS, Ubuntu and others are for those who dont.
well, crap. I guess I'm in the wrong place ;)
-sv
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 10:27:43 +0100, David Woodhouse
wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 17:52 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>>
>>
>> As described on the Feature page, but if there's any specific
>> questions
>> about the reasoning on there I'll be happy to answer those questions.
>
> I had read
2009/7/6 Jeroen van Meeuwen :
>
> On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:13:07 +0100, Christopher Brown
>
> wrote:
>> Honestly, I'm impressed by your persistence but I think simply trying
>> to re-instate Fedora Legacy (which it sounds like this is what you are
>> trying to do) is doomed to permanent failure.
>>
>
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 02:03:01 +0200, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
> Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> Whether 6 months of additional availability of security updates is going
>> to help, and to what extend, we'll have to see. Compared to the current
>> situation, that'll give an environment 7 months to upgrade
On Sun, 5 Jul 2009 22:13:07 +0100, Christopher Brown
wrote:
> Honestly, I'm impressed by your persistence but I think simply trying
> to re-instate Fedora Legacy (which it sounds like this is what you are
> trying to do) is doomed to permanent failure.
>
I love your argumentation behind this st
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 12:27:47 +0200, you wrote:
>gnu-smalltalk-3.1-5.fc12
I have revisited this package for a license check and changed the
license tag to GPLv2+ with exceptions
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/ma
Hi,
>> So I've been toying with the idea of getting more involved with
>> fedora. Up till now if there has been a bug or other issue, i'll file
>> a bug or simply get the srpm and try to update it to a newer version,
>> or create my own specs / rpms when they don't already exist. Lately
>> I've
A message from Will Woods on thursday made me go looking at the comps
file for a bit.
A few groups have these sections:
x-software-development
this tag is not supported (and hasn't been) for a while in comps.
So groupreq is going to do exactly NOTHING.
If you are the caretaker of
Nathanael Noblet wrote:
> On Jul 5, 2009, at 9:33 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
...
> Well their python run script checks for its dependancies, and if not
> met will do a svn checkout of the right copy, however, they don't keep
> copies of the libraries within their own repository. So if you fulfil
Hi.
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:16:12 +, Rawhide Report wrote:
> prelink-0.4.1-1.fc12
>
> * Sun Jul 05 2009 Jakub Jelinek 0.4.1-1
> - add support for STT_GNU_IFUNC on i?86/x86_64 and
> R_{386,X86_64}_IRELATIVE
> - add support for DWARF3/DWARF4 features generated newly by rece
On Jul 6, 2009, at 0:27, drago01 wrote:
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 06:46:36PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 11:21:58AM +, Rawhide Report wrote:
kernel-2.6.31-0.42.rc2.fc12
---
* Sat Jul 04 2009 C
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 14:22 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > How exactly would that violate the GPL?
>
> You aren't patching the actual source code.
Assuming GPLv2, the term in the license that you're referring to is
"preferred form". There is clearly some difference of op
On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 18:50 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones writes:
> > On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 10:45:46AM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> >> What line number changes? You cut a patch against configure, and you're
> >> done. That's it.
> >
> > And you get a big patch containin
Compose started at Mon Jul 6 06:15:04 UTC 2009
New package mcu8051ide
IDE for MCS-51 based microcontrollers
Updated Packages:
abiword-2.7.6-3.fc12
cln-1.3.0-1.fc12
* Thu Jul 02 2009 Deji Akingunola - 1.3.0-1
- Update to latest upstream release 1.3.
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> How exactly would that violate the GPL?
You aren't patching the actual source code.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 10:27:43AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
>On Sun, 2009-07-05 at 17:52 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>>
>>
>> As described on the Feature page, but if there's any specific
>> questions
>> about the reasoning on there I'll be happy to answer those questions.
>
>I had read
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 09:27:33AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 06:46:36PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
>>>On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 11:21:58AM +, Rawhide Report wrote:
>>>
>>> > kernel-2.6.31-0.42.rc2.fc12
>>> > -
1 - 100 of 104 matches
Mail list logo
