On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> As of today, ppc and ppc64 are no longer primary architectures in koji
> starting
> with the dist-f13 tag. This is in accordance with the FESCo approved demotion
> of PowerPC starting with Fedora 13 development.
>
Can we drop AOT
On Thursday 01 October 2009 03:02:04 Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > That's not about "standardize on GTK+"
>
> That was just an example of how "one size fits it all" doesn't always work
> when it comes to libraries, there will always be more than one library for
> some purposes.
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 23:40 +0200, Florian Festi wrote:
> On 09/30/2009 07:43 PM, Michael Schroeder wrote:
> > Fedora's rpm used to have a
> > modified copy of zlib so that the created rpms were more rsync
> > friendly. As deltarpm needs to recreate the same compressed
> > payload I also had to sup
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 04:46 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> But we also need to reasonable, and unless someone volunteers to do the
> actual work *without* breaking the tool in the process, I think a policy
> like this need to be evaluated case by case and not just blindly and
> rigidly enforced.
And,
Josh Boyer wrote:
> http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-06-12/fedora-
> meeting.2009-06-12-17.01.html
Ah, there it is, I must have missed it when going through the summaries,
sorry. :-(
So I'll have to blame the previous FESCo for voting this through with
practically no feedbac
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 07:02:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Jeff Garzik writes:
> > The lack of big endian builds by default is a notable loss, and will
> > lead to a decline in software quality.
> > I think this is a net-negative for Fedora.
>
> I think the same, but it's getting harder to find
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 11:51:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> If sheer number of build machines is an issue, one could spin up a qemu
> running ppc on a non-ppc box.
This isn't as easy as it sounds. I couldn't get qemu-system-ppc[1] to
boot at all, *even* with the supposed PPC experts on the q
Kevin Kofler, Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:58:15 +0200:
> Yes. It slowed down builds, and it often triggered bizarre build
> failures which were NOT bugs in the program, but in the toolchain or in
> some core library like glibc, which in turn delayed important updates to
> the affected packages.
I.e., it w
Tom Lane wrote:
> > [ ppc64 horror story snipped ]
>
> Well, I'm by no means wedded to ppc64; I just want *some* BE
> architecture in the primary set. Maybe a reasonable compromise would be
> to include ppc but not ppc64? That would cover basic BE portability
> issues, if not the occasional BE-an
Richard W.M. Jones píše v Čt 01. 10. 2009 v 10:29 +0100:
> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 07:02:08PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Jeff Garzik writes:
> > > The lack of big endian builds by default is a notable loss, and will
> > > lead to a decline in software quality.
> > > I think this is a net-negativ
Steve Dickson, Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:41:51 -0400:
> Maybe removing the "Final Development" part and replace it with
> something like "Beta Freeze (Bug Fixes ONLY)" might have helped.
Well my problem with the current state is that it is not "Bug Fixes
ONLY", we are getting to acks (Red Hat people k
Jeff Garzik, Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:55:56 -0400:
> Both ppc and ppc64 have been excellent at catching software bugs in my
> projects that long went unnoticed on i386/x86-64.
>
> The lack of big endian builds by default is a notable loss, and will
> lead to a decline in software quality.
>
> I think
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:32:59AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
> > > [ ppc64 horror story snipped ]
> >
> > Well, I'm by no means wedded to ppc64; I just want *some* BE
> > architecture in the primary set. Maybe a reasonable compromise would be
> > to include ppc but not ppc64? T
2009/9/14 Adam Williamson
> Hi, everyone. We - the QA group - have recently been researching the
> feasibility of using zsync to reduce the size of live image downloads.
> This has hit a roadblock in the form of the problem where both rsync and
> zsync use forked zlibs rather than linking against
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 09:34:38AM +, Matej Cepl wrote:
>Steve Dickson, Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:41:51 -0400:
>> Maybe removing the "Final Development" part and replace it with
>> something like "Beta Freeze (Bug Fixes ONLY)" might have helped.
>
>Well my problem with the current state is that it i
"Richard W.M. Jones" writes:
> Is ARM big endian?
It can be either. Intel's IXP4xx networking chips are usually running
BE since their internal network engines are BE-only and it's thus
more efficient.
--
Krzysztof Halasa
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://
On 10/01/2009 05:34 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Steve Dickson, Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:41:51 -0400:
>> Maybe removing the "Final Development" part and replace it with
>> something like "Beta Freeze (Bug Fixes ONLY)" might have helped.
>
> Well my problem with the current state is that it is not "Bug Fi
Steve Dickson, Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:56:09 -0400:
> I thought about this as well... what might be better than "Bug Fixes
> ONLY" is "CVS commits turned off" which is more accurate to what
> happens...
Well, RHEL commits (hopefully I am not leaking some NDA-covered
information ;)) have to have somet
Compose started at Thu Oct 1 06:15:05 UTC 2009
Broken deps for i386
--
PolicyKit-olpc-1.2-2.fc11.noarch requires /var/lib/PolicyKit-public
argus-2.0.6.fixes.1-16.fc11.i586 requires libpcap.so.0.9
clutter-cairomm-0.7.4
On 10/01/2009 04:54 AM, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
"Richard W.M. Jones" writes:
Is ARM big endian?
It can be either. Intel's IXP4xx networking chips are usually running
BE since their internal network engines are BE-only and it's thus
more efficient.
The IXP4xx networking engine operates big
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Simo Sorce wrote:
see that we can remove it now.
Not to be distrusting but I am also going to watch out and see how
easily we might break something, just for nazi-like mindset in enforcing
a policy.
Godwin's law? Really? This early in the thread?
Maybe we should cool
On 09/30/2009 08:47 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 20:26 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Was ppc really such a burden?
When it breaks and only it breaks, slowing down or delaying a release,
yes.
I know that last week several ppc people (IBM, etc) expressed alarm and concern
abou
On Oct 1, 2009, at 2:34, Matej Cepl wrote:
Steve Dickson, Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:41:51 -0400:
Maybe removing the "Final Development" part and replace it with
something like "Beta Freeze (Bug Fixes ONLY)" might have helped.
Well my problem with the current state is that it is not "Bug Fixes
O
Matej Cepl wrote:
> I.e., it was discovering bugs ... not in your program but in glibc, gcc,
> etc. (I have experienced this couple of times with pspp on Sparc).
But usually in target-specific code.
Plus, it's not the toolchain's updates which get stalled, but the updates
for some package which
On Oct 1, 2009, at 6:49, Ric Wheeler wrote:
On 09/30/2009 08:47 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 20:26 -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
Was ppc really such a burden?
When it breaks and only it breaks, slowing down or delaying a
release,
yes.
I know that last week several ppc
On Oct 1, 2009, at 2:28, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Josh Boyer wrote:
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-06-12/fedora-
meeting.2009-06-12-17.01.html
Ah, there it is, I must have missed it when going through the
summaries,
sorry. :-(
So I'll have to blame the previous FESCo f
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 07:45:22AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> I know that last week several ppc people (IBM, etc) expressed alarm
>> and concern about the demotion of ppc to a secondary arch. Most of
>> those people I pointed at Bill and Jesse who were staffing the fedora
>> booth.
>>
>> D
On Oct 1, 2009, at 7:58, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 07:45:22AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
I know that last week several ppc people (IBM, etc) expressed alarm
and concern about the demotion of ppc to a secondary arch. Most of
those people I pointed at Bill and Jesse who were s
Jeff Garzik (jgar...@pobox.com) said:
> But you're dodging the larger point -- Fedora has, de facto, demoted
> big endian support in its entirety to a second-hand effort, rather
> than distributed the workload much more widely. Given M package
> maintainers and N secondary-platform volunteers, it
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 11:10:51AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>Jeff Garzik (jgar...@pobox.com) said:
>> But you're dodging the larger point -- Fedora has, de facto, demoted
>> big endian support in its entirety to a second-hand effort, rather
>> than distributed the workload much more widely.
Matej Cepl wrote:
> Well, RHEL commits (hopefully I am not leaking some NDA-covered
> information ;)) have to have something like "fixes #123435" in the commit
> message. We could do the same easily but requesting that updates in bodhi
> have to be just bugfixes.
I can make a "bug" out of almost e
On 10/01/2009 03:10 AM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
> 2009/9/14 Adam Williamson
>
>> Hi, everyone. We - the QA group - have recently been researching the
>> feasibility of using zsync to reduce the size of live image downloads.
>> This has hit a roadblock in the form of the problem where both rsy
On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 09:58 -0400, L. Gabriel Somlo wrote:
> Not using argus anymore, and no cycles to do right by it.
I will take it.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
2009/10/1 Toshio Kuratomi :
> On 10/01/2009 03:10 AM, Josephine Tannhäuser wrote:
>> 2009/9/14 Adam Williamson
>>
>>> Hi, everyone. We - the QA group - have recently been researching the
>>> feasibility of using zsync to reduce the size of live image downloads.
>>> This has hit a roadblock in the
On 10/01/2009 09:42 AM, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> 2009/10/1 Toshio Kuratomi :
>> A) You're a coder and want to get your hands dirty with the rsync
>> protocol. Check out how librsync manages to use the system zlib and if
>> possible to do this compatibly, apply it to zsync and rsync, possible a
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 10:45 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> I know that last week several ppc people (IBM, etc) expressed alarm and
>> concern about the demotion of ppc to a secondary arch. Most of those people
>> I pointed at Bill and Jesse who were staffing the fedora booth.
>>
>> Did we get any p
Proposal: Python 3 in Fedora 13
"Evolutionary, not revolutionary": build a python 3 stack
parallel-installable with the python 2 stack.
= High-level summary =
- Python 3.0 was released almost 10 months ago, on 2008-12-03, and the
latest release of the 3.* branch is 3.1.1, released on 2009-08-17
and the solution is ?
have you reported that on bugzilla against kde ?
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
2009/10/1 Kevin Kofler :
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>> Was ppc really such a burden?
>
> Yes. It slowed down builds, and it often triggered bizarre build failures
> which were NOT bugs in the program, but in the toolchain or in some core
> library like glibc, which in turn delayed important updates to th
2009/10/1 Trever L. Adams :
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Actually, new packages can be pushed as updates. You can add them even to
>> F11, and F10 if you're really quick (new packages are accepted in F10 until
>> 1 month before its end of life, which is basically the day of F12's release,
>> as the end
2009/10/1 Trever L. Adams :
> Hello all,
>
> About a year ago, I suggested that BedeWork (http://bedework.org) be
> included. I offered to package it with some help. I unfortunately ran
> out of time. I now have time to package it and hopefully maintain the
> package. Unfortunately, I haven't writt
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>Scoping:
> - this work would target Fedora 13. I'd avoid pushing it into F12
>until it's proven safe to do so
I'm going to think on the overall proposal more, but I very very very much
wish this sentence said "I will not push this i
Mat Booth writes:
> Nice bug; this one is my favourite:
> https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/1308 -- PPC64 noarch builds
> don't expand %{_libdir} to the correct place.
> You absolutely *cannot* build Eclipse plugins on ppc64 hosts because
> of this beauty. The current workaround is to just
On Oct 1, 2009, at 11:00, Tom Lane wrote:
Mat Booth writes:
Nice bug; this one is my favourite:
https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/1308 -- PPC64 noarch builds
don't expand %{_libdir} to the correct place.
You absolutely *cannot* build Eclipse plugins on ppc64 hosts because
of this b
On Oct 1, 2009, at 10:59, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
Scoping:
- this work would target Fedora 13. I'd avoid pushing it into F12
until it's proven safe to do so
I'm going to think on the overall proposal more, but I very very
very muc
Once upon a time, Josh Boyer said:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> >Scoping:
> > - this work would target Fedora 13. I'd avoid pushing it into F12
> >until it's proven safe to do so
>
> I'm going to think on the overall proposal more, but I very very very much
John Reiser writes:
> The IXP4xx networking engine operates big endian only. Nevertheless
> many NSLU2 machines run little-endian and still use that networking
> hardware.
With a performance penalty since all buffers have to be swapped.
> Little-
> endian operation of the CPU offers the advant
Jan Klepek wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-09-30 at 09:58 -0400, L. Gabriel Somlo wrote:
>> Not using argus anymore, and no cycles to do right by it.
>
> I will take it.
Please make sure you fix the broken dependency in F-12 (on an old version of
libpcap) as soon as possible and get the fixed package tag
On 10/01/2009 11:11 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>
> On Oct 1, 2009, at 10:59, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
>>> Scoping:
>>> - this work would target Fedora 13. I'd avoid pushing it into F12
>>> until it's proven safe to do so
>>
>> I'm go
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 13:07 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Josh Boyer said:
> > On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> > >Scoping:
> > > - this work would target Fedora 13. I'd avoid pushing it into F12
> > >until it's proven safe to do so
> >
> > I'm g
Am Mittwoch 30 September 2009 schrieb Jaroslav Reznik:
> o future of Phonon
> * Upstream (sandsmark) recommends building/packaging phonon from qt, and
> building/packaging backends separately.
> * Mandriva developments integrating pulseaudio support (and improving
> gstreamer backend). [1]
> * We w
On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 06:42:08PM +0100, Mat Booth wrote:
>Nice bug; this one is my favourite:
>https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/1308 -- PPC64 noarch builds
>don't expand %{_libdir} to the correct place.
I'm pretty sure I have seen 'noarch builds shouldn't be using %{_libdir}'
repeated sev
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 11:23 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On 10/01/2009 11:11 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Oct 1, 2009, at 10:59, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 01:15:09PM -0400, David Malcolm wrote:
> >>> Scoping:
> >>> - this work would target Fedora 13. I'd
On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, David Malcolm wrote:
Treating it as a new language is the intent, and I'll make every effort
to keep them separated.
In theory there wouldn't be any problems. However if I screw up and
somehow cross the streams, I run the risk of breaking _lots_ of things;
yum is the most
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:39 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
>
>
> I'm not volunteering to put it into F12. I think that anyone wanting to
> push it into F12 needs to sign up for a lot of testing (brainstorming
> some testcases: can you still compile and build external modules with
> both 2 and 3 -devel
On 10/01/2009 10:15 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> Proposal: Python 3 in Fedora 13
>
> "Evolutionary, not revolutionary": build a python 3 stack
> parallel-installable with the python 2 stack.
>
First: Overall +1.
Note: liberally snipped, throughout.
> = Proposal =
> Where I would draw the line i
2009/10/1 Josh Boyer :
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 06:42:08PM +0100, Mat Booth wrote:
>>Nice bug; this one is my favourite:
>>https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/1308 -- PPC64 noarch builds
>>don't expand %{_libdir} to the correct place.
>
> I'm pretty sure I have seen 'noarch builds shouldn't be
* read the dracut man page
* remove "rhgb" from the kernel command line and maybe "quiet"
* add "rdshell" to the kernel command line and you are dropped to a shell
* add "rdshell rdinitdebug" to the kernel command line and dracut shell commands
are printed as they are executed
* with dracut >= 00
When: Friday, 2009-10-02 @ 15:00 UTC (11 AM EDT)
Where: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net
Join us this Friday for another alliterative installment of ...
... the Beta Blocker Bug review. Previous reviews have been
successful at keeping the blocker bug list active. Let's continue this
trend
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 01:01:32PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >I have fully updated Fedora 11 x86_64 system, and when I run
> >"preupgrade-cli" I get this:
> >
> >..
> >..
> >Saving Primary metadata
> >Saving file lists metadata
>
Am 01.10.2009 21:35, schrieb Harald Hoyer:
* read the dracut man page
* remove "rhgb" from the kernel command line and maybe "quiet"
* add "rdshell" to the kernel command line and you are dropped to a shell
* add "rdshell rdinitdebug" to the kernel command line and dracut shell
commands are print
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 21:35 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> * read the dracut man page
> * remove "rhgb" from the kernel command line and maybe "quiet"
> * add "rdshell" to the kernel command line and you are dropped to a shell
> * add "rdshell rdinitdebug" to the kernel command line and dracut shell
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 21:35 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> * read the dracut man page
> * remove "rhgb" from the kernel command line and maybe "quiet"
> * add "rdshell" to the kernel command line and you are dropped to a shell
> * add "rdshell rdinitdebug" to the kernel command line and dracut shell
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Ditto. This is not something you would push as an update to a released
> product.
I don't see why a parallel-installable python3/python3000 would cause any
problems as an update.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 23:21 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Ditto. This is not something you would push as an update to a released
> > product.
>
> I don't see why a parallel-installable python3/python3000 would cause any
> problems as an update.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
Kevin Kofler said the following on 10/01/2009 02:28 AM Pacific Time:
So I'll have to blame the previous FESCo for voting this through with
practically no feedback, as they observed themselves before the vote:
17:14:04 has there been any feedback on lists or wiki?
17:14:15 * nirik just sees one
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Ditto. This is not something you would push as an update to a released
> > product.
>
> I don't see why a parallel-installable python3/python3000 would cause any
> problems as an update.
Are you able to guarantee that it will in no
On 10/01/2009 08:02 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 21:35 +0200, Harald Hoyer wrote:
* read the dracut man page
* remove "rhgb" from the kernel command line and maybe "quiet"
* add "rdshell" to the kernel command line and you are dropped to a shell
* add "rdshell rdinitdebug
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 22:09 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > Please also see
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Dracut_problems , the
> > permanent reference for this topic. I'll add anything in Harald's mail
> > that's not currently on that page to it. Thanks.
> >
> >
>
John Poelstra wrote:
> The current FESCo might also want to consider taking more of a
> leadership role in monitoring the release processes, tracking the
> schedule, and evaluating the quality of the release under development
> and our ability to release on time. As the group responsible for
> gui
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 12:17 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On 10/01/2009 10:15 AM, David Malcolm wrote:
> > Proposal: Python 3 in Fedora 13
> >
> > "Evolutionary, not revolutionary": build a python 3 stack
> > parallel-installable with the python 2 stack.
> >
>
> First: Overall +1.
>
> Note: l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
David Malcolm wrote:
> "Naming convention" proposal:
> How does this sound:
> - an rpm with a "python-" prefix means a python 2 rpm, of
the
> "default" python 2 minor version (for Fedora this will be the
most
> recent stable upstream minor releas
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:12 -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA256
>
> David Malcolm wrote:
> > "Naming convention" proposal:
> > How does this sound:
> > - an rpm with a "python-" prefix means a python 2 rpm, of
> the
> > "default" python 2 minor version
On 10/01/2009 10:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 22:09 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Please also see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Dracut_problems , the
permanent reference for this topic. I'll add anything in Harald's mail
that's not currently on t
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 23:39 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> set while other
> voices in the community think that they should have University, RHCE
> or
> some other degree stuck up their ass to be able to participate in
> testing or other aspects of the community
I think you're setting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
David Malcolm wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 19:12 -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
>> Could we do something similar to what qt and kdelibs packages
>> have done? While qt3 was default, the 'qt' package points to
qt3
>> and qt4 is an entirely separate pa
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 12:53:21AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>John Poelstra wrote:
>> The current FESCo might also want to consider taking more of a
>> leadership role in monitoring the release processes, tracking the
>> schedule, and evaluating the quality of the release under development
>> and
On 10/01/2009 11:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2009-10-01 at 23:39 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
set while other
voices in the community think that they should have University, RHCE
or
some other degree stuck up their ass to be able to participate in
testing or other aspects
Sorry for the late notice. There's only one agenda item for
tomorrow's FESCo meeting, and that's the dropping of features that are
not yet 100% complete. The meeting will be held tomorrow at 17:00UTC
(13:00EDT) in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
I've also copied the relevant feature owners,
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I don't see any way around this atm but it is something to think about
> possibilities more.
One way around this that I use at $DAYJOB (to minimize exposure of a
PHP enabled webserver, thus minimizing attack surface, and also
allowing apac
On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> How about starting now? Our last two meetings took about 20 min combined.
>
> We're through the Feature process mostly, and we're entering the part of the
> development cycle that people need help with, reminders for, planning, etc.
>
> I actua
On Fri, 2009-10-02 at 01:35 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> As I said "other voices" I never said they resided on this list ( I dont
> keep tap who's on this list or any other list for that matter ) however
> you should recall atleast one such debate when we rewrote/redesigned the
> QA
Jesse Keating, Thu, 01 Oct 2009 07:39:16 -0700:
> We've stopped caring about anything outside of the critical path.
Thanks for clarifying it. At least I know now that I should give up on
maintaining Fedora packages because nobody cares about them. Will do next
week.
Matěj
--
fedora-devel-list
83 matches
Mail list logo
