David A. Ranch wrote:
I would like the mirrorlist to stay if that's possible. Maybe change
it to say that there is no guarantee they are still up and serving
FL repo's. I've already saved a local copy, so it's not really for
me, but someone else might just find it very useful.
Agreed
David A. Ranch wrote:
Q. Why is the FedoraLegacy project shutting down?
A. A combination of reasons:
- A lack of community members that actually contributed to patches,
testing, deployment, etc.
- A lack of funding
Is funding really a issue? Unless you mean putting full time Red Hat
Philip Molter wrote:
If you make that kind of statement, you are effectively removing
high-end server testing from Fedora Core. If FC is still supposed to be
a testbed for the newer software, whether it's desktop or high-end
server, then that sounds like the wrong thing to say.
Well, since
Kirk Pickering wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 09:45:11AM -0500, James Kosin wrote:
Hmmm. maybe a better upgrade path would be in order. Allowing
users to keep their configuration; with minor changes and upgrade the
units to FC6-FC7-FC8 etc. without any troubles.
I am trying the
Jason Reusch wrote:
My apologies if this is not the appropriate place to post this
correction. I signed up for the wiki, but the page is immutable. Many
thanks for this project. It has been a big help to me.
You need to be in the edit group for wiki write access. See
Axel Thimm wrote:
I don't know if the board has power over suggesting to Fedora's
sponsor, Red Hat, to resuffle its engineering resources, but if so,
then it's a simple equation: If FL is indeed going to get more
resources to prolong a Fedora release's lifespan then these resources
need to be
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 11:46:37PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Unifying and opening up more of the infrastructure and other ideas like
that only doing critical security fixes are things to look at.
But FL's charter is already to only cater about security fixes, or do
you
On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 02:41 -0500, David Eisenstein wrote:
A more general question is this: How do we in Fedora Legacy track
vulnerabilities and make sure that we are aware of all the relevant
vulnerabilities for the packages that we maintain, and haven't missed
something?
The
On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 10:24 -0500, David Eisenstein wrote:
Hi Folks,
Over the (HOLIDAY!) weekend, Mozilla released a new Firefox (1.0.8) fixing
a set of critical vulnerabilities. The upstream (mozilla.org) chose
*not*, however, to release the Mozilla code for 1.7.13 yet, but I am told
that
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 16:49 -0600, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
Hi Jesse, this is good news indeed. Are you planning to have both of
those enabled by default, or will updates-testing be disabled?
None of it is enabled by default. Fedora upstream still want users to
Jesse Keating wrote:
So with the new build software that we're having good success with we
can produce x86_64 packages (and with future hardware donations ppc
packages too). We've been spinning all FC3 updates with x86_64
packages, but the question remains, do we want to rebuild all previously
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 10:06 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
So perhaps an obvious question is could Red Hat internal build systems
used by Fedora Core or the ones used for Fedora Extras be spared a few
cycles for Fedora legacy on x86_64/PPC or do you want to keep
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 10:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thats strange. How does RHL content affect the ability of Fedora Legacy
to use Fedora Extras buildsystems?. I didnt see any public discussion
happening on this and we definitely need the details spelled out more
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 10:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
The way I see it, Fedora Extras and Core already have access to PPC
systems and Legacy is meanwhile waiting for hardware donations. If we
share the infrastructure and we are well integrated, that shouldnt
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:50 -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote:
Why do we have it in two places? That just leads to confusions and
things being out of sync.
Just make a new page named YumFC3Detailed and then link to it from the
main http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy
Hi
Other distros do have better QA, as Red Hat itself says about FCx.
RHEL has, per Red Hat, better QA than FC.
Comparing a commercial product to a community project is unfair. Lets
hear about QA processes documented in other community projects.
Eh? My comment, as I asserted again, was
Mike McCarty wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This is not a discussion about personal opinions on QA policies within
I haven't presumed to dictate the content of your messages, or state
what your intended topic was. Please grant me the same privilege.
Or are you acting as a moderator
Hi
Maybe we (Fedora Legacy) need to define the process of getting a package
from bug report (or SA) to QA released state, and stop arguing who is at
fault or how to bypass QA. If everyone knows the process and follows it
we all can benefit...
Maybe, its time I started witting something! A
James Kosin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy/QATesting.
OK,
It is a little buried in the clutter. I've seen this page many times,
but never really dig-ed into it.
It is referred from http
Mike McCarty wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 02:31 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ok then, it seems to me that there is no longer any distinction
between the released repository, and the test repository.
So, please send out an e-mail three days before the first
timed release
James Kosin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
It is referred from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy which has a
link from the frontpage. How is that buried in clutter?. What can we do
to improve that?\
Don't get personal, I'm talking
Mike McCarty wrote:
Jesse Keating wrote:
Our hope is that if this proposal scares some people, it will scare them
into finding ways to help out the project so that little to no packages
escape updates-testing w/out some QA done on it.
It doesn't frighten me at all, but it does discourage
Mike McCarty wrote:
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Then the Legacy Project has removed my ability not to subscribe
to testing.
No, the Legacy Project has _proposed_ to that, at least in your opinion.
It was followed by something like unless we get a lot of
Marc Deslauriers wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 14:44 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Since Legacy is no longer in my yum configuration, it's no longer
an issue for me, good or bad. I don't wish to subscribe to testing.
Since testing and release have been merged, I have unsubscribed
from release.
Hi
Yes, my indictment earlier was for *all* distributions of Linux.
But Legacy has gone further than I can follow along, that's all.
We are merely discussing a proposal so legacy process hasnt gone further
at all. You also state that other distributions QA process is better.
How do we
Hi
Fedora Foundation does not mention anything about that. It has no say
or control over who provides support services for Fedora as far as I
know. The foundation is a overall management and delegation authority.
It can bless, reject existing or proposed Fedora Projects or choose to
Hi
Hi Rahul, I just browsed through some fedora-devel-list posts from
this month, so far all I see is two people in a thread: RFE: Retire
Fedora Core 4 only _after_ FC6 has been released. who mention that
they think legacy has negative connotation(s). Are there other
posts I'm
27 matches
Mail list logo
