On Thu, 28 May 2015 23:31:11 -0700
Joe Zeff j...@zeff.us wrote:
On 05/28/2015 08:15 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
How? boost-terminal isn't in the hypothetical current release, so
there's nothing to check.
How? maintain some sort of backward compatibility so that you don't
need to check
Allegedly, on or about 28 May 2015, Joe Zeff sent:
Back when I first installed an nVidia card, akmod-nvidia depended on
kernel-devel (or maybe kernel-headers; I forget which) but that wasn't
part of the rpm's list of dependencies. You just had to know that it
needed to be installed, or find
On 05/28/2015 10:25 PM, jd1008 wrote:
Your reply is indeed a serious flaw in your type of mentality
and is a strong contributer to the problem at hand.
Your assumptions about what I think of the developers are utterly
flawed!!!
Excuse me JD, but your wording was really like an unjustified
On 05/28/2015 08:50 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
You started out with an example of Foo, a dependency of Bar, or in other
words Bar depends on Foo. You now are talking about things that Foo
depends on. Rather than change the relationship you started with, I'm
going to pretend that you meant that
On 05/28/2015 05:26 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Listed? Where? And again, why obligated?
In the package itself. Back when I first installed an nVidia card,
akmod-nvidia depended on kernel-devel (or maybe kernel-headers; I forget
which) but that wasn't part of the rpm's list of dependencies.
On 05/28/2015 08:15 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
How? boost-terminal isn't in the hypothetical current release, so
there's nothing to check.
How? maintain some sort of backward compatibility so that you don't
need to check package-by-package to find out what you're breaking.
--
users mailing
On 05/28/2015 11:31 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
On 05/28/2015 08:15 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
How? boost-terminal isn't in the hypothetical current release, so
there's nothing to check.
How? maintain some sort of backward compatibility so that you don't
need to check package-by-package to find out
On 05/29/2015 07:57 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
I really have to believe that you haven't done any packaging or
development at this point.
Well, I certainly haven't done any programming in about thirty years,
but I did work on some projects at JPL including one that needed us to
do pointer
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:26:12AM -0600, jd1008 wrote:
One of the reasons why users wince at the prospect of upgrading is the
numerous problems being encountered.
snip
Fedora is not a normal Linux distro. It's bleeding edge. Updates come
fast and furious; there's no such thing as LTS.
If
On 05/28/2015 03:09 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
I don't have a good example, so let's illustrate that hypothetically.
Let's say Fedora includes a terminal application written with boost
libraries, boost-terminal. That application requires boost version
1.53, which was included in the release with
On 05/28/2015 12:36 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Before Fedora 22 was released all packages with broken dependencies
were fixed or retired/removed. It's part of the release process now.
When released, there were no known broken dependencies.
jd1008's message was difficult to interpret, but I *think*
On Thu, 28 May 2015 11:26:12 -0600
jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Some of these problems seem to stem from the fact that not all
installed rpms of the current release (let's say 21) are made
available in f22.
[snip]
So, I am wondering if the thought has even crossed the minds of the
One of the reasons why users wince at the prospect of upgrading is the
numerous problems being encountered.
Some of these problems seem to stem from the fact that not all installed
rpms of the current release (let's say 21) are made available in f22.
Now the user mosies on thinking all is well.
On 05/28/2015 01:07 PM, stan wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2015 11:26:12 -0600
jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
Some of these problems seem to stem from the fact that not all
installed rpms of the current release (let's say 21) are made
available in f22.
[snip]
So, I am wondering if the
On Thu, 28 May 2015 11:26:12 -0600
jd1008 jd1...@gmail.com wrote:
One of the reasons why users wince at the prospect of upgrading is the
numerous problems being encountered.
Well, lots and lots of people aren't having any problems at all too.
Of course no matter how we strive there's not
On 05/28/2015 04:30 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Some things to consider:
A. If someone packages software into Fedora, are they obligated to
maintain all current and future software which might depend on it
in perpetuity?
B. If so, should that maintainer be allowed to veto the
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:43:42PM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
A. If someone packages software into Fedora, are they obligated to
maintain all current and future software which might depend on it
in perpetuity?
I vote no to both. A is clearly a straw-man argument. If you are
On 05/28/2015 04:31 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Other distros are certainly_more_ bleeding edge. Our goal is to be
leading, but to avoid that blood. It's a delicate balance!
Really? Which ones are you thinking of? Enquiring minds want to *Know!*
--
users mailing list
On 05/28/2015 04:43 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
If you are
maintaining package Foo, which is a dependency of Bar, you have no
obligation to support Bar. You do, however, have an obligation to make
an effort to support backward compatibility in Foo
You're already mixing several different roles into
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 03:21:14PM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
What you're saying is, in effect, that boost 1.54 breaks backward
compatibility and boost-terminal isn't going to get upgraded. Isn't
it up to boost's maintainer to see to it that this doesn't become an
issue? (Yes, we all know of
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 04:44:31PM -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
Other distros are certainly_more_ bleeding edge. Our goal is to be
leading, but to avoid that blood. It's a delicate balance!
Really? Which ones are you thinking of? Enquiring minds want to *Know!*
I was thinking specifically of
On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 05:43:48PM -0500, Dave Ihnat wrote:
Fedora is not a normal Linux distro. It's bleeding edge. Updates come
fast and furious; there's no such thing as LTS.
If you want more stability, use another distro. Accept that you won't have
the latest'n'greatest releases of
On 05/28/2015 03:21 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
What you're saying is, in effect, that boost 1.54 breaks backward
compatibility and boost-terminal isn't going to get upgraded.
Yes.
Isn't it
up to boost's maintainer to see to it that this doesn't become an issue?
How? boost-terminal isn't in the
On 2015-05-28 21:15, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 05/28/2015 03:21 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
What you're saying is, in effect, that boost 1.54 breaks backward
compatibility and boost-terminal isn't going to get upgraded.
Yes.
Isn't it
up to boost's maintainer to see to it that this doesn't become an
24 matches
Mail list logo
