drago01 wrote:
> OK, good to hear that, means that this time no patches to compiz-kde are
> needed.
Hopefully. For 4.2, there were some changes in KWin internals which needed
patching too.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.c
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 6:55 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> It seems to happen rather a lot for that to be the case, though maybe
>> the situation I'm most familiar with (KDE 4.0 -> 4.1 -> 4.2) is an
>> unusual situation. I was watching KDE quite closely in MDV at that
>> point,
On Fri, Aug 7, 2009 at 8:40 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 07:38 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
>> I don't draw the line, the maintainers of each package draw their own
>> line. I just sit back and comfortably sip on my mai tai while the
>> people who know best make the proper d
On 08/08/2009 10:34 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> As already explained, stable in the sense of things that work the same
>> (No big UI changes etc).
>
> When did we push *big* UI changes in a KDE update?
Big UI changes is an *example* but if you are going to argue that none
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> As already explained, stable in the sense of things that work the same
> (No big UI changes etc).
When did we push *big* UI changes in a KDE update? We're even making sure
the default Plasma theme in F10 and F11 stays Oxygen rather than switching
to Air which is the new u
Adam Williamson wrote:
> It seems to happen rather a lot for that to be the case, though maybe
> the situation I'm most familiar with (KDE 4.0 -> 4.1 -> 4.2) is an
> unusual situation. I was watching KDE quite closely in MDV at that
> point, as quite a lot of features that people expected from 3.x
Jesse Keating wrote:
> We're providing a bunch of packages, that certain groups use to make a
> variety of operating systems. If you want to develop a tool and expect
> that it'll keep working on any given release without aggressive changes
> underneath, pick the Fedora Desktop operating system.
Jesse Keating wrote:
Well with the no frozen rawhide proposal, from the Alpha freeze point on
there would be such an updates-testing for the pending release, while
rawhide remains the wild west. You could say install F12, then at F13
Alpha jump onto F13 and have the much newer more often content
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 10:43 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> Well with the no frozen rawhide proposal, from the Alpha freeze point on
> there would be such an updates-testing for the pending release, while
> rawhide remains the wild west. You could say install F12, then at F13
> Alpha jump onto F1
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 12:21 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> If that put an end to stuff like 'sorry, that last glibc rpm bricks your
> system if you have the misfortune of installing it'... maybe. As I said,
> right now my "line" is "packages that the maintainers consider stable".
> If "rawhide"
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 11:05 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
For me, that's easy. I don't want updates that the packagers don't
consider "stable". It sure sounds to me like Christopher feels the same way.
I am willing to take the latest upstream builds because the maintainer
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 11:05 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> For me, that's easy. I don't want updates that the packagers don't
> consider "stable". It sure sounds to me like Christopher feels the same way.
>
> I am willing to take the latest upstream builds because the maintainer
> considers the
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 07:38 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
I don't draw the line, the maintainers of each package draw their own
line. I just sit back and comfortably sip on my mai tai while the
people who know best make the proper decisions.
But you obviously have a pe
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 07:38 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 17:47 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> >> Yea well, I dunno about you guys who run rawhide. But as an F-11 user,
> >> I am *very* glad I use KDE and the KDE
On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 07:38 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> I don't draw the line, the maintainers of each package draw their own
> line. I just sit back and comfortably sip on my mai tai while the
> people who know best make the proper decisions.
>
But you obviously have a personal line somew
On 08/06/2009 08:57 PM, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> Just a thought, but could that SIG just enforce a critical path-
> like workflow (with overrides from the security team) on FN-2?
> They would have to be willing to do the QA, talk with SIGs and
> maintainers, and be large enough to be able to do so. T
On 08/06/2009 10:24 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> so if a package does get an 'adventurous' update
> then hits a security bug, there's no way to have a separate update
> without the adventurous change but with the security bug fixed
so, two separate issues: one is making the updates, the other is s
On Friday 07 August 2009 14:05:25 Thomas Janssen wrote:
> > And back to the topic, afaik the KDE 4.3 packages have indeed been
> > tested (via kde-redhat/testing etc) before being thrown on the f10 &
> > f11 users.
>
> Indeed. Even the RCs up to 4.2.98 have been tested via the kde-redhat
> repo, bu
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 17:47 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
>> Yea well, I dunno about you guys who run rawhide. But as an F-11 user,
>> I am *very* glad I use KDE and the KDE SIG is giving me the latest and
>> greatest to use. I am so glad I
2009/8/7 Thomas Moschny :
> 2009/8/5 Matthias Clasen :
>> If we just want to dump all the latest stuff in there, why bother with
>> freezes and releases at all ? We could all just use rawhide...
>
> While often repeated, I don't think that argument is true.
>
> Some people (including me) like the i
2009/8/5 Matthias Clasen :
> If we just want to dump all the latest stuff in there, why bother with
> freezes and releases at all ? We could all just use rawhide...
While often repeated, I don't think that argument is true.
Some people (including me) like the idea of having a 'rolling
release', b
On 08/07/2009 04:48 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Friday 07 August 2009 10:42:35 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 08/07/2009 01:35 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
The other problem is if you'd like stable updates but you prefer KDE, or
vice versa =)
>>>
>>> Why do you expect that updating to the
On Friday 07 August 2009 10:42:35 Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 08/07/2009 01:35 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> >> The other problem is if you'd like stable updates but you prefer KDE, or
> >> vice versa =)
> >
> > Why do you expect that updating to the latest KDE means unstable system?
> > ;-)
>
> As a
On 08/07/2009 01:35 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> The other problem is if you'd like stable updates but you prefer KDE, or
>> vice versa =)
>
> Why do you expect that updating to the latest KDE means unstable system? ;-)
As already explained, stable in the sense of things that work the same
(No
On Friday 07 August 2009 04:21:56 Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 12:30 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 12:06 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > OK, bad example, but you know what I mean.
> >
> > Yes, I do, and I think there is room for a Fedora offering that i
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Right, aggressive between Fedora releases, conservative within a Fedora
> release. I kind of wish everybody did that, and actually treated our
> stable releases as, you know, stable releases, otherwise what's the
> point of even making releas
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 19:56 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
> Great thread.
Glad someone appreciates it :)
> On 08/06/2009 01:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I'm simply pointing out that it's literally impossible to
> > satisfy both possible update policies with a single unitary repository.
>
> T
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 12:30 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 12:06 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > OK, bad example, but you know what I mean.
>
> Yes, I do, and I think there is room for a Fedora offering that is
> released frequently (every 6 months), supported for about a ye
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 15:53 -0500, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Same question for KDE - someone writes a tool for their group based
> > on some KDE libraries, doesn't expect an update to come along and do
> > a major KDE version bump and break some interface the tool relied
>
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 17:47 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> Yea well, I dunno about you guys who run rawhide. But as an F-11 user,
> I am *very* glad I use KDE and the KDE SIG is giving me the latest and
> greatest to use. I am so glad I don't have to wait for F-12 to be
> released just to run t
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 19:07 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>>
>> Its kinda funny how the GNOME side is ending up on the 'conservative'
>> side here. We are pretty agressive in pushing new stuff into each
>> release. But we believe it is better t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bill McGonigle wrote:
> CentOS tends to be crufty, Fedora tends to be broken. Average
users
> usually want to be somewhere in the middle. Having a user-
focused SIG
> as an additional check on packagers' decisions to update
packages could
> have qu
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 19:07 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>>
>> Its kinda funny how the GNOME side is ending up on the 'conservative'
>> side here. We are pretty agressive in pushing new stuff into each
>> release. But we believe it is better t
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 19:07 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
> Its kinda funny how the GNOME side is ending up on the 'conservative'
> side here. We are pretty agressive in pushing new stuff into each
> release. But we believe it is better to do that _before_ the release,
> not after.
Right, aggre
Great thread.
On 08/06/2009 01:59 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I'm simply pointing out that it's literally impossible to
> satisfy both possible update policies with a single unitary repository.
There was some talk about additional tagging in RPM being available in
Fedora 13, wasn't there? Perha
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 12:30 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 12:06 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > OK, bad example, but you know what I mean.
>
> Yes, I do, and I think there is room for a Fedora offering that is
> released frequently (every 6 months), supported for about a ye
Adam Williamson wrote:
Same question for KDE - someone writes a tool for their group based
on some KDE libraries, doesn't expect an update to come along and do
a major KDE version bump and break some interface the tool relied
on...
KDE would generally consider it a bug if that happened (API com
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 12:26 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> We're providing a bunch of packages, that certain groups use to make a
> variety of operating systems. If you want to develop a tool and expect
> that it'll keep working on any given release without aggressive changes
> underneath, pick th
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 12:06 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> OK, bad example, but you know what I mean.
Yes, I do, and I think there is room for a Fedora offering that is
released frequently (every 6 months), supported for about a year, with
conservative updates to the platform. That's nearly exac
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 11:39:16AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 20:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > As I said, the particular code isn't the issue. We ship a kernel API. At
>> > present, we consider it fine to break that API in stable releases. Th
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 11:39 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> But we're providing an operating system, not just a bunch of packages.
> What if some group's written their own kernel module for their own
> purposes, rolled it out to all their systems, and doesn't expect an
> official update to make the
Adam Williamson, Thu, 06 Aug 2009 09:38:43 -0700:
> Oh, and the only non-fiction I read is the newspaper :)
Not only I was a lawyer, I was even in a PhD student in sociology/
criminology in my previous life. :)
Matěj
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.red
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 11:35 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > I definitely see what you're saying, and yeah, perhaps an issue is
> > that
> > we don't have enough of a separate identity for the separate spins. We
> > don't have Kedora and Gedora (or Dedora, if you like ;>), we have
> > Fedora...but
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 20:00 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > As I said, the particular code isn't the issue. We ship a kernel API. At
> > present, we consider it fine to break that API in stable releases. This
> > is not something that would be considered 'stable' in a tradit
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:31 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > See what I mean? No choice is a choice.
> >
> In writing my reply, I figured out where the disconnect is between what
> you're seeing and what I'm seeing. You're looking at this from the
> user's point of view.
Yes, you could say I
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 11:31 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> I definitely see what you're saying, and yeah, perhaps an issue is
> that
> we don't have enough of a separate identity for the separate spins. We
> don't have Kedora and Gedora (or Dedora, if you like ;>), we have
> Fedora...but still,
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:27 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Perhaps we're failing to define a update policy because we have wildly
> divergent audiences, and we should be allowing SIGs that cater to these
> audiences define the policy that best suites their respective
> constituents. Defining "Fedo
Adam Williamson wrote:
> As I said, the particular code isn't the issue. We ship a kernel API. At
> present, we consider it fine to break that API in stable releases. This
> is not something that would be considered 'stable' in a traditional
> definition. The kernel's just an example, we do the sam
On 08/06/2009 09:43 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 09:24 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>>> We either have to make it clear which policy we use and which policy we
>>> don't, and hence which theoretical user base we are not targeting, or
>>> take on extra work and try to satisfy bo
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 23:51 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> To bring it back to where we came in, we have a problem in that the KDE
> team are following one policy (update to the latest KDE release on the
> basis that it brings in new shiny goodness and fixes more stuff than it
> breaks) while t
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 10:20 +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> For fedora-virt folks, we have a "virt-preview" repository, the general
> idea being:
>
> - a repo where you can pull f11 builds of the latest rawhide virt bits
>
> - purely for people who want to help with testing f12 virt, but
>
On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 09:43:03AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 09:24 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> >We either have to make it clear which policy we use and which policy we
>> >don't, and hence which theoretical user base we are not targeting, or
>> >take on extra work and t
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 11:52 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > the rt2860sta wireless driver
>
> Aren't there patches for that one already?
There's a hack, because I reported the problem to Orcan and he wrote a
hack. If I hadn't done that there probably wouldn't be; Orcan was
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 09:24 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >We either have to make it clear which policy we use and which policy we
> >don't, and hence which theoretical user base we are not targeting, or
> >take on extra work and try to satisfy both. I am not declaring myself in
>
> Actually, we cou
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 12:46 +, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Adam Williamson, Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:26:53 -0700:
> > Well, I think it's really the same issue. The problem is one of
> > expectation: we have two similar components, GNOME and KDE, in the same
> > distribution, following different update polic
On Wed, Aug 05, 2009 at 10:59:25PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 05:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > I probably couldn't do much justice to a comprehensive plan as I have
>> > insufficient knowledge of how the buildsystem works. I was acting at a
>
Adam Williamson, Wed, 05 Aug 2009 14:26:53 -0700:
> Well, I think it's really the same issue. The problem is one of
> expectation: we have two similar components, GNOME and KDE, in the same
> distribution, following different update polices - GNOME favours stable,
> KDE favours adventurous. This co
Kevin Kofler, Thu, 06 Aug 2009 06:08:50 +0200:
> Hmmm, that's interesting. KDE seems to be a lot more flexible there, you
> sure don't need to run the latest kernel to use the latest KDE.
Yes, it is ... because it is much more self-contained (you have just one
huge dependency containing everythin
Adam Williamson writes:
> To bring it back to where we came in, we have a problem in that the KDE
> team are following one policy (update to the latest KDE release on the
> basis that it brings in new shiny goodness and fixes more stuff than it
> breaks) while the GNOME team are following the oth
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Christopher Aillon wrote:
>> Sure, you can blame Gecko for having it's unstable ABI be, well,
>> unstable. But blame also goes to the apps for not using the stable ABI.
>
> Why does Mozilla expect apps to use an ABI:
> * which didn't exist whe
Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> For fedora-virt folks, we have a "virt-preview" repository, the general
> idea being:
>
> - a repo where you can pull f11 builds of the latest rawhide virt bits
>
> - purely for people who want to help with testing f12 virt, but
> aren't willing to run rawhide
>
Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Sure, you can blame Gecko for having it's unstable ABI be, well,
> unstable. But blame also goes to the apps for not using the stable ABI.
Why does Mozilla expect apps to use an ABI:
* which didn't exist when the apps were written and
* which they aren't even using for
Adam Williamson wrote:
> the rt2860sta wireless driver
Aren't there patches for that one already? As the driver is Free Software,
it can be fixed. By the time 2.6.31 gets even to updates-testing, RPM Fusion
will already have the patches.
And, by the way, Fedora intentionally refuses to support
Le mercredi 05 août 2009 à 14:27 -0700, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 13:03 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:58 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > It also would require multiple CVS branches, one for security, one for
> > > adventurous, as well as differen
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:58 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> All this really does is create a pseudo rawhide for each release,
> blurring the lines even more around why we even do releases. With a 6
> month cycle, do we really want to take on all this extra headaches and
> hassles just so that you c
On 08/05/2009 12:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 11:58 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Also, having the expectation that the other repository is for security
updates doesn't address the problem of a security release breaking ABI.
That's rather unlikely (well, except in oddbal
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 23:05 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> The problem with that approach is that, in the conventional approach to
> updates, the key factor is _continuity_. You don't change behaviour or
> risk regressions. If an update fixes ten bugs but changes the behaviour
> of some component
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 05:42 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > If we are - or _want to be_ - that kind of a distribution, we have to
> > provide a stable update set so we can stop telling people who just want
> > a distro to run Aunt Flo's desktop or their webserver or whatever
On Thu, 2009-08-06 at 05:37 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > I probably couldn't do much justice to a comprehensive plan as I have
> > insufficient knowledge of how the buildsystem works. I was acting at a
> > higher level - just trying to point out that it's essentially doom
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> - It would pull along a good-sized portion of the 'plumbing' layer: new
> udev, kernel, pulseaudio, X...
Hmmm, that's interesting. KDE seems to be a lot more flexible there, you
sure don't need to run the latest kernel to use the latest KDE.
That said, some stuff like th
Adam Williamson wrote:
> If we are - or _want to be_ - that kind of a distribution, we have to
> provide a stable update set so we can stop telling people who just want
> a distro to run Aunt Flo's desktop or their webserver or whatever on to
> run CentOS or Ubuntu instead. If, however, we really d
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I probably couldn't do much justice to a comprehensive plan as I have
> insufficient knowledge of how the buildsystem works. I was acting at a
> higher level - just trying to point out that it's essentially doomed to
> try and please everyone with a single update repository
Adam Williamson wrote:
> Mandriva has a /testing repository for /updates, but not for /backports,
> on the basis that /backports is fundamentally unstable so you may as
> well just do your testing in the repo. This works fine, so far.
That's not going to work for KDE SIG. Updates like KDE 4.3.0 re
2009/8/6 Adam Williamson
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 17:23 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:36 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > Well
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 17:23 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:36 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Well, I think it's really the same issue. The
On 08/05/2009 02:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 13:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Sure. I'm just pointing out that you're trying to solve a different
>> problem than either the original poster or Thorsten. (And now that I
>> understand your problem better, perhaps your
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:36 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> >
>> > Well, I think it's really the same issue. The problem is one of
>> > expectation: we have two similar components, G
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:34 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:24 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > That was the problem I initially thought of with this method, but then
> > I
> > thought - there's no actual reason we can't have different trains of
> > updates in a single
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:36 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > Well, I think it's really the same issue. The problem is one of
> > expectation: we have two similar components, GNOME and KDE, in the same
> > distribution, following differ
On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 08/05/2009 04:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>> The question is whether Fedora intends to be a distribution suitable for
>> day-to-day general purpose use by people who are not necessarily that
>> interested in Fedora per se - wheth
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> Well, I think it's really the same issue. The problem is one of
> expectation: we have two similar components, GNOME and KDE, in the same
> distribution, following different update polices - GNOME favours stable,
> KDE favours adventuro
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 14:24 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> That was the problem I initially thought of with this method, but then
> I
> thought - there's no actual reason we can't have different trains of
> updates in a single repository, is there?
>
> We could have:
>
> foo-1.0-2 (conservati
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 13:03 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:58 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > It also would require multiple CVS branches, one for security, one for
> > adventurous, as well as different buildroots to go along with those,
> > since you wouldn't be able to bui
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 13:25 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > Either way it's going to be some level of extra work for someone
> > somewhere, I haven't denied that. Was just discussing the parameters of
> > addressing (or not addressing) this issue. It's not possible to make all
> > parties happy
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 13:14 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 13:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >
> > An alternative would be to tag updates within a single repo in a way
> > that yum and PackageKit understand and have appropriate configuration
> > options to enable certain t
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 22:49 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> Do maintainers really push out updates for this? I've always considered
> a reason to push out a build for rawhide but not to issue updates for
> the stable releases.
It's really hard to tell when so many updates pushers put 0 information
On Wed, August 5, 2009 2:33 pm, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 16:18 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> Maintainers are pushing updates because they
>> feel there is a reason, a bug fixed, a security hole closed, a
>> significant feature enhancement that users want (or that they th
* Jesse Keating [05/08/2009 22:38] :
>
> A bug filed by FEVEr or it's replacement saying there is a bigger number
> released somewhere.
Do maintainers really push out updates for this? I've always considered
a reason to push out a build for rawhide but not to issue updates for
the stable releases.
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 16:18 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> Maintainers are pushing updates because they
> feel there is a reason, a bug fixed, a security hole closed, a
> significant feature enhancement that users want (or that they think
> users want).
A bug filed by FEVEr or it's replace
On 08/05/2009 01:04 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:44 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
>> Sure, this is comparable to the present situation. But it doesn't seem
>> like it makes things much better.
>>
>> * It doesn't solve the original poster's issue (that the GNOME stack
>>
On 08/05/2009 04:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
The question is whether Fedora intends to be a distribution suitable for
day-to-day general purpose use by people who are not necessarily that
interested in Fedora per se - whether it's got an aim to be a
general-purpose operating system like other d
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 13:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> An alternative would be to tag updates within a single repo in a way
> that yum and PackageKit understand and have appropriate configuration
> options to enable certain types of update, which would really be much
> the same situation, j
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 15:49 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 08/05/2009 03:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > The missing bit of the argument from before is whether we actually want
> > to care about people who only want 'stable' updates, and that tracks
> > back to the question of what Fedora
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 13:04 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> An alternative would be to tag updates within a single repo in a way
> that yum and PackageKit understand and have appropriate configuration
> options to enable certain types of update, which would really be much
> the same situation,
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:44 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Sure, this is comparable to the present situation. But it doesn't seem
> like it makes things much better.
>
> * It doesn't solve the original poster's issue (that the GNOME stack
> isn't going to be updated for F10 since the maintainer
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:58 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> It also would require multiple CVS branches, one for security, one for
> adventurous, as well as different buildroots to go along with those,
> since you wouldn't be able to build a security update for a gnome
> package against the newer adv
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 12:44 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>
> Sure, this is comparable to the present situation. But it doesn't seem
> like it makes things much better.
>
> * It doesn't solve the original poster's issue (that the GNOME stack
> isn't going to be updated for F10 since the maintain
On 08/05/2009 03:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
The missing bit of the argument from before is whether we actually want
to care about people who only want 'stable' updates, and that tracks
back to the question of what Fedora actually is, which I don't believe
the Board has settled yet. If we don't
On 08/05/2009 12:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 11:58 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Also, having the expectation that the other repository is for security
>> updates doesn't address the problem of a security release breaking ABI.
>
> That's rather unlikely (well, except i
On Wed, 2009-08-05 at 15:28 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Care to write up a proposal on how this work-flow would look like? Without
> some of the details, I'm confused how one would avoid all kinds of weirdness
> from repo conflicts if you have multiple of these repos enabled. That, and
> the
> f
1 - 100 of 120 matches
Mail list logo
