Re: Another unannounced soname bump: libseccomp
Kevin Fenzi wrote: > We need to: > > - Add messages to the broken deps report. (should be trivial). > > - Setup a process to look for these and do the bump/rebuild. It would > need some smarts to make sure that it didn't do this every single day > when it fails, etc. Possibly it could check for it's changelog and if > it was the last thing to try building it, bypass. I note that that wouldn't cover the case where library A's soname changes, library B depends on A, and program C depends on both A and B. Rebuilding C would fail unless a rebuilt B has had time to get into the buildroot, and the next day it wouldn't be retried. > - Ideally it would have some way to do a scratch build first and see if > the deps were fixed, but checking broken deps is not at all easy, so > that might be too much gravy. If it would do that, and retry the scratch build once a day, then it would eventually work its way through dependency chains. Björn Persson signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
glpk soname bump expected?
Looks like going from glpk 4.47 to 4.48 bumped the soname from libglpk.so.0 to libglpk.so.33. Something tells me this was not expected and is not correct. Can this be verified? -- Orion Poplawski Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA DivisionFAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane or...@cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Another unannounced soname bump: libseccomp
On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 15:05:53 -0600 Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 13:47:44 -0700, >Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > >- Setup a process to look for these and do the bump/rebuild. It would > > need some smarts to make sure that it didn't do this every single > > day when it fails, etc. Possibly it could check for it's changelog > > and if it was the last thing to try building it, bypass. > > Arguably you wouldn't want to try new builds were the git repo had > changed since the last successful build. And this would catch this > case if after the first try, the rebuild rebuild failed. Yep. Makes sense. ;) If someone wants to work on such a script, let me know. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Another unannounced soname bump: libseccomp
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 13:47:44 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: - Setup a process to look for these and do the bump/rebuild. It would need some smarts to make sure that it didn't do this every single day when it fails, etc. Possibly it could check for it's changelog and if it was the last thing to try building it, bypass. Arguably you wouldn't want to try new builds were the git repo had changed since the last successful build. And this would catch this case if after the first try, the rebuild rebuild failed. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Another unannounced soname bump: libseccomp
On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 16:10:34 +0100 Tom Callaway wrote: > On 01/29/2013 02:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > > So, just as a path for anyone who's interested to take a look down, > > I think we could potentially Do Something about all these > > unannounced soname bumps. > > Really, what we should do is this: > > * When a rawhide build results in new broken dependencies, we should > immediately (and automatically): > - Increment the release on each of the deps, commit, and try a > rebuild > > Surely, there will be cases which will need maintainer intervention, > but I believe there is ample evidence that the majority of these > cases just need a rebuild. Fedmsg should make this possible to do. > > I brought this up in the infrastructure room at FUDCon Lawrence, and > there seemed to be general consensus that this was not only possible, > but will be done, so I hope we will actually see this soon. :) Yep. I think we can get there, but just we aren't there yet. ;) We need to: - Add messages to the broken deps report. (should be trivial). - Setup a process to look for these and do the bump/rebuild. It would need some smarts to make sure that it didn't do this every single day when it fails, etc. Possibly it could check for it's changelog and if it was the last thing to try building it, bypass. - Ideally it would have some way to do a scratch build first and see if the deps were fixed, but checking broken deps is not at all easy, so that might be too much gravy. I think we can get there. ;) kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Public apology the community
Greetings everyone Last night I let my feelings getting best of me got drunk, went out of line, generally behaved dishonorably and in the process disrespected the community and the people in it. Giving everyone else the treatment I feel I have been treated in no way makes me be the better man quite the opposite in fact. So I would like everyone to accept my sincere apologies I was out of line and I'll try my best to ensure this does not happen again. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features
This thread is over. I'd like to ask everyone to take a few minutes to re-read: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct and get some away time from the discussion and think about things and how to approach discussions more constructively. Thanks, kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features
Hi On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 1:32 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > Then Rahul how about a wiki page about all the RH employees that are maintaining components in the distribution that have to vs >those that want to. If you want to, go ahead. Noone is stopping you. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Another unannounced soname bump: libseccomp
On 01/29/2013 02:24 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > So, just as a path for anyone who's interested to take a look down, I > think we could potentially Do Something about all these unannounced > soname bumps. Really, what we should do is this: * When a rawhide build results in new broken dependencies, we should immediately (and automatically): - Increment the release on each of the deps, commit, and try a rebuild Surely, there will be cases which will need maintainer intervention, but I believe there is ample evidence that the majority of these cases just need a rebuild. Fedmsg should make this possible to do. I brought this up in the infrastructure room at FUDCon Lawrence, and there seemed to be general consensus that this was not only possible, but will be done, so I hope we will actually see this soon. :) ~tom == Fedora Project -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Virtio RNG
Paolo Bonzini wrote: > If you're talking about RDRAND, it doesn't hand out entropy. That's > RDSEED, which will only come with Haswell. > > RDRAND only hands out random numbers. Huh? "Random numbers" is pretty much synonymous to "entropy" in the cryptographic language I'm used to. Ah, according to this: http://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2012/11/17/the-difference-between-rdrand-and-rdseed RDRAND doesn't output random numbers, only pseudorandom numbers. I suppose that's what you meant. Björn Persson signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Virtio RNG
Il 02/02/2013 00:40, Matthew Garrett ha scritto: > This patchset means that there's a /dev/hwrng available in the guest, so > you still need to run something like rngd to mix that into the kernel's > entropy pool. You're right that the total amount of entropy is still > limited to that available on the host, and it does make host-side > exhaustion more likely. There's not a lot that can be done about that > other than providing other sources of entropy, and long-term this is > going to be fixed once everyone's moved to Ivy Bridge and has an > unprivileged instruction to hand out entropy. If you're talking about RDRAND, it doesn't hand out entropy. That's RDSEED, which will only come with Haswell. RDRAND only hands out random numbers. We plan to add QEMU support for using RDRAND directly (with whitening, similar to rngd), but it is not in yet. Right now what you do is use rngd in the host to feed /dev/random with random numbers from RDRAND, connect /dev/random to virtio-rng. In either case, in the end the guest will have to run rngd to feed the entropy into virtio-rng. BTW, virtio-rng really only works well if you have a hardware RNG in the host. Otherwise, the host kernel will take too much time (a few minutes) before producing enough entropy to feed the FIPS tests in the guest, and during this time the host will be entropy-starved. Paolo >> Given FIPS paranoia about RNG sources, does this have knock-on effects in >> the FIPS compliance of guests depending on how it's fed in the host? > > I'm not convinced that you could currently claim with a straight face > that guests meet any sort of FIPS standard for random numbers. > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fairly serious GCC 4.8 Ada regression
Orion Poplawski wrote: > GCC 4.8 seems to have a fairly serious regression with regards to converting > Long_Float to Integer: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906516 > > There aren't many ada using packages in in Fedora, but this is affecting > plplot. Wow, that's a weird compiler bug. Your test program works for me if I change the conversion to Integer(Long_Long_Integer(R1)). Perhaps you could patch PLplot with that workaround while we wait for a fix to GCC? Björn Persson signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: gcc-4.8: error: invalid use of undefined type
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:33 AM, Julian Sikorski wrote: > Hi, > > I am having issues building mplayer using gcc-4.8. An updated srpm [1] > builds fine in mock for fedora-18-x86_64-rpmfusion_free target (when > chain-built with ffmpeg-1.1.1), but on > fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_free, it fails with the following error: > > libvo/vo_png.c: In function 'config': > libvo/vo_png.c:135:9: error: invalid use of undefined type 'enum > AVPixelFormat' > avctx->pix_fmt = imgfmt2pixfmt(format); > ^ > > Full build log is attached. How do I fix this issue? Thank you in advance. > First, it would be easier to get an answer from the mplayer or ffmpeg mailing lists. My second suggestion is to search for the definition of that enum (AVPixelFormat) and add an #include to the corresponding header file. Good luck, Orcan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
gcc-4.8: error: invalid use of undefined type
Hi, I am having issues building mplayer using gcc-4.8. An updated srpm [1] builds fine in mock for fedora-18-x86_64-rpmfusion_free target (when chain-built with ffmpeg-1.1.1), but on fedora-rawhide-x86_64-rpmfusion_free, it fails with the following error: libvo/vo_png.c: In function 'config': libvo/vo_png.c:135:9: error: invalid use of undefined type 'enum AVPixelFormat' avctx->pix_fmt = imgfmt2pixfmt(format); ^ Full build log is attached. How do I fix this issue? Thank you in advance. Best regards, Julian [1] http://lesloueizeh.com/belegdol/mplayer-1.1-5.20130123svn.fc19.src.rpm build.log.xz Description: application/xz -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features
On 02/02/2013 08:38 AM, David Tardon wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 08:19:29AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 02/02/2013 07:57 AM, David Tardon wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 07:24:39AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 02/02/2013 07:12 AM, David Tardon wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 06:20:18AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 02/02/2013 05:57 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
If you can't handle that, then Fedora development might not be the right
place for you.
Get the fuck out before you get in my business. If you want to test
me here I am deal with it because I wont back down not after the
treatment he has given me!
You have absolutely no idea what I have sacrificed for the project
and if you want to head down that road son realize I dont bark I
bite!
Chris Adams care to explain to me what the fuck you have been doing
all those years other than trying to play the tough boy?
Let's put your contribution to the test!
Congratulations! You have proved your "merit" once again. That personal
attack was uncalled for.
Was it?
Yes, it was.
He threaten me I responded.
Really? AFAICS you have been the only one threatening in this thread ("I
dont bark I bite").
Back me up to an wall I certainly will
But he did not propose to do anything of that sort. So this is not an
argument.
Care to share the link to his position at that time.
Feel free to use the internet archive let's analyze what stood in it,
I do not see how this could have any relevance to the matter.
Prove me wrong and I shall be the first to admit my wrong doing, my
mistake and apologize to all parties involved.
Since Chris' sentence "If you can't handle that, then Fedora development
might not be the right place for you." can hardly be considered an
attack (or a threat), I hereby claim that you are wrong and your harsh
response to him was uncalled for.
I guess that's all in the hands of the beholder
If you really see that sentence as a threat to you, in my opinion you
should seek a psychiatrist.
I guess the chances of me finding my sanity are as much as openoffice
and libreoffice getting migrated so I guess from that point we are
equally screwed ;)
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features
On 02/02/2013 08:41 AM, Michael Scherer wrote: Le samedi 02 février 2013 à 06:29 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" a écrit : On 02/02/2013 02:39 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 02.02.2013 03:08, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: When I meet a maintainer in the project that stated to me "I have to talk to my manager first" before upgrading his "component" that rings alarm bells to me, That gives me the feel that they are maintaining their components as a part of their job not because they want to scratch an itch and want to! jesus christ be gladful that companies like red hat are paying people for development of free software and if someone get paied for a job soemtimes he has to speak with his managers It's not like RH gives other company's the alternative to sponsor the project now does it Depend on what you mean by "sponsorship". If that's : "paying someone to work on it", there is. See people from puppetlabs, for the easiest to find example If that's : "paying for infrastructure", there is too. There is the mirrors, there is the servers, check the details with fedora-infrastructure, as I do not have the details right there. You even cant do that. Now, there is some areas where this could be more open such as security and legal, but that's highly sensitive topics due to the confidential nature of some of the work ( ie, not so easy to open ). And unless someone volunteer to do anything first, we will not be able to open more ( and trust me, just opening is not enough, you have to fix the process as people try to integrate, or that's just useless ). Now, if you have a suggestion on who want to sponsor fedora and why they couldn't, I would gladly discuss and try to see what could be improved. Trademark issues "Fedora" is trademarked and owned by FH I dont know about your parts but I grew up in environment where slavery is not accepted your definition of "slavery" is completly broken If an RH employee is maintainer is maintaining a component in the distribution and doing so because it's an part of his job but not because he want's to I call that slavery especially when he has to go to his manager to ask him if he is allowed to "upgrade" the component it to it's latest release. You can call it slavery as much as you want, that doesn't mean it is. Cf wikipedia : " "Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation." Comparing someone asking for advice for whatever reason to slavery is insult to those that died and still die today in much more horrible conditions that "sending a email to someone to see if that's ok". For that I apologies since I took slavery as forcing individual to do something he wanted not to do, Yes first hand I have experienced an RH employee that has said I need to speak to my manager before he could upgrade the component he was maintaining to the latest release and to me that's pretty fucking alarming Maybe the employee was just too shy or just wanted to check with someone with more experience about the distro ( or someone with a broader view ). Or maybe the employee just didn't know he could do it, or the impact, not all people working on RH are experienced packagers. Without any specific, your example are just unusable to anything but speculation. I cant reveal who it was without him being put in awkward situation We try to assume good faith in each others communication, and I hope you do as well. No based on experience it has turned quite the opposed path for me. I assume the worst in people and procedures that way I no longer get disappointed. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features
On 02/02/2013 08:31 AM, David Tardon wrote: On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 07:43:48AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 02/02/2013 07:33 AM, David Tardon wrote: On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 07:06:12AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 02/02/2013 07:03 AM, David Tardon wrote: On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 02:08:00AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: When I meet a maintainer in the project that stated to me "I have to talk to my manager first" before upgrading his "component" that rings alarm bells to me, That gives me the feel that they are maintaining their components as a part of their job not because they want to scratch an itch and want to! There is a third reason for maintaining a component: it is a dependency for another component the packager maintains. This is applicable for _all_ packagers, be they from Red Hat or the community. You either conveniently omitted this reason to make an argument or never thought of it, in which case I respectfully ask you to butt out of this thread because you do not know what you are talking about. Oh in my case it was an "primary" component no dependency that Red Hat maintainer could not update until he got approval but for the You generalized one specific case to _all components of all Red Hat maintainers_. When I rejected that generalization, you are counteracting by claiming that my argument does not apply for that one _specific_ case. Sorry, but that is a faulty reasoning. No i did not "generalized one specific case to _all components of all Red Hat" Yes, you did. Or how else do you interpret "That gives me the feel that they are maintaining their components as a part of their job not because they want to scratch an itch and want to!" That there exist individual that are maintaining components in Fedora not because they wan to but more because they have to as a part of their job. Something I had suspected for quite sometime for some time but in my case I was given the proof. And I also know yes granted an single individual that said he could not update his component in the project which he maintained without asking his "boss" before doing so which raises a whole bunch of questions Sure. For example: "Is he a new packager and does not realize that updating a component in Fedora does not involve the same process as in RHEL?" or "Is the update potentially dangerous and he wants to consult with someone more experienced?" (We still do not know who the packager was and which component it was.) I'm not going to reveal who that was. I am a lot of things but that guy I am not. What he told me in private mail is between me and him so keep fishing... JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features
Le samedi 02 février 2013 à 06:29 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" a écrit : > On 02/02/2013 02:39 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > > > Am 02.02.2013 03:08, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: > >> When I meet a maintainer in the project that stated to me "I have to talk > >> to my manager first" before upgrading his > >> "component" that rings alarm bells to me, That gives me the feel that they > >> are maintaining their components as a > >> part of their job not because they want to scratch an itch and want to! > > jesus christ be gladful that companies like red hat are > > paying people for development of free software and if > > someone get paied for a job soemtimes he has to speak > > with his managers > > It's not like RH gives other company's the alternative to sponsor the > project now does it Depend on what you mean by "sponsorship". If that's : "paying someone to work on it", there is. See people from puppetlabs, for the easiest to find example If that's : "paying for infrastructure", there is too. There is the mirrors, there is the servers, check the details with fedora-infrastructure, as I do not have the details right there. Now, there is some areas where this could be more open such as security and legal, but that's highly sensitive topics due to the confidential nature of some of the work ( ie, not so easy to open ). And unless someone volunteer to do anything first, we will not be able to open more ( and trust me, just opening is not enough, you have to fix the process as people try to integrate, or that's just useless ). Now, if you have a suggestion on who want to sponsor fedora and why they couldn't, I would gladly discuss and try to see what could be improved. > >> I dont know about your parts but I grew up in environment where slavery is > >> not accepted > > your definition of "slavery" is completly broken > > If an RH employee is maintainer is maintaining a component in the > distribution and doing so because it's an part of his job but not > because he want's to I call that slavery especially when he has to go to > his manager to ask him if he is allowed to "upgrade" the component it to > it's latest release. You can call it slavery as much as you want, that doesn't mean it is. Cf wikipedia : " "Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation." Comparing someone asking for advice for whatever reason to slavery is insult to those that died and still die today in much more horrible conditions that "sending a email to someone to see if that's ok". > Yes first hand I have experienced an RH employee > that has said I need to speak to my manager before he could upgrade the > component he was maintaining to the latest release and to me that's > pretty fucking alarming Maybe the employee was just too shy or just wanted to check with someone with more experience about the distro ( or someone with a broader view ). Or maybe the employee just didn't know he could do it, or the impact, not all people working on RH are experienced packagers. Without any specific, your example are just unusable to anything but speculation. We try to assume good faith in each others communication, and I hope you do as well. -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 08:19:29AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 02/02/2013 07:57 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> >On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 07:24:39AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >>On 02/02/2013 07:12 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> >>>On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 06:20:18AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 02/02/2013 05:57 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> >If you can't handle that, then Fedora development might not be the right
> >place for you.
> >
> Get the fuck out before you get in my business. If you want to test
> me here I am deal with it because I wont back down not after the
> treatment he has given me!
>
> You have absolutely no idea what I have sacrificed for the project
> and if you want to head down that road son realize I dont bark I
> bite!
>
> Chris Adams care to explain to me what the fuck you have been doing
> all those years other than trying to play the tough boy?
>
> Let's put your contribution to the test!
> >>>Congratulations! You have proved your "merit" once again. That personal
> >>>attack was uncalled for.
> >>Was it?
> >Yes, it was.
> >
> >>He threaten me I responded.
> >Really? AFAICS you have been the only one threatening in this thread ("I
> >dont bark I bite").
>
> Back me up to an wall I certainly will
But he did not propose to do anything of that sort. So this is not an
argument.
> >
> >>Care to share the link to his position at that time.
> >>
> >>Feel free to use the internet archive let's analyze what stood in it,
> >I do not see how this could have any relevance to the matter.
> >
> >>Prove me wrong and I shall be the first to admit my wrong doing, my
> >>mistake and apologize to all parties involved.
> >Since Chris' sentence "If you can't handle that, then Fedora development
> >might not be the right place for you." can hardly be considered an
> >attack (or a threat), I hereby claim that you are wrong and your harsh
> >response to him was uncalled for.
>
> I guess that's all in the hands of the beholder
If you really see that sentence as a threat to you, in my opinion you
should seek a psychiatrist.
D.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 07:43:48AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 02/02/2013 07:33 AM, David Tardon wrote: > >On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 07:06:12AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >>On 02/02/2013 07:03 AM, David Tardon wrote: > >>>On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 02:08:00AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > When I meet a maintainer in the project that stated to me "I have to > talk to my manager first" before upgrading his "component" that > rings alarm bells to me, That gives me the feel that they are > maintaining their components as a part of their job not because they > want to scratch an itch and want to! > >>>There is a third reason for maintaining a component: it is a dependency > >>>for another component the packager maintains. This is applicable for > >>>_all_ packagers, be they from Red Hat or the community. You either > >>>conveniently omitted this reason to make an argument or never thought of > >>>it, in which case I respectfully ask you to butt out of this thread > >>>because you do not know what you are talking about. > >>Oh in my case it was an "primary" component no dependency that Red > >>Hat maintainer could not update until he got approval but for the > >You generalized one specific case to _all components of all Red Hat > >maintainers_. When I rejected that generalization, you are counteracting > >by claiming that my argument does not apply for that one _specific_ > >case. Sorry, but that is a faulty reasoning. > > No i did not "generalized one specific case to _all components of > all Red Hat" Yes, you did. Or how else do you interpret "That gives me the feel that they are maintaining their components as a part of their job not because they want to scratch an itch and want to!" > And I also know yes granted an single individual that said he could > not update his component in the project which he maintained without > asking his "boss" before doing so which raises a whole bunch of > questions Sure. For example: "Is he a new packager and does not realize that updating a component in Fedora does not involve the same process as in RHEL?" or "Is the update potentially dangerous and he wants to consult with someone more experienced?" (We still do not know who the packager was and which component it was.) D. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features
On 02/02/2013 07:57 AM, David Tardon wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 07:24:39AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 02/02/2013 07:12 AM, David Tardon wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 06:20:18AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 02/02/2013 05:57 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
If you can't handle that, then Fedora development might not be the right
place for you.
Get the fuck out before you get in my business. If you want to test
me here I am deal with it because I wont back down not after the
treatment he has given me!
You have absolutely no idea what I have sacrificed for the project
and if you want to head down that road son realize I dont bark I
bite!
Chris Adams care to explain to me what the fuck you have been doing
all those years other than trying to play the tough boy?
Let's put your contribution to the test!
Congratulations! You have proved your "merit" once again. That personal
attack was uncalled for.
Was it?
Yes, it was.
He threaten me I responded.
Really? AFAICS you have been the only one threatening in this thread ("I
dont bark I bite").
Back me up to an wall I certainly will
The position and do correct me if I'm wrong for Adam did not exist
before he got hired,
and he was not even hired from the community.
Ah, so your grievance is that Red Hat has hired Adam but not you.
God no losing James yes cry myself to a huge pillow every night
Care to share the link to his position at that time.
Feel free to use the internet archive let's analyze what stood in it,
I do not see how this could have any relevance to the matter.
Prove me wrong and I shall be the first to admit my wrong doing, my
mistake and apologize to all parties involved.
Since Chris' sentence "If you can't handle that, then Fedora development
might not be the right place for you." can hardly be considered an
attack (or a threat), I hereby claim that you are wrong and your harsh
response to him was uncalled for.
I guess that's all in the hands of the beholder
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features
On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 07:24:39AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 02/02/2013 07:12 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> >On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 06:20:18AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >>On 02/02/2013 05:57 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> >>>If you can't handle that, then Fedora development might not be the right
> >>>place for you.
> >>>
> >>Get the fuck out before you get in my business. If you want to test
> >>me here I am deal with it because I wont back down not after the
> >>treatment he has given me!
> >>
> >>You have absolutely no idea what I have sacrificed for the project
> >>and if you want to head down that road son realize I dont bark I
> >>bite!
> >>
> >>Chris Adams care to explain to me what the fuck you have been doing
> >>all those years other than trying to play the tough boy?
> >>
> >>Let's put your contribution to the test!
> >Congratulations! You have proved your "merit" once again. That personal
> >attack was uncalled for.
>
> Was it?
Yes, it was.
>
> He threaten me I responded.
Really? AFAICS you have been the only one threatening in this thread ("I
dont bark I bite").
>
> The position and do correct me if I'm wrong for Adam did not exist
> before he got hired,
> and he was not even hired from the community.
Ah, so your grievance is that Red Hat has hired Adam but not you.
>
> Care to share the link to his position at that time.
>
> Feel free to use the internet archive let's analyze what stood in it,
I do not see how this could have any relevance to the matter.
>
> Prove me wrong and I shall be the first to admit my wrong doing, my
> mistake and apologize to all parties involved.
Since Chris' sentence "If you can't handle that, then Fedora development
might not be the right place for you." can hardly be considered an
attack (or a threat), I hereby claim that you are wrong and your harsh
response to him was uncalled for.
D.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: systemd features
On 02/02/2013 07:33 AM, David Tardon wrote: On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 07:06:12AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: On 02/02/2013 07:03 AM, David Tardon wrote: On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 02:08:00AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: When I meet a maintainer in the project that stated to me "I have to talk to my manager first" before upgrading his "component" that rings alarm bells to me, That gives me the feel that they are maintaining their components as a part of their job not because they want to scratch an itch and want to! There is a third reason for maintaining a component: it is a dependency for another component the packager maintains. This is applicable for _all_ packagers, be they from Red Hat or the community. You either conveniently omitted this reason to make an argument or never thought of it, in which case I respectfully ask you to butt out of this thread because you do not know what you are talking about. Oh in my case it was an "primary" component no dependency that Red Hat maintainer could not update until he got approval but for the You generalized one specific case to _all components of all Red Hat maintainers_. When I rejected that generalization, you are counteracting by claiming that my argument does not apply for that one _specific_ case. Sorry, but that is a faulty reasoning. No i did not "generalized one specific case to _all components of all Red Hat" I know alot of Red Hat's employees that participate in the project by their own free will and at their own free time. I also know alot of Red Hat's employees that are working in the project that go on and above their "duty" doing so. And I also know yes granted an single individual that said he could not update his component in the project which he maintained without asking his "boss" before doing so which raises a whole bunch of questions but we have saying here in Icelandic "Sjaldan er ein báran stök" sake of your argument and concision let's lower my IQ to an rock ( which I do believe is 20 ) and say I dont have freaking flying idea what I'm talking about. Is this sarcasm or a personal attack? I am not quite sure... sarcasm if any would being guilty of being stupid that would be me would it not? JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
