Re: DNF: why does it refresh metadata all the time

You might want to review: http://akozumpl.github.io/dnf/user_faq.html It contains information on how to disable the automatic metadata updates... On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: why does DNF refresh metadata in background? that has no benefit,

Re: DNF: why does it refresh metadata all the time

FYI... update is a deprecated alias for the upgrade command​, and has been for a couple of years. Don't know when they're going to phase it out, but probably a good idea to switch over to get used to it. Also, to make the changes more permanent, add the following lines to /etc/dnf/dnf.conf

Re: DNF: why does it refresh metadata all the time

On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:33 PM, J. Randall Owens jrowens.fed...@ghiapet.net wrote: On a bit of a tangent, per the current yum-3.4.3 man page: upgrade Is the same as the update command with the --obsoletes flag set. See update for more details. We're

Re: dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings

On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: many people stops reading fdl, because of all the flaming and people trash talking each other and that is sad for Fedora :-( Thank you. No one likes trolling. It should be obvious that if you start removing

Re: dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings

:02, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: On Sat, Jun 21, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Tim Lauridsen tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: many people stops reading fdl, because of all the flaming and people trash talking each other and that is sad for Fedora :-( Thank you. No one likes trolling

Re: dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings

I think there are much more important things to be concerned about than: 1. Childproofing software. 2. Writing software to protect against software bugs. DNF already requires that you have root privileges, in addition to requiring you to answer Yes to apply changes. Those safeguards are more

Re: dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings

This has got to be the silliest thing I've ever seen, but whatever. You enter the command dnf remove dnf, and guess what? It removes dnf. You enter the command dnf remove kernel, and guess what, it removes the kernel. What a concept, it does what you tell it to do. Not withstanding the fact

Re: dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 9:13 AM, Mattia Verga mattia.ve...@tiscali.it wrote: I know that a pistol can be dangerous and I can even shoot myself. I keep it in a place where childrens can't reach it, so why bothering with a safety lock? It can be cheaper making the pistol without it... Sigh A

Re: dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings

On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: *stop* to insult people It's not insulting people to state facts. Just because you are on this ridiculous tirade doesn't mean that people aren't allow to push back on this insanity. I've read your posts, and if

Re: dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings

You're reply is wrong on so many levels I just don't know where to begin. Suffice to say if you continue to clutter up the forum with nonsense I will push back. On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 23.06.2014 19:30, schrieb Gerald B. Cox: On Mon

Re: dnf even allows to uninstall RPM and systemd without warnings

przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: On 06/23/2014 11:51 AM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: This has got to be the silliest thing I've ever seen, but whatever. You enter the command dnf remove dnf, and guess what? It removes dnf. You enter the command dnf remove kernel, and guess what, it removes

Re: No more deltarpms by default

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 8:00 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote: I am not convinced that being fast and download less are mutually exclusive when using deltas. So we should keep deltas *and* make them faster. Exactly. The fact that some users have more bandwidth means exactly what? Most

Re: No more deltarpms by default

that everyone has great amounts of bandwidth available is erroneous. You've also got it backwards. Deltarpm is the default. If you want to change it, you need to convince the Fedora community. On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Florian Festi ffe...@redhat.com wrote: On 10/06/2014 05:16 PM, Gerald B. Cox

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Gene Czarcinski gczarcin...@gmail.com wrote: However, there are some things that could be done to make it easier for those of us who want to make it easier to install Fedora onto a btrfs filesystem. My point was that unless and until there is more support for

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

, James Hogarth james.hoga...@gmail.com wrote: On 7 Oct 2014 16:05, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Gene Czarcinski gczarcin...@gmail.com wrote: However, there are some things that could be done to make it easier for those of us who want to make

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Right... no single person is saying both things. We don't have split-personality disorder here. ROFL... Thanks for the clarification. Don't get me wrong though...I've very excited about BTRFS; and looking forward

Re: btrfs as default filesystem for F22?

it is not. On Oct 7, 2014 3:05 PM, Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote: On Tue, 2014-10-07 at 13:24 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 1:19 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: Thanks James... I am aware of all the warnings. They might as well put up a skull crossbones

Re: Dash as default shell

My thought is this whole topic was started as a result of the recent Bash vulnerability which has since been corrected. Not bad for a product that has been around for decades. Nothing against Dash, but changing a default isn't something that should be done each time the wind changes direction. A

Re: Giving away all of my packages

I've got Sphinx... Will bump it at the end of the month when I get home. On Oct 9, 2014 11:13 AM, Christof Damian chris...@damian.net wrote: Thanks Shawn. And more thanks also go to Remi and you for mentoring me and being patient with me learning the packaging process. Remaining packages up

Re: No more deltarpms by default

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:00 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: And parallelization (as others in the thread have suggested) will not help at all on the single-core machine I'm typing this on. Single-Core? Really Kevin? Even the One Laptop Per Child machines are dual-core. ;-)

Re: No more deltarpms by default

bother me if it takes a few more minutes to update my system. I do it when I'm sleeping anyway. On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Felix Miata mrma...@earthlink.net wrote: Gerald B. Cox composed on 2014-10-16 12:52 (UTC-0700): Kevin Kofler wrote: And parallelization (as others

Re: No more deltarpms by default

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Tom Rivers t...@impact-crater.com wrote: If the proper configuration can be determined automagically, then by all means just do it. My point is that users aren't too stupid to understand bandwidth/processor considerations. The configuration of how much

Re: No more deltarpms by default

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 9:58 AM, Tom Rivers t...@impact-crater.com wrote: My point was to say Linux users are usually more tech savvy than XBox and Playstation users. If they say they have a high speed connection and they don't and that decision ends up costing them more money in ISP costs,

Re: Mozilla enabled ads in Firefox and they're active in Fedora

I went back and reviewed Fedora Forbidden Items https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items?rd=ForbiddenItems and saw nothing that applied to the situation with Firefox. While I agree with the statement: The concerns raised are that the default configuration is an opt-out vs. opt-in model of

Re: Mozilla enabled ads in Firefox and they're active in Fedora

People keep bringing up policy violations, but when asked you either get crickets or the subject slightly changed. The only policy that I could find that might apply would be Fedora Forbidden Items https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items?rd=ForbiddenItems and if you read it, you'll find

Re: Mozilla enabled ads in Firefox and they're active in Fedora

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: forget it Yup, that really perfectly sums it up. The introduction of ads by Mozilla breaks no Fedora policy, period, end of story. Notwithstanding the fact that they are unobtrusive and ridiculously simple to

Re: Mozilla enabled ads in Firefox and they're active in Fedora

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com wrote: I believe M$ made good experience with ballot screen, may be we should implement something similar in open source spirit ;) If we do not want Firefox as default, this seems to be much better option than just replacing it

Re: Mozilla enabled ads in Firefox and they're active in Fedora

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:25 AM, Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com wrote: Based on the aforementioned, I think it's infinitely easier to fix Firefox than push for Chromium. I am aware of bugs you mentioned. The fact remains that Chromium is the only viable alternative to Firefox... so if we're

Re: Mozilla enabled ads in Firefox and they're active in Fedora

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 9:40 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: *but* please avoid FUD and paranoia and claim upstream unstrustable until you can prove that instead of assume it Exactly! Thank you! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Mozilla enabled ads in Firefox and they're active in Fedora

On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 7:44 AM, Martin Stransky stran...@redhat.com wrote: That's still much better than Chrome where the price (user tracking) is hidden and you can't disable it. Well, Chrome isn't an option for Fedora due to proprietary portions... however, there is the Chromium project

Re: Request to take over orphaned python-mutagen

That's a good thing. Looking forward to seeing the new version made available which now supports Python3. Thanks Michele! On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:21 AM, Michele Baldessari mich...@acksyn.org wrote: Hi all, as per [1], I'd like to take over the orphaned python-mutagen package. Let me know

Re: chromium

On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 8:33 AM, john.tiger john.tigernas...@gmail.com wrote: Also as developers, we need to work with all browsers. If you're concerned about keeping your applications working with Chrome your best bet would be to install google-chrome-unstable to stay on the forefront of

Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

I was wanting to play around with F2FS about 6 months ago, found it wasn't yet included in the F20 kernel (even though Fedora packages f2fs-tools?). I did a quick search and found some comments basically saying it was under heavy development, stay away, etc. etc. so I kinda forgot about it. Today

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

or...@cora.nwra.com wrote: On 12/21/2014 07:48 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: I was wanting to play around with F2FS about 6 months ago, found it wasn't yet included in the F20 kernel (even though Fedora packages f2fs-tools?). I did a quick search and found some comments basically saying it was under heavy

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

which prides itself on having the latest and greatest doesn't have it. Sorry if my tone was overly aggressive... it's just very disappointing. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:16 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: Yes, I

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 8:16 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Really? It's very disappointing that a single module that isn't used for anything in Fedora itself is disabled? I understand the desire to want to tinker, but to be very disappointed in this is... well it's odd.

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Is there any hardware out there that uses it? Aside from the hardware already mentioned in this thread, which Fedora doesn't run on, there might be some generic ARM boards that could use it. One use that quickly

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 9:29 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Ah. I see. To you this is just a single instance of some wider problem. Sure, OK. I'm not comfortable flipping on random filesystems as soon as they show up. Similarly, I don't think it's helpful to enable

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

it on, or explain why not. People can then judge for themselves. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Well, I don't think the majority of folks would agree that F2FS is some random filesystem. You'll

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

. They have all the information they need to make an informed decision. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: Hi On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: The XFStest scenario assumes that Fedora is being somewhat innovative... in this instance

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote: No they do not have all the information needed. What they know is that some other distribution ships it and that it works in a device using a custom kernel. How does it work on a normal drive, how does it not work,

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: *wow* and i am accused to be abusive repeatly? LOL... Yeah, it's kind of hard to gauge when to just shut-up in this group. I don't believe that I said anything abusive, and that was not my intent. If I hurt someones

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

Please accept my apologies. My initial post was sufficient to make my point. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: On Mon, 2014-12-22 at 11:57 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Your post had sufficient information for us to reevaluate F2FS, yes. Thanks for that. You're very welcome. Glad I could help. Thanks for keeping an open mind and taking the time to reevaluate. It is much

Incorrect FSF Address error from rpmlint

I'm getting an incorrect FSF address when I'm building a package. I checked here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address and built the package with the recommended file. Still get the error. I checked the address with FSF, and what is in the COPYING file

Re: Incorrect FSF Address error from rpmlint

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: The check is not only applied to COPYING but also to the license text in source files. Have you checked those? Got it. Thanks! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Incorrect FSF Address error from rpmlint

is actually required. On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 11:28 -0800, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Am I missing something here? What package are you building, and what is the output from rpmlint? That would help. It should point you

Re: Incorrect FSF Address error from rpmlint

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: BTW, in many cases I been able to fix these problems by sending patches rather than just complaints upstream. Basically, I think we (i. e. Fedora) are the which are concerned about this, and in that situation we are the

Re: Incorrect FSF Address error from rpmlint

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Matěj Cepl mc...@cepl.eu wrote: However, I don't think that the “How to use GNU license for your own software” has any contractual significance whatsoever in using, so I don’t see anything bad in upgrading even the instructions for GPLv2 to the Internet age

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 3:00 AM, Matěj Cepl mc...@cepl.eu wrote: I think you are a smart guy so you know better as well than ask somebody else to work for you on your pet project. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Building_a_custom_kernel Thanks for the link, I'll take a look at it. I don't

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 2:00 PM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: UDF has been in the best position to do this for ~ 20 years, seeing as it has had Windows, OS X, and linux distro support for most of that time frame. And yet it didn't supplant FAT or NTFS on flash media on any

Re: Koji build failure: noarch vs. arch?

PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: I found the bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141513 On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:44 PM, gil punto...@libero.it wrote: a fix for this problem is: (see http

Re: Koji build failure: noarch vs. arch?

I found the bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141513 On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:44 PM, gil punto...@libero.it wrote: a fix for this problem is: (see http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/java-service

Re: Koji build failure: noarch vs. arch?

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 2:44 PM, gil punto...@libero.it wrote: a fix for this problem is: (see http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/java-service-wrapper.git/tree/java-service-wrapper.spec ) # rpmbuild 4.6 support %if ! 0%{?__isa_bits} %ifarch x86_64 ia64 ppc64 sparc64 s390x alpha ppc64le

Re: Btrfs as default filesystem for Fedora 23?

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Neal Gompa ngomp...@gmail.com wrote: As I recall, Josef Bacik mentioned that he'd be pushing for Btrfs becoming the default in Fedora 23 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2014-October/203058.html . At this point, I'm personally convinced that it

Re: Packaging Guidelines for Applications using Git Submodules

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: I'll also post here first for comment before I spin their wheels. Here is the URL for my changes to the SourceURL guideline. I'm interested in comments before I submit to FPC. Thanks! https://fedoraproject.org/wiki

Re: Better irc policies?

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Andreas Tunek andreas.tu...@gmail.com wrote: Yeah, you have to do a lot of quite complicated stuff before you can register and get any support via irc. To register to this mailing list you just send an email (or can you fill in a form as well). Complicated is

Re: Better irc policies?

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Andreas Tunek andreas.tu...@gmail.com wrote: This is the actual instruction for registering taken from here: https://freenode.net/faq.shtml#nicksetup *Same instructions my link is a paragraph above so people could understand the why register part.*

Re: Better irc policies?

On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Chaoyi Zha cydrob...@fedoraproject.org wrote: certainly increases the barrier to something newbies or those trying out may not be willing to commit. Here are the instructions on how to register your nick: https://freenode.net/faq.shtml#userregistration The

Re: Packaging Guidelines for Applications using Git Submodules

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: Maybe this is a GitHub-specific problem. If the submodule files are not present in the archive, then archive cannot be intended to be used I searched and found many people were complaining about it a few years

Re: Packaging Guidelines for Applications using Git Submodules

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 9:43 AM, Colin Walters walt...@verbum.org wrote: My projects copy around some code to recursively archive. Thanks Colin, I'll take a look. I plan on documenting all the various working methods that come up in this thread and submitting them to FPC for their

Packaging Guidelines for Applications using Git Submodules

I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle the situation where a project decides to use submodules in Git. The archive generated doesn't incorporate the submodule files. I've done some searching on this, and haven't really come up with much. I've reviewed: Packaging:Github

Re: fedup for F23 and beyond

On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 12:58 PM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: ...we can stop branding our releases with a version number...we still have the six-month cycle, but this is hidden to users...this is the model Windows is moving to... As Josh alluded, I'm not exactly clear on

Re: fedup for F23 and beyond

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: ...our primary competitor is doing it in the near future... ...we cannot head towards a future where all of our applications are older than what Ubuntu is shipping... I'm failing to connect the dots here... snappy

Re: fedup for F23 and beyond

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: The point is that you can update to the newest versions of applications as they are released upstream, without having to worry about whether there could be incompatibilities with system libraries. Well, someone

AppData Guidelines

I've reviewed Packaging:AppData https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AppData and have some questions. When running fedpkg lint, I receive:*copyq.x86_64: E: invalid-appdata-file /usr/share/appdata/copyq.appdata.xml* I then issue appstream-util validate copyq.appdata.xml and receive:

Re: fedup for F23 and beyond

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Right, so... let's make the package managers keep the mess clean _even in this case_. Well, I don't know if I would use the term mess - but snappy would be a paradigm shift. That in and of itself isn't

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Packaging Guidelines for Applications using Git Submodules

Thanks Kevin, I'm working on a draft to add submodule examples to the guidelines. That was helpful. I appreciate you taking the time to post. On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 3:48 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Gerald B. Cox wrote: I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle

Re: Rapid release for security updates

On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 6:33 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040...@freenet.de wrote: critical packages should have a sufficient number of co-maintainers, who should be presumed to be sufficiently familiar with a package to provide enough karma, which would allow such packages to pass quickly Good

Re: Rawhide plans

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu wrote: Kevin Fenzi wrote: * Matt opened a thread on the marketing list about renaming rawhide. It sounds like most people would prefer us to make the changes first, then and only then look at renaming.

Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

There has been a lively discussion within KDE regarding the Konqueror browser; and subsequently it has been decided that a non-KDE, GTK browser will be the default for the spin. Why, because Firefox is the only choice for Fedora, Chromium is not allowed. Here is a good excerpt: On Tue, Aug 11,

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Gerald B. Cox gb...@bzb.us wrote: On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@splat.cc wrote: FWIW, I installed that build from koji a few days ago. It crashed every 15 minutes or so. Hence, I assumed the reason it's not in Bodhi

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:36 PM, Bill Nottingham nott...@splat.cc wrote: FWIW, I installed that build from koji a few days ago. It crashed every 15 minutes or so. Hence, I assumed the reason it's not in Bodhi was intentional. I haven't had any issues with it if you did, you should

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 11:28 AM, Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net wrote: What packaging exceptions are being made for Firefox? They can be found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Daniel Pocock dan...@pocock.pro wrote: To understand the work this has created for Debian users and maintainers, you may want to review this bug report which has ultimately been traced to bundled library issues:

Re: Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Jiri Eischmann eischm...@redhat.com wrote: And how would Chromium make this particular situation better? It looks even less integrated in KDE than Firefox. Nevertheless, it looks like we will need to find a solution to this because Qt developers have decided

DNF Changes causing fedora-review errors

I ran across this while doing a fedora-review: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/gap/pkg/aclib/gap(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No), /usr/lib/gap/pkg/aclib/htm(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are,

Re: Improving our processes for new contributors.

On Sun, Jul 12, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to wrote: One way to do this that is a varient on some other suggestions, is to have would be co-maintainers do re-reviews of packages they are interested in co-maintaining. Spec files can gain cruft or not be kept fully compliant

Re: What's the current status of mp3-licensing issues?

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Haïkel wrote: > Besides, determining when a patent expires is not that easy and Fedora > Legal is backed by skilled lawyers that said the contrary. Unless Fedora > Legal confirms your theory (which I doubt), it's useless to discuss this

Re: What's the current status of mp3-licensing issues?

On Sun, Nov 15, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Naheem Zaffar wrote: > People have moved past vorbis and into the world of Opus. Even MP3 is more > for the vast amounts of legacy content - most current content will be AACL. My understand is that Opus excels at lower bitrates; above

Re: Fedora 23 Final RC10 status is GO !

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Jonathan Underwood < jonathan.underw...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think it is to some extent a question of what we are QA'ing for. As > I see it (and I may be in the minority), the QA process is a process > put in place to ensure the *install and live media* function >

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 10/09/2015 03:51 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:50:27PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> >>> This opens the door to all kinds of duplication, waste of disk space, waste of

Re: DNF Issue, packages being incorrectly removed - was: Re: corebird

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Sérgio Basto <ser...@serjux.com> wrote: > On Ter, 2016-05-24 at 09:15 -0700, Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > Changing the subject title. Previous subject archive is here: https > > ://goo.gl/erzW2s > > > > I don't know if you are aw

Re: DNF Issue, packages being incorrectly removed - was: Re: corebird

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:20 PM, James Hogarth wrote: > I'm not entirely certain of the answer to that, though it should be quick > to test when I get to a machine later. > > But in terms of efficiencies reinstall does a full reinstall of the > package, including

Re: DNF Issue, packages being incorrectly removed - was: Re: corebird

On Sat, May 28, 2016 at 9:04 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > Huh? The bug has multiple comments referring to dnf mark install to set a > package to user installed (eg comment 4) and the actual bug text says to > call dnf mark install ... Yeah, it refers to it, but seems to

Re: DNF Issue, packages being incorrectly removed - was: Re: corebird

On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 3:02 AM, Michal Luscon wrote: > This might have been caused by > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1259865 > > . > > Michal > Yes, Kevin mentioned that and it is in the other thread (corebird). I'm just wondering if this is something that

Re: DNF Issue, packages being incorrectly removed - was: Re: corebird

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:15 AM, James Hogarth wrote: > On the bug you said a dnf reinstall ... that's not the best thing to do... > you need to dnf mark installed as per the earlier comments on the bug Wouldn't the reinstall accomplish that? I agree, the solution in

Re: DNF Issue, packages being incorrectly removed - was: Re: corebird

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 12:41 AM, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > It is actually documented here: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F24_bugs#DNF_might_remove_essential_system_packages_if_you_used_PackageKit_.28GNOME_Software.2C_KDE_Apper.29_in_the_past > > Thanks, I

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Challenge for the marketing folks: can we get these tech journalism > sites writing about Flatpak instead? About GNOME Software's new support > for displaying and installing Flatpaks in F24? Otherwise, I see >

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote: > > KDE has been interested in Flatpak for over a year. They even have a > KDE runtime and a couple of KDE apps packaged: > https://community.kde.org/Flatpak That's a good thing...but I noticed that the page you

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Ben Rosser wrote: > In my vision of the future, we'd ship flatpaks and friends as a supplement > to, but not as a replacement of, RPMs. In fact, we'd go the other way. If > some GUI application was install-able as a flatpak in Fedora, and

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 4:07 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > LLNL is still actively involved in the ZFS on Linux project, so they > are still doing something with it. > Correct, and that can be discovered with a Google search - which found this:

Re: ZFS on linux

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:16 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > It depends on exactly what FSF knows and how Canonical is planning to do > this. It is not safe to assume FSF is even aware of all the details here. > If you want FSF's opinion, they have a public contact address for

Re: ZFS on linux

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Right. See also: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items#cdrtools > > > for another case where an upstream attempted mixing GPL and CDDL code, and > Red Hat Legal's and the FSF's stance on it. > Kevin, I

Re: ZFS on linux

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > The benchmark if it's legal to include something in Fedora is > what Fedora Legal says. > I basically would agree with everything you stated, except I would change the sentence to read: "The benchmark if it's

Re: ZFS on linux

On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > I can't image anyone misinterpreting my statement that way, but yes, I > was not trying to suggest anything anyone else does is legal or not, > simply that any inclusion in Fedora would need approval of Fedora legal > and

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:25 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Here is a simple if then for figuring out how ZFS support may ever get > into Fedora: I originally believed it was simply a licensing issue that was preventing the inclusion in Fedora, but apparently that isn't

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > As a rule, I try not to take legal licensing interpretations from a CTO > who's trying to sell me the thing they're talking about the licensing of. > > We certainly could send that interpretation of CDDL/GPL and the

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 11:14 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > ZFS cannot be included in the GPL-licensed Linux kernel, because it is > licensed under the GPL-incompatible CDDL Harald, you missed the point. We all understand it cannot be included in the kernel - we're

Re: ZFS on linux

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:57 AM, Gerald B. Cox <gb...@bzb.us> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:45 AM, Bill Nottingham <nott...@splat.cc> > wrote: > >> As a rule, I try not to take legal licensing interpretations from a CTO >> who's trying to sell m

  1   2   3   4   >