On 01/06/2010 08:10 PM, Michal Ambroz wrote:
Hello dear list members,
I would like to ask whether the amap license and amap program itself would be
eligible to be included in the Fedora.
Tool is opensource with license based on GPLv2 with additional restrictions,
but I am not sure whether
On 01/07/2010 01:40 PM, Julius Davies wrote:
Hi, Tom,
Limiting ourselves to copyright (ignoring patents and trademarks and
other IP), in general would you say a copyright license must either?
1. Be Free according to FSF: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
or
2. Be Open
On 01/05/2010 11:30 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 11:03 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
On the other hand, with the
guideline being so widely ignored, I'm not in a hurry to do work to
comply with it ...
Isn't that a chicken/egg problem?
It really is. I mean, we could create the
On 01/05/2010 11:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
What exactly do you mean 'no longer work' ? Can we expect to get a formal
RPM build error for this bogus construct, or will it silently build and
do the wrong thing ? From your long description, it sounds like the latter,
which means
On 01/05/2010 12:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Not for all packaging policies, but for some I think that would be a
good idea. Pick a set of policies we think are particularly important
to enforce can be automatically checked, and declare any non-compliant
ones will be dropped in the next
On 01/05/2010 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
But there's a general issue that new things keep getting added
to the packaging guidelines and there's no very good mechanism to
detect whether existing packages ever get updated to comply.
You're right. I'm hopeful that the items which can be checked
On 01/05/2010 12:23 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 12:16:13PM -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 01/05/2010 12:08 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
Not for all packaging policies, but for some I think that would be a
good idea. Pick a set of policies we think
On 01/04/2010 04:25 PM, Ian Weller wrote:
I know Gwibber is widely used by Fedora users because there are a
crapton of abrt reports for it and I just can't keep up with it. :)
Let me know if you have a desire for maintaining Gwibber in Fedora. From
what I've heard, a release of 2.30 is on
On 12/30/2009 02:15 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
It would be nice if others could join in (be it virtual not necessarily
physically). So are there any takers for this ?
It might be useful to have a wiki page listing out the specific content
items which need to be replaced.
~spot
--
On 12/31/2009 08:17 AM, Alexander Boström wrote:
Hello,
I'd like to ask someone to have a look at the license for java-gnome,
the GNOME Java bindings:
http://research.operationaldynamics.com/bzr/java-gnome/mainline/LICENCE
I'm hoping it can be added to the acceptable licenses list.
On 12/30/2009 03:58 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Daniel Drake wrote:
The upstream library is already in Fedora as a shared library.
I guess the approach I will take is to install our audited version as a
shared library under a different name (libtommath_olpc?) which the
components will then
On 12/30/2009 05:01 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Tom spot Callaway wrote:
FWIW, I'm pretty sure this is not against current Fedora policies,
assuming that the libtommath maintainer signs off on it and there is no
conflict between the two packages.
I guess it's indeed not against the letter
On 12/30/2009 01:53 AM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Hi,
Could you please clarify if the Trusster [1] Open Source License is an
acceptable Free/Open Source Software License for the Fedora project.
The Teal [2] project uses this license:
The Trusster Open Source License is Free, but GPL
On 12/23/2009 01:38 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
As the patent license is non-Free, Moonlight still has to be considered non-
Free wherever software patents apply. So as far as I can tell, this is not
acceptable for Fedora, sorry. (But of course spot and/or RH Legal will have
the final word.)
On 12/23/2009 01:56 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
On 23/12/09 18:46, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
With that said, this new covenant does NOT change our stance on
Moonlight. It is still not permissible in Fedora.
Can I ask on what grounds? Is the patent license insufficient, or is
there some other
On 12/23/2009 02:10 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
On 23/12/09 18:58, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 12/23/2009 01:56 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
Can I ask on what grounds? Is the patent license insufficient, or is
there some other problem?
It's difficult to fix things if we don't know what's broken
On 12/12/2009 12:54 AM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Hi,
--- On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:49 AM, Tom spot Callaway
tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
| Umm... this license isn't a copyright license, nor is it useful for
| software, fonts, or content. What are you trying to do with it?
\--
Would like
On 12/19/2009 11:03 AM, Christopher Brown wrote:
2009/12/15 Adam Goode a...@spicenitz.org:
On 12/13/2009 06:16 AM, Christopher Brown wrote:
2009/12/11 Adam Goode a...@spicenitz.org:
We should definitely use Debian's key, right? Otherwise some Fedora CLI
libraries would be unnecessarily
On 12/18/2009 10:29 PM, Chris Weyl wrote:
I could go either way on this; but I think we should pick an approach
and stick with it, unless there's compelling reasons otherwise... And
the current approach seems to be working well.
Also... Even if we exclude these modules w/o providing them
On 12/19/2009 12:07 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Also... Even if we exclude these modules w/o providing them as
sub-packages, we ought to ensure that they're still pulled in by
perl-core (and perl itself, when we make the
perl-core/perl/perl-minimal switch).
What you say doesn't make sense:
On 11/24/2009 10:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
But I dunno if there's a policy
requirement that you should anyway.
FWIW, the policy says:
If a package contains a GUI application, then it needs to also include
a properly installed .desktop file. For the purposes of these
guidelines, a GUI
On 11/30/2009 08:42 AM, Pierre-Yves wrote:
gambas2-2.18.0-1.fc12.src.rpm
Gambas is... special. It needs these .la files to function.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 12/11/2009 02:38 AM, Shakthi Kannan wrote:
Hi,
I would like to know if TAPR Open Hardware License is an acceptable
license for Fedora:
http://www.tapr.org/ohl.html
Please clarify. Thanks!
Umm... this license isn't a copyright license, nor is it useful for
software, fonts, or
On 12/08/2009 01:50 PM, Jerry James wrote:
Is this license acceptable for Fedora (assuming a copy is provided
with the package, as required by the license)?
Nope. Non-free.
~spot
___
Fedora-legal-list mailing list
Fedora-legal-list@redhat.com
On 12/09/2009 09:17 AM, Huzaifa Sidhpurwala wrote:
Hi All,
I maintain the libtar package for some time now. However it seems that the
upstream author is no longer responding to any patch requests and is also no
longer interesting in maintaining the package any more.
I have therefore forked
On 12/05/2009 07:50 PM, Adam Goode wrote:
On 12/05/2009 05:00 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 12/04/2009 05:28 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
2009/12/4 Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com:
I have a legal question regarding distributing Abobe RGB ICC profiles in
Fedora.
Another email about
On 12/04/2009 01:38 PM, alekc...@googlemail.com wrote:
Hi All,
There is IBM implementation of MARS code in cryptopp 5.6.0 an it was removed
from Fedora cryptopp package.
But SVN 479 version of cryptopp contains mars.cpp that was written and placed
in the public domain by Wei Dai.
On 12/03/2009 02:48 AM, Julius Davies wrote:
I think I might have found 12 problems with code that dynamically
links into GPL code.
First of all, thank you for your help! It is certainly not Fedora's
intention to have any GPL incompatibility scenarios.
I will look into each case and determine
On 12/01/2009 06:42 AM, Alan Pevec wrote:
Hi all,
there's proposed spec in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541744#c1
with the license which is not listed in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#SoftwareLicenses
## liboping.spec -- OpenPKG RPM Package Specification
##
On 11/18/2009 10:29 AM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote:
Shouldn't I be getting f13 tags with make tag?
If you run: cvs update -d in the top level checkout directory, you will. ;)
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 11/18/2009 08:22 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
[At the risk of letting this get lost in the shuffle of this
thread...]
Seth Vidal wrote:
If there are pkgs which run daemons which are defaulting to ON when
installed or on next reboot - then we should be auditing those pkgs.
Last I checked we
On 11/18/2009 12:31 PM, Julius Davies wrote:
I put together a list of all pertinent Provides entries on the FC11
i386 DVD that can be satisfied in more than one way. The list is
pretty small (25 entries) since I discarded things that never show up
in Requires. Any tips on how I should choose
On 11/12/2009 12:06 AM, Ding Yi Chen wrote:
Hi,
I've tried to build e-17 by hand.
When I try to build from eina from e-17,
however, I found that the package name, eina, is already been taken by eina,
the media player.
How should I do with them?
Off the top of my head, I'd suggest
On 11/12/2009 01:39 PM, Adrian Reber wrote:
There is ubuntu bug report against id3lib libid3 crashes (stack
smashing) when reading VBR MP3 file[1]. I am able to reproduce this on
ubuntu but not on Fedora and I do not understand why. The patch[2] looks
like it is doing the right thing but there
On 11/14/2009 05:59 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Hi folks,
After getting okays from a few folks I decided to fix the long
standing libsndfile bugs.
One of these was a request [1] to split the utilities that come with
libsndfile into a utils subpackage. I did this only for F-13.
Since
On 11/17/2009 02:01 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
TC == Tom \spot\ Callaway tcall...@redhat.com writes:
TC It probably merits a separate entry, because it is a rather thorough
TC public domain declaration.
Does this have any of the issues that public domain has with respect to
people
On 11/12/2009 05:57 AM, Gianluca Sforna wrote:
Hi,
I'm having a look at packaging ChemDoodle Web Components, a Javascript
set of classes to manage chemical structures in web pages.
Now, the license is GPLv3+ but they have an additional exception detailed in:
On 11/13/2009 06:06 PM, Steve Traylen wrote:
Hi,
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530230
has been blocked on FE-Legal for sometime.
It looks fine bsd'ish but has a lot of extra text.
In fact as mentioned in the review this code is already in Fedora
as a private library
On 11/15/2009 11:04 PM, Ruediger Landmann wrote:
The new Fedora Wireless Guide includes photographs of different types of
wireless adapter:
http://sradvan.fedorapeople.org/Wireless_Guide/en-US/html-single/#sect-Wireless_Guide-Hardware-Types_Of_Cards
In each case, the manufacturer's logos
On 11/17/2009 12:37 AM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
Yes but you are missing one thing. The library is LGPLv2. It is not LGPLv2+.
Doesn't it make the resultant binary GPLv2, without the + ?
Well, the text of the LGPL says:
You may opt to apply the terms of the ordinary GNU General Public
License
On 11/11/2009 06:40 PM, Julius Davies wrote:
Hi,
I was looking at the some of the dependencies generated by AutoReqProv
in the RPMS in Fedora 11 and I noticed the following:
eclipse-swt (epl)
requires: libxpcom.so
provided-by: nspluginwrapper (gplv2+)
This is actually linked to
On 11/09/2009 07:42 AM, Igshaan Mesias wrote:
Hi Everyone
I've packaged the M+ collection of fonts. I've not yet submitted a
review because I am unsure about what to label the 'License' tag in spec
file given its authors have simply put the license as follows:
On 11/07/2009 06:32 AM, th...@threethirty.us wrote:
Wouldn't the term Some Rights Reserved work in its place? It still
looks official (which is why I assume it is there), and I know the
Creative Commons Project loves that wording.
Sure, but it would be better to drop it altogether.
~spot
On 11/09/2009 03:15 AM, Beartooth wrote:
Meanwhile, of course, Wine has grown and developed mightily --
though anything using a serial port, as my Garmin GPSs all do, has always
lagged behind.
FWIW, newer Garmin GPS units don't use a serial port anymore, they act
like USB Mass Storage
On 11/03/2009 03:23 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 11/03/2009 02:16 PM, Jerry James wrote:
My guess (and it is just a guess) is that this is triggering multiple
initializations of portaudio. Try this patch:
Well, it turned out to be a lot more complicated than that. Alienarena
uses OpenAL
On 11/04/2009 05:26 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 16:12:40 -0500,
Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/03/2009 03:23 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
Well, it turned out to be a lot more complicated than that. Alienarena
uses OpenAL-soft, which dlopens
On 11/03/2009 09:13 AM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
Dne 3.11.2009 02:55, King InuYasha napsal(a):
The only thing I can figure out from this conversation is that the CDDL
is supposed to be incompatible with the GPL. If that's the case, why not
simply ask the original creator to kindly dual license it?
On 11/03/2009 09:52 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de said:
-Redhat continues to distribute cdrkit although there are
known legal problems with it and Redhat has been informed more that
once about this fact.
it is Red
I need to rebuild alienarena for all targets due to a security issue, so
I decided to update to 7.32, but unfortunately, the 7.32 build segfaults
immediately on Fedora 12 (x86_64), and gdb isn't much help (gdb output
is at the bottom).
Now, it is worth noting that the alienarena client does
On 11/03/2009 12:16 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
On Tue, 2009-11-03 at 11:45 -0500, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
I need to rebuild alienarena for all targets due to a security issue, so
I decided to update to 7.32, but unfortunately, the 7.32 build segfaults
immediately on Fedora 12 (x86_64), and gdb
On 11/03/2009 02:16 PM, Jerry James wrote:
This seems to happen only when portaudio is installed. Uninstall
portaudio and alienarena starts up. I'm not sure exactly what is
going on here, but it seems that alienarena is both trying to dlopen
libopenal, and is linked against it. Check it:
On 11/02/2009 04:53 PM, Christian Krause wrote:
Is this license acceptable for Fedora too and if yes, what should I put
in RPM's License tag?
If (and only if) clause 2.b is used instead of clause 2.a (the license
explicitly gives you a choice), then the license is Free but GPL
incompatible.
On 11/03/2009 04:25 PM, David Nalley wrote:
So I started looking at packaging Netomata (
http://www.netomata.com/products/ncg ) and came across something that
raises a flag. The author is also at a conference with me this week,
so I figured the face time would be a good time to request a
On 11/02/2009 05:23 AM, Liang Suilong wrote:
Thank you for hard work. Crhomium browser in Fedora 12 looks perfect. Is
there any plan to push chromium into rawhide or updates-testing. I think
chromium has enough stability to make more users test itself.
Not until Chromium comes out of beta and
On 11/02/2009 03:47 PM, Denis Leroy wrote:
On 11/02/2009 07:18 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
That may be true, but since cdrecord is not shippable, it's a pretty
vacuous truth.
Out of curiosity, was that just because of the GPL2-CDDL mix ? Or was
there another reason ? Last I checked, only
On 11/02/2009 04:26 PM, Rajeesh K Nambiar wrote:
I did even contact Mr. Chuck Bigelow to find out any
possibility of licensing Luxi fonts under an open source license, when
Fedora decided to drop them.
For what it is worth, when we dropped them, I contacted the upstream
copyright holder as
On 10/30/2009 11:00 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
1:nant-0.85-30.fc12.i686 requires mono(NDoc.Core) = 0:1.3.3498.0
This one still needs attention from a Mono person to fix the rebuild. (A
rebuild would be all that's needed, but the problem is that it's failing to
build.
On 10/30/2009 12:03 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 10/30/2009 11:00 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
1:nant-0.85-30.fc12.i686 requires mono(NDoc.Core) = 0:1.3.3498.0
This one still needs attention from a Mono person to fix the rebuild. (A
rebuild would be all that's needed, but the problem
On 10/29/2009 09:09 AM, Liang Suilong wrote:
And then, Tom 'spot' Callaway has not pushed a new upgrade for chromium
browser. But I do not want to disturbing him. I just wait for him
silently. Haha!
There is a reason for the delay:
http://spot.livejournal.com/311443.html
The good news
On 10/07/2009 03:10 PM, Colby Hoke wrote:
I understand all of that. I'm saying what if someone else cuts it up and
each time he mentions developers, he suddenly says Nazis. (Yeah I went
there, I'm just saying...)
I tend to believe that the people who want to make disgusting and
hateful remixes
On 10/07/2009 03:10 PM, Colby Hoke wrote:
I understand all of that. I'm saying what if someone else cuts it up and
each time he mentions developers, he suddenly says Nazis. (Yeah I went
there, I'm just saying...)
I tend to believe that the people who want to make disgusting and
hateful remixes
On 10/06/2009 02:01 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced
by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from the Fedora
wiki, right? If CC0 can coexist peacefully in that role with the new
CC licensing used in both those
On 10/06/2009 02:46 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 02:14:12PM -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 10/06/2009 02:01 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
We need this license to be compatible with inclusion in works produced
by Fedora Docs, and in works that incorporate content from
On 09/19/2009 02:14 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/19/2009 08:17 PM, Brandon Casey wrote:
I am interested in embedding the Libertine font within an application at
work, so that this application can produce documents using the Libertine
font. The target systems will not have the Libertine
On 09/19/2009 02:14 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/19/2009 08:17 PM, Brandon Casey wrote:
I am interested in embedding the Libertine font within an application at
work, so that this application can produce documents using the Libertine
font. The target systems will not have the Libertine
On 09/10/2009 06:36 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
should get rid of it. The harder question is where to put that
command...
%post for abrt-gui ? :)
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 09/08/2009 01:50 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le mardi 08 septembre 2009 à 09:11 +0800, Yuan Yijun a écrit :
Hi,
The package wine-fonts is not mentioned, why?
Excellent question, it certainly should have been, and I have no idea
why. Maybe it was not present in the source repo I used¹
On 09/08/2009 11:10 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
There's a related problem here - glibc32 .
I don't think we distribute glibc32.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 09/04/2009 03:06 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Also for there to be a security issue, there needs to be an attack
vector, and during early userspace, there is very little attack vector, no
other
programs are running, no network interfaces are up, etc.
I suppose this would be somewhat difficult
On 09/04/2009 02:51 PM, Paul wrote:
Here I'd disagree. While for software, folks are happy for anyone to use
it as they like. However, for written work, people become protective. It
is better have something which says by contributing this piece, you are
giving Fedora to publish once and
On 09/03/2009 10:57 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
It really is like having to support gentoo, versus having to support a
distro using pre build packages. And I would really like to move to the
having to
support a pre-build package model for the initrd.
The problem is this:
The kernel binary RPM
On 09/03/2009 11:35 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
The kernel binary RPM contains this pre-built initrd. The kernel source
RPM does not contain the sources necessary to make this pre-built initrd.
This makes me rather uncomfortable from a Licensing perspective.
True, but we do provide SRPMS with
On 09/03/2009 02:20 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Regeneration is as easy with dracut as it is with mkinitrd, actually they
have the same cmdline syntax.
The only extra step required with dracut when using pre-generated images
is:
yum install dracut
Okay, so is there any reason why we don't
On 09/03/2009 02:25 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Note that we have the same problem with any package which does static
linking against an lgpl library (such as glibc).
This is (one of the big reasons) why we only permit static linking with
explicit approval from FESCo.
I'm really very
On 09/03/2009 04:59 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
Koji's database has that information, sort of. It can tell you exactly
which other packages were installed in the buildroot, so that is the
superset of what-all bits could have been rolled into the output.
Yes, but I do not think we are in good
On 09/03/2009 05:46 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
The requirement is to provide a written offer to give someone the source
when they ask.
Well, that's true for GPL. Can someone generate a list of the binaries
used in the generic initrd and the packages that they came from?
~spot
--
On 09/03/2009 06:14 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
We don't distribute under that clause of the GPL, because the 3 year
timeline on it is entirely too vague and we don't want to fall into that
trap.
Ugh. I had conveniently forgotten about that, thanks for the reminder.
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list
On 09/03/2009 04:27 AM, Martyn Plummer wrote:
Thanks for finding this. I passed this message on to the CRAN
maintainers (CRAN also distributes binaries for Windows and Mac OS X)
who also contacted the SparseM package author.
The good news is that Mr. Betten is still at ANL, and he replied
On 09/02/2009 11:47 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Michel Alexandre Salim (michael.silva...@gmail.com) said:
Multi-ownership seems *far* preferable to me than using triggers to
move files around, or moving a prelink-specific directory to the base
filesystem package.
Then the guidelines should
On 09/01/2009 09:34 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
rpm could start refcounting directories any day now and that'd be just
fine.
Is there an open trac ticket on this issue with the RPM upstream?
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 09/01/2009 11:34 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 11:10 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote:
On 09/01/2009 09:34 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
rpm could start refcounting directories any day now and that'd be just
fine.
Is there an open trac ticket on this issue with the RPM upstream
On 09/01/2009 11:53 AM, Iain Arnell wrote:
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Tom spot Callawaytcall...@redhat.com
wrote:
[snip]
Yes... this is all correct. Any package that is using commas in the
license field should have a bug opened against it.
Unless it's Redistributable, no
Hi folks,
I need this package reviewed so that I can fix the broken dep on
xsupplicant in rawhide:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=501017
I'd be happy to do a review trade, just let me know.
Thanks,
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
On 08/31/2009 11:28 AM, Jan Pazdziora wrote:
So, is /usr/bin/env the preferred one, or is it the same in
preference with /usr/bin/perl?
I would not say that either is preferred. IMHO, you should leave
upstream scripts in place, as long as they use either /usr/bin/env perl
or /usr/bin/perl.
On 08/27/2009 01:21 PM, Jeff Garzik wrote:
What is the policy regarding deletion of individual entries in the
middle of %changelog?
A developer added a %changelog entry to each of my cloud daemons'
packages, on the main fedora-cvs devel branch of each.
Then, a day or so later, after other
On 08/27/2009 12:11 PM, John J. McDonough wrote:
Alex Hudson wrote:
Living in a European milieu I generally prefer my page sizes to be set
to the likes of A4. One thing which keeps aggravating me is the myriad
places where I keep having to repeat to the computer my preference.
And then in
On 08/27/2009 02:18 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
I think that's a brilliant idea.
I'll undertake to do this in the next couple of weeks - I'll work on the
F12 set first, because obviously that's going to be very similar to F13
anyway.
Am I ok to re-activate the localisation feature for F13, or
On 08/20/2009 10:10 PM, Jon Stanley wrote:
Apologies for the late agenda, I completely blanked out today :(. The
following are the topics for tomorrow's meeting at 17:00UTC on
#fedora-meeting on freenode:
244 Reconsider Moblin Feature for Fedora 12
238 Can libvdpau go in Fedora?
For
On 08/18/2009 08:17 AM, Stepan Kasal wrote:
(The term perl-minimal would go nicely along with our
vim-minimal and Debian's python-minimal and php-minimal.
But vim-minimal is not required by vim-enhanced.
And Debian does not use perl-minimal; perhaps perl-base predates
the other *-minimal
On 08/06/2009 04:39 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
After requesting status updates, including direct email to the feature
owners, the following feature pages do not have a current status or their
ability to tested during the Alpha is unclear based on the lack of
information provided or
On 08/10/2009 12:15 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
spot:BADSOURCE:chemoelectric_-_Goudy_Bookletter_1.zip:oflb-goudy-bookletter-1911-fonts
Not sure why this failed. I confirmed that the .zip file available from
the site is identical to the one in the lookaside.
spot:BADSOURCE:daa2iso.zip:daa2iso
Fixed
The Fedora Community (and Moksha) efforts have a regular public meeting
at 1400 UTC every Monday. We invite interested parties to participate in
our meeting.
You can join our meeting via Fedora Talk, extension 2001. For more
information about Fedora Talk, see:
http://talk.fedoraproject.org/
Our
On 08/17/2009 11:49 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
This would make sense to me. Do consumers of openal not make use of the
pkgconfig files? If not, do they use configure scripts that make it
easy to do this?
In the case of my package which uses openal (alienarean), it dlopens the
openal
On 08/17/2009 09:21 AM, Stepan Kasal wrote:
I see no change that would significantly improve our overall image
and thus I would stay with the current state, which at least
minimizes the surprises.
I'm not sure that it does.
Right now, perl-core installs everything that comes with the perl
On 08/17/2009 12:42 PM, Stepan Kasal wrote:
perl-core installs perl+core, i.e. the perl interpreter plus all the
core modules. So I see _some_ logic behind that.
Well, I like to think that I tried to put some logic behind it
originally, but I think this is a better logic. :)
I still think
Out of the thread on p5p, I'd like to propose the following changes for
F-12:
* Rename perl-core to perl
* Rename perl to perl-minimal
The biggest change here is that there are still packages which Require:
perl, usually to specify a specific minimal version. Here is a list of
rawhide packages
On 08/14/2009 10:49 PM, C.J. Adams-Collier wrote:
Hey all,
We (the Debian CLI Libraries Team) are packaging IronRuby, IronPython
and the Dynamic Language Runtime for Debian. Much of the source in this
package is released under the Microsoft Public License:
or on p5p.
Thanks,
Tom spot Callaway
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
Fedora-perl-devel-list mailing list
Fedora-perl-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-perl-devel-list
On 08/08/2009 07:52 AM, Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) wrote:
On 08/08/09 12:53, Gregory Hosler wrote:
Frank Murphy (Frankly3D) wrote:
On 08/08/09 12:37, Gregory Hosler wrote:
The printer is attached to a windows box. At the time of running
system-config-printer,
the windows box is on.
This
On 08/08/2009 06:15 PM, Mike Chambers wrote:
I take it
known problem already? Have anything to do with the boxes on the panel
in the notification area being there instead of the device icons?
Don't assume it is a known problem. Search bugzilla to see if you can
find the same bug already
1 - 100 of 282 matches
Mail list logo
