Re: Testing request: gdm-on-Wayland on hybrid graphics laptops (esp. Macbooks)
Shameful doublepost because I missed the link: I'm a fool. I'll try the new spin once I get a chance to grab a stick to flash it. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 7:42 AM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com wrote: I personally have a Mid 2014 MacBook Pro Retina with hybrid graphics. I did not observe this bug, though I did not have Wi-Fi or power control. I did not dare keep Fedora running on my Mac for very long because it was getting very hot very quickly. I have not tried with updated packages. I'd love to if a Workstation spin with updated packages was available, though. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:20 AM, William will...@firstyear.id.au wrote: This has affected my MacbookPro 8,2 for about a year. I want to see this as a blocker, so that it is taken seriously as the issue has gone otherwise ignored. This affects straight Xorg, not just Wayland. Is this an early or late 2011 MBP 8,2? Pretty sure it's a late 2011 with a 6770m. I ask because if I edit /etc/gdm/custom.conf and uncomment WaylandEnable=false, I get a visible login screen; and also the problem does't happen with Fedora 21 (live or as installed). -- William will...@firstyear.id.au -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Testing request: gdm-on-Wayland on hybrid graphics laptops (esp. Macbooks)
I personally have a Mid 2014 MacBook Pro Retina with hybrid graphics. I did not observe this bug, though I did not have Wi-Fi or power control. I did not dare keep Fedora running on my Mac for very long because it was getting very hot very quickly. I have not tried with updated packages. I'd love to if a Workstation spin with updated packages was available, though. On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:20 AM, William will...@firstyear.id.au wrote: This has affected my MacbookPro 8,2 for about a year. I want to see this as a blocker, so that it is taken seriously as the issue has gone otherwise ignored. This affects straight Xorg, not just Wayland. Is this an early or late 2011 MBP 8,2? Pretty sure it's a late 2011 with a 6770m. I ask because if I edit /etc/gdm/custom.conf and uncomment WaylandEnable=false, I get a visible login screen; and also the problem does't happen with Fedora 21 (live or as installed). -- William will...@firstyear.id.au -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Configurable version of suexec in Debian but not Fedora?!
Hello all, Apologies on the necromancy here, but I finally did find the patches (after wrestling with the fact that I can't see the patch tracker website for some reason... is it still live?) that created it. The patches are hosted on Debian's git for packages[0]. There's some other stuff related to it one folder up[1]. I'm not exactly sure what exactly is needed, though... [0]: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-apache/apache2.git/tree/debian/patches [1]: http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/pkg-apache/apache2.git/tree/debian On Sat, Mar 15, 2014 at 4:48 AM, Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote: On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 05:16:27PM -0500, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: I'm honestly surprised that Fedora doesn't offer this little piece of flexibility. I would think that this would be in Fedora and RHEL, because of how useful this would be. So what's going on here? Actually a Debian developer created a patch to make suexec configurable but since it was not sent upstream, it is not easily available everywhere else. Not sure why, but the patch is not even visible in Debian's patch tracking system: http://patch-tracker.debian.org/package/apache2/2.4.7-1 So next step would be to ask the apache maintainer in Fedora whether the patch would be accepted in Fedora and if not, a separate package needs to be created. Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Status of weak dependencies support in Fedora 21+
On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Björn Persson bjorn@rombobjörn.se wrote: Jan Silhan jsil...@redhat.com wrote: On 10. 11. 2014 at 10:31:55, Kevin Fenzi wrote: 3. The page says The depsolver may offer to treat the weak like very weak relations or the other way round does dnf do that? or not? DNF doesn't do that and never will. IMO that would be too hackish behavior. You refuse to provide an option to pull in only required packages and not recommended ones? So if I don't want some recommended package and its dependencies in a slimmed system I should first let DNF install them and then rpm --erase them? And if there isn't room to install them even temporarily I'll have to avoid DNF and do the dependency resolution manually? Björn Persson -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct There are a couple of things that popped into my head about dependency resolution behavior: 1. If a package recommends/suggests a package that may exist in an optional repository, will dnf still properly resolve and install the package set (minus the the recommended/suggested packages) if the optional repository isn't active? That is, it won't throw an error and bomb out on missing dependencies? 2. How does this affect circular dependency logic that has mixed-level resolutions? For example, package A could have recommends in place for package B and suggests for package C while package B has requires for package A and package C has supplements for package A. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: License Change fedora-release
What does it mean? On May 10, 2014 12:16 PM, Dennis Gilmore den...@ausil.us wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096434 the license of fedora-release has changed from gplv2 to MIT regards Dennis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTbl67AAoJEH7ltONmPFDR9CMP/jletHrLUL3ciSarBWOdgZ6l D7QT7rC8CaBs6ZCl9AryzD57r+mR6UKLglUaWa0Br1jSchGBgCwe96tnfVPNCnSP Z7oYlsixUa7xyiy/2OQ1ge7LUCYCwL+rG4PKl6OmF8m6dog7c4MoaLxR4gyz4Uux 4DWa62tyrCdGJ2oG0s1MkjNI43jfs98mpDOrQvgc/ko/GEXyaRhKBt50lxSS9jpT KXGnfKRvLnGEokD9zLm1CmALVKraKrzICc9kPvr696QE3cDSTKN83hrWrpOprkVC +N3/yPlcHpWqMM5iJk7cSU0sYmTfzpCqpyectYWVxu4YpUaGNfq/8qZiC+T+CJL/ Tx3rveWAa3BmIKdi5QgzZ3F3KWY/SzaAzGjGNBveI0kUq0TZBFeEUTDNNCC/euZ6 kiTH07SmR9oLwzj0LNuh6IGSeoBaO884vLRSyPxTyweV6u03dZ1PjMfR9uGoPtEW kYYmDcZ42x9c3+MITNnU3eXDjzZ/o0RIaPWZz8smKhx3tnr7Q5mbT8FADCZmIDuy NHVejohGh/tL/c06f2Wte4miPRvrSZIl8hauEZ/cWL4SvRFmx4uvXzX3OErIMahy yOQaan0WRU4vqqGm+56m3n0F0zGZvFMeTZ4DOR4m8iNakQC5QeTHGfhb43QzyqW6 4NgR72ZkSiqDaGdcfJvx =23WZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: The Forgotten F: A Tale of Fedora's Foundations
I agree with this completely. Functional capability matters quite a lot and we seem to forget this a lot lately. On Apr 21, 2014 7:35 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgall...@redhat.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Lately, I've been thinking a lot about Fedora's Foundations: “Freedom, Friends, Features, First, particularly in relation to some very sticky questions about where certain things fit (such as third-party repositories, free and non-free web services, etc.) Many of these discussions get hung up on wildly different interpretations of what the Freedom Foundation means. First, I'll reproduce the exact text of the Freedom Foundation[1]: Freedom represents dedication to free software and content. We believe that advancing software and content freedom is a central goal for the Fedora Project, and that we should accomplish that goal through the use of the software and content we promote. By including free alternatives to proprietary code and content, we can improve the overall state of free and open source software and content, and limit the effects of proprietary or patent encumbered code on the Project. Sometimes this goal prevents us from taking the easy way out by including proprietary or patent encumbered software in Fedora, or using those kinds of products in our other project work. But by concentrating on the free software and content we provide and promote, the end result is that we are able to provide: releases that are predictable and 100% legally redistributable for everyone; innovation in free and open source software that can equal or exceed closed source or proprietary solutions; and, a completely free project that anyone can emulate or copy in whole or in part for their own purposes. The language in this Foundation is sometimes dangerously unclear. For example, it pretty much explicitly forbids the use of non-free components in the creation of Fedora (sorry, folks: you can't use Photoshop to create your package icon!). At the same time, we regularly allow the packaging of software that can interoperate with non-free software; we allow Pidgin and other IM clients to talk to Google and AOL, we allow email clients to connect to Microsoft Exchange, etc. The real problem is that every time a question comes up against the Freedom Foundation, Fedora contributors diverge into two armed camps: the hard-liners who believe that Fedora should never under any circumstances work (interoperate) with proprietary services and the the folks who believe that such a hard-line approach is a path to irrelevance. To make things clear: I'm personally closer to the second camp than the first. In fact, in keeping with the subject of this email, I'd like to suggest a fifth Foundation, one to ultimately supersede all the rest: Functional. Here's a straw-man phrasing of this proposal: Functional means that the Fedora community recognizes this to be the ultimate truth: the purpose of an operating system is to enable its users to accomplish the set of tasks they need to perform. With this in place, it would admittedly water down the Freedom Foundation slightly. Freedom would essentially be reduced to: the tools to reproduce the Fedora Build Environment and all packages (source and binary) shipped from this build system must use a compatible open-source license and not be patent-encumbered. Fedora would strive to always provide and promote open-source alternatives to existing (or emerging) proprietary technologies, but accepts that attracting users means not telling them that they must change all of their tools to do so). The Functional Foundation should be placed above the other four and be the goal-post that we measure decisions against: If we make this change, are we reducing our users' ability to work with the software they want/need to?. Any time the answer to that question would be yes, we have to recognize that this translates into lost users (or at the very least, users that are working around our intentions). Now, let me be further clear on this: I am not in any way advocating the use of closed-source software or services. I am not suggesting that we start carrying patent-encumbered software. I think it is absolutely the mission of Fedora to show people that FOSS is the better long-term solution. However, in my experience a person who is exposed to open source and allowed to migrate in their own time is one who is more likely to become a lifelong supporter. A person who is told if you switch to Fedora, you must stop using Application X is a person who is not running Fedora. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Foundations -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlNVEOcACgkQeiVVYja6o6OrwACfSp6sS7A4h7EDQ0AKnPcGFfCj GCEAn3R7U8U3PG3slTt4wRX0/GBsr8lJ =tFhY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list
Configurable version of suexec in Debian but not Fedora?!
So a friend of mine has been wrangling with suexec trying to configure it for his needs, and he has become quite furious over the fact that suexec isn't configurable. Then he finds out that Debian actually has a version of suexec[1] that lets you use a conf file to configure suexec. My question is, why the heck isn't this in Fedora? How is it that Debian can offer both versions[1][2], but Fedora cannot? I'm honestly surprised that Fedora doesn't offer this little piece of flexibility. I would think that this would be in Fedora and RHEL, because of how useful this would be. So what's going on here? [1]: https://packages.debian.org/sid/apache2-suexec-custom [2]: https://packages.debian.org/sid/apache2-suexec-pristine -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Matej Cepl mc...@redhat.com wrote: On 2013-02-04, 19:52 GMT, Andrea Pescetti wrote: It's an outdated article and not much relevant to the current discussion (you see, it says the Symphony repository...). [...] The Symphony code is like everything else in this respect: all Symphony code that OpenOffice will choose to use will sooner or later go to trunk and into a release, receiving the same paranoid attention as the rest and a crystal clear license notice (the Apache 2 License in this case) allowing anybody to use it. And then (and only then) there will be something released from IBM to the public. Until then my comment https://lwn.net/Articles/533402/ stands and the discussion on that webpage is still pretty relevant. Best, Matěj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel At the same time, it's still totally irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Apache OpenOffice
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 8:04 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 12:15:43AM +0400, Pavel Alexeev wrote: 01.02.2013 00:17, drago01 wrote: On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2013-01-31 at 14:20 +0100, Robert Mayr wrote: I think that's not the point, one of the two suites will be dominant and you can't provide both of them on a live image for example. LibreOffice was introduced to our live images and we hit target 1GB, do you really think it could be useful having a larger image just because you want to provide both of the office suites? The proposal explicitly says that it doesn't envisage including OO on any images or in any default install configurations, simply adding it as an option in the package repositories. Which doesn't really need a FESCo approval ... just a package review. Meantime there one sentence which optionally require changes in LibreOffice too: The /usr/bin/soffice alias is still a problem since (in the Fedora packages) it would conflict between LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice: it is recommended to fix it in the LibreOffice packages too, at least using the Alternatives system. I think it should be approved first if it really required. alternatives is the wrong technology for end user facing applications. Why can't our apache openoffice package rename /usr/bin/soffice? -Toshio -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Why not LibreOffice? It doesn't make a lot of sense to retain the soffice binary name for LibreOffice anyway. Besides, I think LibreOffice would be more amenable to a permanent binary name change than Apache OpenOffice. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:55 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 05:44 -0500, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: - Original Message - On Thu, 2012-11-08 at 06:31 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Adam Williamson wrote: The new anaconda UI and related features are more or less entirely the cause of the slip. This shows that those changes should not have been done, or at least not in this way. I think it's widely agreed by now that they could have been done better, the question is now exactly how we can improve the process. We have bigger issue with features that are OUT OF the process, not communicated at all. If you take a look on New Installer UI, it fits current design, it was a late as the scope was bigger than Anaconda team thought but it's there. But the new upgrade process - it should be standalone feature, we missed dracut feature, same for LVM in Anaconda (again, not UI), live medias etc. So most of the problems were caused not by proposed/accepted features but by real features we weren't aware of. How to avoid it? Honestly I don't know. Well, a more stringent review process for the New UI feature would likely have identified this problem ahead of time. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel My problem isn't that the cycles are longer, it's that Fedora as a project hasn't gotten better at scheduling releases. I know that over the years, Anaconda has been rewritten at nearly all levels, and that the UI part is pretty much one of the few things left from the older codebase. With the experience that the Fedora team has and that Red Hat has with developing UI code in Python, I'm still surprised that estimating the challenges of rewriting the UI and beating it into shape for release wasn't fully possible. I know that software development is hard. Software Engineering is an extremely difficult process. I just thought that with all the wonderful, experienced people here, Fedora as a whole would have had a better idea of how *hard* this would be and properly account for it. The other problem is that it continues to make Fedora as a project look bad. I've talked to people who use Fedora (who aren't involved in the project in any form or fashion), and it's a rather annoying pain point that they *don't know when to expect the next Fedora release*. The fact that we've cultivated that expectation is highly disappointing for a project that does the traditional biannual stable release model. It's a pretty large motivator to keep talking about moving to the rolling release model. And yes, I've read all the threads, and I know all the reasons. Regardless of all that, we need to be better about communicating that we use a feature-based release scheme as opposed to a time-based release scheme. There are trade-offs to both approaches, but at least with clear communication, we set the right expectations. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org wrote: On Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 02:48:26PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 11/08/2012 02:31 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: What kind of structure would you imagine such a SIG having? Sorry not following? I assume this ( and related mailinglist ) would be the place where they manage and coordinate changes relevant to the CoreOS ( Installation/bootup etc ) of the Fedora distribution in current and future releases to better coordinate implement feature relate to the CoreOS Management requires managers. Creating a SIG doesn't magically cause communication or coordination to happen. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel In theory, having a dedicated group of a certain size makes it easier to manage and delegate tasks, but whether that works in practice is somewhat debatable. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 18 Beta to slip by two weeks, Beta release date is now Nov 27
Oh my goodness. This is the highest amount of slippage I've seen in quite some time. What is wrong with Fedora? The slippage is getting worse each and every single release. I love Fedora and all, but this is absolutely ridiculous... On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Bojan Smojver bo...@rexursive.com wrote: Jaroslav Reznik jreznik at redhat.com writes: Final Change deadline is rescheduled to Dec 18 with final Fedora 18 release on 2013 Jan 08 [2]. I know everyone is going to hate me for saying this, but wouldn't it make sense to just forget about F-18 and go for F-19 instead? After all, F-19 feature submission deadline will probably be only a few weeks after F-18 release (as it stands now, unless it slips again). -- Bojan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: GNOME 2.5.92 Packages
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote: Same rules apply for any packages that want to get rolled into the 2.5.92 update: Please add the builds to the spreadsheet and they will get rolled up into the mega-update. The spreadsheet URL is: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtzJKpbiGX1zdGJzeU9waFJFZmgyQzBuN2VxU0lxbHcpli=1#gid=0 2.5.90 is in stable now, 2.5.91 is in updates-testing. Yell if you have any questions. Thanks. Richard. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Don't you mean 3.5.92? I didn't think we were reverting to a version of GNOME from 2004... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: TextMate 2 open sourced!
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.comwrote: Kellerman Rivero Suarez wrote: You Right, but in OSS exists multiple browsers, multiple desktop managers, multiple media players, and stop count! In this case, I love gedit, but is more matter of taste. I think so. Yes, it's great that Linux allows people to create multiple ways of painting a shed, but that doesn't mean it is always a good thing. OSS is not unique in providing multiple of a XYZ app. Commercial software has always provided multiple of XYZ apps and has that been a good thing? For instance: I'm sure you can find multiple music players for Android phones in the Google store, but does that mean it is a good thing? There comes a time when a software developer needs to swallow their pride and work together with another human being to create a better software instead of forking. It is rare for a fork to succeed and usually, only succeeds if upstream dies/is dying so in other words the fork becomes the new upstream and you don't really see it as a fork any more. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel While gedit is nice, it is a GTK+ app. Do we actually have a decent selection of open source text editors for the GNUStep environment? As far as I know, we don't. TextMate would target a different group of people, those who use the NeXTSTEP/GNUStep environment. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: avant-window-navigator (awn) in Fedora 17
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:26 AM, tim.laurid...@gmail.com tim.laurid...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Damian Ivanov damianator...@gmail.comwrote: Hello all, awn has been orphaned in F17 because latest bzr fails to build (0.4.1-XXX), though latest stable (0.4.0) builds fine. see https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=avant-window-navigatorproject=home%3Adamianator%3Afedora I have orhaned awn, because it was a pain to maintain and upstream is almost stalled especially the awn applets was hard, as they is made for gnome-2.x and hard to get working with gnome-3.x . And without the applets awn is not very fun. and with a stalled upstream, it is very hard to fit into a fast moving distro like Fedora. Tim -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel I don't remember if I've still got ownership of that package, but I'd rather not continue to maintain it. It was a pain to keep up with back when I had the free time to do it. If I've not already orphaned it, I will do so as soon as possible. The annoying thing is that the Fedora infrastructure doesn't like to let me log in very often... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Ubuntu Unity has been ported to Fedora 17
Hello, This morning, I woke up to the news that a group of developers have managed to successfully make Ubuntu's Unity Desktop work on Fedora 17[1]. What kind of work would be needed to get these people to be able to bring their work into the Fedora repository so that everyone can easily choose to use it without breaking stuff? [1]: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/07/unity-desktop-available-for-fedora -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Packaging Guidelines - creating tarball from VCS with script
I agree with Toshio on this. Depending on how the VCS behaves with checkout/cloning, it will be difficult to get predictable results in a usable way through a script. Commenting in the spec file is the best way to go in my opinion. On May 14, 2012 9:22 AM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 03:02:23PM +0200, Tomas Radej wrote: Hi, I was wondering if Packaging Guidelines could be amended so that even when creating tarball from VCS, using a standalone shell script would be mandatory (see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control ). I believe this could allow easier reviews and package updates as there would be no need to copypaste code from comments, and checking for package's checksum could be (at least partially) automated for the fedora-review tool. What do you think? Automating of the package's checksum won't work for many VCS's . git, for instance, does not preserve timestamps. So the tarball created from a git snapshot will have a different checksum for each checkout. I personally prefer to have the checkout instructions in comments. It makes it easier to review what the person did and interrupts my thoughts less when I can see what the person did to produce the tarball in the same window as I'm looking at the spec file. Having to open up a second file to see if the checkout commands are hitting the canonical source repository and that they contain enough information to checkout only a single version is a distraction. -Toshio -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: CDDL+GPL still an issue?
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Tom Callaway tcall...@redhat.com wrote: On 05/14/2012 10:06 AM, Simone Caronni wrote: Hello, I would like to know if there are still issues with CDDL packages in Fedora. It is not my intention to start a flame, I'm simply asking if that's still the case or if I can fill a Review Request for the infamous cdrtools in Fedora: No. We're not including cdrtools in Fedora. Consider it pre-emptively legally blocked. The last time this topic was brought up, I took the time to identify all of the legal issues around it (and attempt to dispel some of Mr. Schilling's crazy): https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-July/msg0.html I've also added it to the Forbidden Items list: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Forbidden_items#cdrtools Ah, the memories. -J ~tom == Fedora Project -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/ in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Mr Schilling is just a special kind of crazy. He seems to have a rather warped view of copyright law. And since when were forks illegal? Do we know exactly what parts of cdrtools cause the legal incompatibilities? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Notice: IPv6 breaking issues tentatively considered blocker for F17
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 11:14 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.comwrote: On Fri, 2012-03-09 at 20:54 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: Hey, folks. We made a fairly significant call at the blocker review meeting today, and agreed to notify devel list and FESCo (I'll file a FESCo ticket also) so everyone's aware and can raise objections if they wish. The bug under discussion was https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=591630 . The effect of the bug is that, if you install Fedora OOTB (the bug applies to at least 15 and 16 as well as 17) on a system on an IPv6-only network, it will not be able to connect to the network. To be more precise...DHCPv6 is blocked. So I guess if you used a static network config it would work. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Considering how rare it is to use a static network config, a blocker on DHCPv6 is definitely a good idea. I'm aware of at least a few networks that are switching over to v6 internally and using 6to4 techniques to allow IPv4 services to work (which breaks quite a few streaming applications, like Empathy's Google Talk voice/video chat). That being said, it would be considered a v6-only network and it would be quite bad if Fedora couldn't connect to it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Torvalds:requiring root password for mundane things is moronic
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 2:12 AM, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.comwrote: On Mar 1, 2012, at 10:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 17:43 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 16:39 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: I believe Fedora 17 has an add user to admin group checkbox when adding the initial user, not sure if it is checked on or off by default. Off by default (having just tried it today). In case anyone's wondering what that actually does, here's what I can figure out. What it does directly is to add the user to the 'wheel' group. I'm not sure what all the consequences of that are, but there's two I've been able to find. The first is that the default /etc/sudoers allows people in the wheel group to run any command as root, which is great and all, but we don't use sudo for anything at the desktop level, so it really only affects people who run sudo from the console. The other thing it does, if I'm reading stuff right, is that users in the wheel group are considered 'admins' by PolicyKit. That's good. Now as to what that means, I'm not 100% sure, but I *think* what it means is that for any action which would require a non-admin user to authenticate as root, an admin user can authenticate as themselves. i.e. instead of a root password dialog, you'd get a your-own-password dialog. I might be off base there, though, and if I am I'm sure someone smarter will correct me. :) From my own experience, anything I change in the GUI that requires authentication, it is for user 'chris' if that user was added as an admin with the checkbox in the create first user steps. If that checkbox is not checked, any authentication dialog that appears is for user 'root'. My interpretation of Torvalds' complaint, is with the mere existence of authentication dialogs in the first place, for certain things. Mac OS X has always required authentication (from a user with admin privileges) for changing the Date/Time including time zones, which is an absurdity. In the most recent version, it's no longer possible for a non-authenticated user with admin privileges (in effect two levels of privileges for the same user with the same login and the same password) to install e.g. ICC color profiles to a folder making the profiles available to all users. So I'm an admin, and if I want to modify a folder, I have to enter my password in a pop-up authentication dialog to add/remove ICC profiles. Worse, the individual user folder for these profiles is now hidden by default. It's high order insanity. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel As far as time zones and date/time settings are concerned, didn't there used to be a user-level setting for this? There's a variable for command line apps called TZ (for timezone) that can be set at the individual user's level, but apparently graphical applications don't obey this variable. I don't know about date/time itself, though. For printers, currently installing printers does not require superuser privileges, but managing those printers installed by that user does. Is it possible to make it so that printers installed by that user can be managed by the user without superuser authentication? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Rebuild for GCC-4.7
On Thu, Jan 5, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Jon Masters j...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2012-01-05 at 11:18 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote: El Thu, 05 Jan 2012 10:37:41 -0500 Tom Callaway tcall...@redhat.com escribió: On 01/05/2012 09:40 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: I just didn't know if there was any filtering going on for the mass rebuild or if all packages, regardless of dependence on gcc were going to be rebuilt. My understanding is that we traditionally rebuild everything at the time of a mass rebuild, because it is a good excuse to do it. Im planning to just rebuild everything. ideally drop all the disttags prior to fc17 since people get antsy about that at times. those packages that still have anything before .fc15 really need rebuilt. since we had reasons then to rebuild everything +1 This is a great time to rebuild everything. Not only does it assist with the gcc 4.7 switchover but it also proves that everything builds. And that turns out to be very useful when bootstrapping new architectures. I was planning (and still am) to make a formal proposal that Fedora require a mass rebuild every 2 releases if none is done for incidental reasons, just to help with ensuring the whole thing does still build. Jon. Don't we do this anyway whenever we get a new major GCC release? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
It might be better to make a case to bend the rules for PulseAudio and have it included in Fedora 16. It could be problematic if more programs have issues like wine where they won't work with pre-1.0 PulseAudio properly or reliably. On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Rex Dieter rdie...@math.unl.edu wrote: I might be completely off target on this one, but assuming that the information I've gathered thus far is correct, read: assuming that wine *requires* PA 1.0 to work reliably, will it possible to push PA 1.0 as a post installation upgrade or alternatively, using a personal repo? I can offer to update, http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/rdieter/pulseaudio-backport/ to pa-1.0 (once it hits rawhide) for f16 at least. -- rex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
How would someone go about doing that, anyway? On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:14 PM, Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 10/08/2011 01:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: If Ubuntu is doing a better job than us of shipping an updated version of OUR OWN FEATURE, we're failing very badly. What happened to First in the 4 'F's? Our objectives are NOT to deliver current software only 6+ months after the competition. Create a FESCO ticket and get it brought up in a meeting. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
There were a lot of changes[1], but the only program I know of that would absolutely break from those changes is padevchooser, which has long since been recommended and not usable, since avahi takes care of that quite nicely. [1]: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/Notes/1.0 On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:14:50 -0500 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 10/08/2011 01:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: If Ubuntu is doing a better job than us of shipping an updated version of OUR OWN FEATURE, we're failing very badly. What happened to First in the 4 'F's? Our objectives are NOT to deliver current software only 6+ months after the competition. Create a FESCO ticket and get it brought up in a meeting. I'd personally like to see more discussion/convincing of the maintainers before asking FESCo. On the pro side we have: - Wine needs it. On the con side we have: - Lots of changes? (I have no idea). - High chance for regression? or is this mostly just bugfixes? Perhaps maintainer(s) could explain why they are reluctant to push this into f16 with more specificity? kevin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
Eerm, I mean recommended as not usable. Using padevchooser breaks most PulseAudio environments even now, so don't use it. 2011/10/8 Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) ngomp...@gmail.com There were a lot of changes[1], but the only program I know of that would absolutely break from those changes is padevchooser, which has long since been recommended and not usable, since avahi takes care of that quite nicely. [1]: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/Notes/1.0 On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 14:14:50 -0500 Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote: On 10/08/2011 01:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: If Ubuntu is doing a better job than us of shipping an updated version of OUR OWN FEATURE, we're failing very badly. What happened to First in the 4 'F's? Our objectives are NOT to deliver current software only 6+ months after the competition. Create a FESCO ticket and get it brought up in a meeting. I'd personally like to see more discussion/convincing of the maintainers before asking FESCo. On the pro side we have: - Wine needs it. On the con side we have: - Lots of changes? (I have no idea). - High chance for regression? or is this mostly just bugfixes? Perhaps maintainer(s) could explain why they are reluctant to push this into f16 with more specificity? kevin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PA 1.0 for FC16?
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Genes MailLists li...@sapience.com wrote: On 10/08/2011 04:44 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: if there would be much more care by introducing new features/replacements my understanding for the fear of update thmen after that would be much higher as long fedora is shooting out new features without any care if they are really ready fdora should also update them - systemd as best example and no - this is not flaming - this is simply the wish if i get new software which is not really ready but seems good anough for a GA-release i expect updates of this software are more than good enough to be push ASAP This argument makes some sense (if a bit overblown) - we do seem more concerned about not updating than not releasing in the first place - e.g. while its true we delayed systemd - the general noise level suggests it was still not solid enough ... once its released 'core' components get less love coz making changes is bad ... This seems a bit odd ... we're cutting edge - but if the cut smells then its too bad ... I still strongly advocate for a rolling release - where single large core changes can be serialized if need be into the testing repo for as long as it takes to stabilize them (or pulled back out as a unit) - and smaller improvements and bug fixes can continue unimpeded ... now we could be truly leading edge. gene/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel A few years ago, I would have probably been against a rolling release system for Fedora. But with the improved infrastructure over the last year or so, I would actually like to see Fedora transition to such a system. The only disappointing thing is that there'll be no more release parties... :( -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox on Fedora: No longer funny
On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: On Sat, 08 Oct 2011 23:43:58 +0200 Christoph Wickert christoph.wick...@googlemail.com wrote: ...snip... So what can we do to improve the situation? 1. Can we bring back the language packs as part of the packages? 2. Can the FF maintainers make sure that all maintainers of extensions get notified of changes *before* release of a new package? 3. Can someone (I'm looking at you, QA) make sure all extensions are still compatible? More ideas or suggestions? Sadly, upstream is being pretty distro hostile these days I fear. We can try and put our efforts behind https://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise/Firefox/ExtendedSupport:Proposal and hope there's a extended support version? Possibly we could ship both that and the latest Firefox-999 version. kevin -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel I've heard that Mozilla will be making some massive changes to their handling of Extensions for Firefox 8 to fix a lot of these issues. Since Firefox 4, there actually have not been a lot of changes to the Extensions API, but because Fedora doesn't have the rebuilding mechanism that Mozilla Addons has, the extensions have not been automatically updated with new compatibility information. One major change I know of is that Extensions will be assumed compatible by default instead of incompatible. That means that while Firefox will warn users about extensions that say they only support older versions, they will not be disabled. Not all the blame lies on Mozilla though. Fedora could do better on handling Firefox updates too. Unlike the upgrade from Firefox 3.6 to Firefox 4, Firefoxes 5, 6, and 7 are not actually really that major. Firefox 8 will make some radical changes, but functionally it isn't a major upgrade. We need to start treating Firefox releases as safe, minor upgrades beginning with Firefox 8. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Java 7 for Fedora 16
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Andy Grimm agr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Deepak Bhole dbh...@redhat.com wrote: * Douglas Myers–Turnbull dmyersturnb...@gmail.com [2011-07-25 20:53]: I was planning to do this myself .. glad you started it :) I can take over the Feature and doing all the work if you're fine with it... Please do! The only work I've done (literally) is on the feature page, but feel free let me know if you need anything from me. Hi Douglas, Thank you once again for creating the page. I have started updating it and will add docs and other links tomorrow: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Java7 For anyone and everyone interested, a Java 7 build is now available in the Fedora 16. I will build for rawhide in the coming days as well: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=257034 Cheers, Deepak After some discussion on #fedora-java over the past 24 hours, I was asked to continue the discussion here regarding the implications of openjdk 6 and 7 coexisting in F16. Right now, java packages are being built for F16 using openjdk 7, and if they are built without target=1.6, they will fail to load under openjdk 6. (One simple example of this is xalan, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=733686 ). Some possible solutions proposed over IRC: 1) Blacklist openjdk 7 from build roots for f16 -- this means that it doesn't get tested very well, though. 2) Ensure all java packages use target=1.6 -- there's no standard way to do this across ant, mvn, javac, etc. though. You could check for 1.7 bytecode at the end of a build, but packages would still need to be individually fixed. 3) Drop openjdk 6 from F16 entirely It was also mentioned that Fedora is beginning to include some packages which build much more cleanly on openjdk 7 than they do on 6, so enforcing openjdk 6-only build roots might break some things. Other suggestions are welcome. I don't have a strong opinion about this, just a strong interest in having a sane Java environment in F16. Thanks, --Andy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel I personally think OpenJDK 7 should become the default. I would like to have OpenJDK 6 remain in the repository, but it shouldn't be included on the DVD for installation. There are some older packages that simply won't work yet with OpenJDK 7. However, as far as I know, those packages are not included in Fedora. I don't see a good reason to enforce an OpenJDK 6 environment when OpenJDK 7 is working well with most modern Java packages. The troubles involved in having both OpenJDK 6 and OpenJDK 7 in the default Java environment is simply not worth it either. I say that for Fedora 16, OpenJDK 7 should be on the DVD and the preferred Java environment. However, I think that OpenJDK 6 shouldn't be removed from the repositories until Fedora 17. If this isn't feasible, I'd say that Fedora should completely drop OpenJDK 6 in favor of OpenJDK 7. Unlike some of the earlier major Java revisions, Java 7 doesn't break most modern Java applications. However, the API cleanup between Java 6 and Java 7 may contribute to some older applications no longer working as expected. As far as I know, most Java applications in Fedora don't seem to have this problem. Java 7 will also begin offering a more consistent experience on Linux, Mac OS X, and Windows because they will be using the same codebase now, since Apple is no longer maintaining their own JRE and JDK. This alone makes Java 7 more appealing to me than continuing to use Java 6. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: ogre3d lagging behind more than half a year
I don't think it would have been too late for Fedora 14. It isn't a core package that needs to be available in a spin, afaik... On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Rudolf Kastl che...@gmail.com wrote: heyyas, ogre3d, one of the most important 3d engines we have in fedora is already lagging behind over half a year in rawhide: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=576286 would be nice to see it finally updated atleast in rawhide so it can go atleast in f15... which means we are only 1 year behind by then. kind regards, Rudolf Kastl -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proprietary search engines
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.netwrote: On Mon, 2010-08-30 at 02:46 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 08/30/2010 01:01 AM, Matt McCutchen wrote: Interesting. I can understand not wanting to promote a proprietary search engine on the Fedora start page, but if the idea is that Fedora users and contributors should be able to avoid using them altogether, I think that's currently pretty unrealistic. I don't think there is any expectation for users. This is just a Fedora infrastructure policy so that we don't end up relying on things that we can't build upon or fork if necessary. So why would the policy apply to the search box on http://start.fedoraproject.org , which is just meant for users and is not really a piece of infrastructure? -- Matt Because some people are rather overzealous about stuff like that? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Wordpress testers needed!
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 8:56 AM, Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net wrote: On 08/03/2010 01:08 PM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net wrote: On 08/02/2010 09:58 PM, Chen Lei wrote: 2010/8/3 Jon Cieslal...@jcomserv.net: Also I think that with wordpress 3 the separate wordpress-mu release fork has been merged into mainline. So wouldn't it be better to concentrate on wordpress 3? Well, yes, probably. That might even help with the bundled library situation. But that's an issue for the maintainer. I could help with that too, if needed. The wordpress owner said if someone with lots of PHP knowledge wants to take it I would be happy if it keeps getting maintained. in the last reply in fedora devel list. I think it will much much if we can update wordpress to 3.x. 2.8 branch is pretty old, and few people want to test it(2.9 is very mature now and 3.0 is also released a while ago). Regards, Chen Lei facepalm Yeah, I forgot that bit. Adrian(CCd), if you like, orphan both wordpress and wordpress-mu, and I'll take over. If I do, I plan to update wordpress to 3.0.1 and EOL wordpress-mu. Looking for a few seconds at 3.0.1, it looks like there are still quite a few things bundled, but at least there will be a greater chance of compatibility with the system versions. I hope. gulp -J -- - in your fear, speak only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie WordPress comes bundled with TinyMCE, right? Has anyone worked on separating out TinyMCE and packaging it separately? I know there are a lot of web apps that use it... It does. There's a review for it and the -spellchecker: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608574 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=608575 -J -- - in your fear, speak only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie They have yet to be reviewed, though. At some point, somebody is going to have to review it, since WordPress 3.0 still requires it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Wordpress testers needed!
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net wrote: On 08/02/2010 09:58 PM, Chen Lei wrote: 2010/8/3 Jon Cieslal...@jcomserv.net: Also I think that with wordpress 3 the separate wordpress-mu release fork has been merged into mainline. So wouldn't it be better to concentrate on wordpress 3? Well, yes, probably. That might even help with the bundled library situation. But that's an issue for the maintainer. I could help with that too, if needed. The wordpress owner said if someone with lots of PHP knowledge wants to take it I would be happy if it keeps getting maintained. in the last reply in fedora devel list. I think it will much much if we can update wordpress to 3.x. 2.8 branch is pretty old, and few people want to test it(2.9 is very mature now and 3.0 is also released a while ago). Regards, Chen Lei facepalm Yeah, I forgot that bit. Adrian(CCd), if you like, orphan both wordpress and wordpress-mu, and I'll take over. If I do, I plan to update wordpress to 3.0.1 and EOL wordpress-mu. Looking for a few seconds at 3.0.1, it looks like there are still quite a few things bundled, but at least there will be a greater chance of compatibility with the system versions. I hope. gulp -J -- - in your fear, speak only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie WordPress comes bundled with TinyMCE, right? Has anyone worked on separating out TinyMCE and packaging it separately? I know there are a lot of web apps that use it... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox 4 for Fedora 14?
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:01 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/30/2010 08:58 PM, Tom spot Callaway wrote: I'm also working on a set of Firefox 4 packages (split between firefox4 and xulrunner) that more closely match the Fedora firefox packages, but are able to be installed without conflicts. At the moment, I'm just targeting F-14. Thanks. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Firefox_4 Rahul Uhh... Firefox 4 GA is before F14 even goes into GA stage. So, that isn't true. Firefox 4 could be included in Fedora 14, and it should be. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox 4 for Fedora 14?
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:11 PM, seth vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.orgwrote: On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 11:52 -0400, seth vidal wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 11:51 -0400, Tom spot Callaway wrote: On 07/30/2010 11:49 AM, seth vidal wrote: On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 21:11 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 07/30/2010 09:08 PM, seth vidal wrote: in yum-utils upstream you can do: yum-config-manager --add-repo=http://baseurl/some/place or yum-config-manager --add-repo=http://path/to/some/foo.repo either will add the repo you want. That's almost what I want. Can we add a default shortcut for repos.fedorapeople.org? So perhaps it can be yum-config-manager --add-repo fp:spot/chromium umm. I dunno. I'll have to think about that one. That feels awfully dodgy to be in an upstream project's code. Perhaps a standard config file for repo aliases could be used, then Fedora could provide that config file with aliases for fp, remi, and other known third party repos. (Note: I don't think we would ever be able to include rpmfusion in that list, sadly.) That's what I was thinking - just not sure how much use it will be. So here's the question: will someone often be doing: yum-config-manager --add-repo=fp:spot/chromium or will they more likely do: yum-config-manager --add-repo=paste-url-to-repofile-from-web-browser b/c it sure feels like the latter is more common. -sv Out of convenience, the former will be more common. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox 4 for Fedora 14?
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:13 PM, seth vidal skvi...@fedoraproject.orgwrote: On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 14:12 -0500, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: So here's the question: will someone often be doing: yum-config-manager --add-repo=fp:spot/chromium or will they more likely do: yum-config-manager --add-repo=paste-url-to-repofile-from-web-browser b/c it sure feels like the latter is more common. -sv Out of convenience, the former will be more common. Out of convenience of what? You'd have to know: 1. the repo is on repos.fedorapeople.org 2. that the username is 'spot' 3. that the reponame is 'chromium' and then you'd have to type all of it instead of just pasting from your webbrowser directly from the website. -sv Tutorials, printed manuals, etc. In that case, copying and pasting is rather difficult, don't you think? And also, fp:spot/chromium doesn't preclude copying and pasting that into the terminal. Then there are cases when people are working in the terminal with no GUI available. Copying and pasting is almost impossible in that case. It is easier for humans to remember fp:spot/chromium than a long string that is the repo URL. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Firefox 4 for Fedora 14?
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: On 07/31/2010 12:41 AM, Conan Kudo (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: Uhh... Firefox 4 GA is before F14 even goes into GA stage. So, that isn't true. Firefox 4 could be included in Fedora 14, and it should be. Provide a reference for that. Fedora 14 release schedule is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/14/Schedule Rahul Hmm, okay. I was only aware of the October 26 release date before now. Anyway, here's the Firefox 4 milestone list: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/4/Beta#Milestones October 15 is when they go into total freeze and produce release candidates and then the final release. Fedora composes the Final on October 12, but that assumes that we're not going to slip one or two weeks as we have for every release of Fedora for the last couple years. If we slip, and Mozilla pushes out the GA before Final is composed, that could be slipped in. Either way, we could still squeeze in a Firefox 4 Beta and push out the final or an RC as a post install update. Then later Fedora Unity will generate a spin that will include Firefox 4 GA. We've never had problems with including Firefox betas before, so why now? Fedora is the premier distro for getting the latest and greatest software, not just the stuff that everyone else has. It is why I use Fedora over Ubuntu or some other distro. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Partial mass rebuild for Python 2.7 coming soon (I hope)
I just got a new report from Koji saying there were errors recorded in root.log for the build of OggConvert on the PPC machines. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=2344902name=root.log On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 6:55 PM, David Malcolm dmalc...@redhat.com wrote: On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 17:04 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 13:43 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: On Thu, 2010-07-22 at 13:07 -0400, David Malcolm wrote: [snip] I messed up, and there's a bug in which python doesn't startup if python-devel is not installed, which led to the majority of the noarch builds failing. [1] Sorry about that. I'm working on a fixed python package. Hopefully this python build will fix it: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2343025 That one didn't, but this one did: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2343301 (python-2.7-5.fc14) and it's now in the repo for the buildroot. Simple noarch builds seem to now be working (I've tested a few) I fixed the numpy issue (bug 617384) and this is now built; the buildroot repo is about to be repopulated, with the 2.7 numpy. Once that's done I'll rebuild pygtk2. Once that's done I'll try a mass run of all noarch builds that failed, since I believe many of them failed due to the python issue referred to above. At that point I _hope_ the failure list will become meaningful and manageable (and I'll post it). Dave -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Feature, Fedora 14: Go Programming
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Brandon Lozza bran...@pwnage.ca wrote: Hi, I'd like to recommend a Go compiler be included with Fedora 14. We would have two options: 1) GCC-GO (Included in GCC 4.5?) 2) Google's Go Compiler. (One is made by Conrad Meyer, he mentioned it wouldn't be too easy to add because goinstall basically wants root privileges). Benefits to Fedora A garbage collected *compiled* language which aims to be as fast as C. The applications it compiles doesn't require a runtime present to work. It's comparable to Java and C# but with a lot of Python-like features. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Have you made a Feature page about it? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Retire glib and gtk+ 1.2 from rawhide?
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Jeff Garzik jgar...@pobox.com wrote: On 05/09/2010 10:03 AM, Andrea Musuruane wrote: On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Matěj Ceplmc...@redhat.com wrote: Dne 9.5.2010 06:53, Chen Lei napsal(a): For them, we can simply: 1. Simply orphan those application from repos which have dead upstream for a long time. Normally, those allipcations have better alternatives using GTK+ 2.x, we don't need worry about this. 2.Update applications to GTK 2.x port which was already done by upstream, and ping the maintainer to see if he is nonresponsive now. I think it would help anybody if you can provide a list of packages involved. qiv-0:2.0-11.fc12.x86_64 qiv specifically wants image format libraries (hello, ancient imlib), so I'm not sure gtk+1.0 is the specific need here. Jeff -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel putty(svn) needs to be patched to not search for gtk+1.2 otherwise it fails spectacularly, even though it has an GTK+2 port. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 1:04 AM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Sir Gallantmon (ニール・ゴンパ) wrote: Though, there are some instances where the prevailing opinion should be ignored, when there is no solid evidence to back it up, e.g. Mono and the like. Indeed, I also think defending freedom is important (and it was part of my campaign). But I've also been unhappy with FESCo's decisions in that domain, e.g.: * libvdpau was approved for Fedora. This is a library which: - only accelerates decoding patent-encumbered MPEG family video codecs. ALL software which uses that is in RPM Fusion, not Fedora, anyway. - has no actual Free Software implementations. It is ONLY implemented by proprietary drivers. So what does Fedora have to gain from this pseudo-Free library? * in at least 2 occasions, so-called Open Core [1] crippleware has been not only approved for Fedora (which makes sense, as IMHO we should accept everything under a Free license and with no patent issues as a Fedora package), but advertised as a Fedora Feature, which I consider to be completely counterproductive, as it gives free press coverage to such crippleware and sends a message to companies that releasing some crippled shareware version under a Free Software license is enough to get your product advertised as Free or Open Source all over the planet. My complaints about giving free advertising to such crippleware have been entirely ignored. [1] http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html Kevin Kofler Wait, I thought libvdpau had a VA-API backend? And I thought Fedora included a crippled version of mplayer in its repositories? Either way, it is true that VDPAU currently only works with MPEG formats, but nothing says that the library can't be modified to support other formats, does it? If I'm wrong, then shouldn't it be RPM Fusion? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Open Letter: Why I, Kevin Kofler, am not rerunning for FESCo
On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 7:20 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Hi, You will have noticed by now that my FESCo term is about to expire, that the nomination period for FESCo just closed and that my name does not show up on the list of candidates. No, this is not an accident or negligence, the decision not to run for another term was intentional, for several reasons: * When I ran for election a year ago, one of my reasons for running, and also something I made part of my campaign, was that it shouldn't always be the same people who are sitting on FESCo. We have a much higher number of active contributors than FESCo seats, so it makes sense to see some turnover happening. So it would be very hypocritical from me to attempt to sit another year on FESCo myself, now that I'm myself a FESCo veteran. * I have never been a committee person and have always hated sitting on meetings. I have done it anyway for a year because I believed it to be important for the good of the project. But I'm really fed up of those meetings (I'm feeling burned out) and prefer focusing on more practical, less political areas of Fedora. The fact that I don't feel my presence in those meetings being of much if any use (more on that later) doesn't help either. * When looking back at what happened over the year I've been in office, I have a feeling that I have been able to acheive basically nothing: - The vast majority of votes were either unanimous or 8-1 against me. In both cases, my vote was entirely redundant. Even for more contested votes, my vote hardly ever mattered. - Any attempts to discuss those issues where everyone was against me went nowhere. In most cases, people rushed out a vote without even considering the real issue at hand and then shot down any discussion with we already voted, we want to move on. In those few cases where there actually was a discussion, my position was always dismissed as being ridiculous and not even worth considering, my arguments, no matter how strong, were entirely ignored. - Basically any proposal I filed was systematically shot down. Even things which should be obvious such as: . calling GNOME by its name rather than the generic Desktop or . eliminating the useless bureaucratic red tape of FESCo ratification for FPC guidelines which just wastes everyone's time and constitutes pure process inefficiency got only incomprehension. I have come to the conclusion that it is just plain impossible for a single person to change FESCo's ways and that therefore I am just wasting my time there. * I am very unhappy about FESCo's recent (and not so recent, which were what made me run in the first place) directions. The trend is steady towards bureaucracy and centralization: - Maintainers are continuously being distrusted. It all started with the provenpackager policy, where every single provenpackager has to be voted in by a FESCo majority vote, as opposed to letting any sponsor approve people as provenpackagers as originally planned, or just opening all our packages to everyone as was the case in the old Extras. From there, things pretty much degenerated and we're now at a point where FESCo no longer trusts maintainers to know when an update to the packages they maintain is stable, instead insisting on automatically-enforced bureaucracy which will never be as reliable and effective as a human. The fact that we trust our maintainers used to be one of the core values of the Fedora community. It has been replaced by control-freakiness and paranoia. - All the power in Fedora is being centralized into 2 major committees: the Board and FESCo. FESCo is responsible for a lot of things all taking up meeting time, leading to lengthy meetings and little time for discussion. Many of those things could be handled better in a more decentralized way. Power should be delegated to SIGs and technical committees wherever possible, FESCo should only handle issues where no reponsible subcommittee can be found or where there is disagreement among affected committees. In particular, I suggest that: . FPC guidelines should be passed directly by FPC, only concrete objections should get escalated to FESCo. . membership in packager-sponsors and provenpackager should be handled by the sponsors, with a process to be defined by them (my suggestion: provenpackager should take 1 sponsor to approve and no possibility to object or veto, sponsor should take 3 sponsors to approve and objections can be escalated to FESCo). . features should get approved by the responsible SIG or committee (e.g. FPC for RPM features, KDE SIG for KDE features etc.). The feature wrangler should decide on a SIG to hand the feature to for approval, or even accept features filed
Re: Request for Comments: Fedora Project Contributor Agreement Draft (Replacement for Fedora Individual Contributor License Agreement)
But it should be explicitly stated anyway. Legalese isn't English. Note: IANAL On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Matt McCutchen m...@mattmccutchen.netwrote: On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 16:15 -0500, charles zeitler wrote: i looked at this (and the MIT license) didn't see any explicit reference to source code! (e.g. , that it must be made available.) Indeed. For an MIT licensing regime to be considered free, the original author must provide the source. But being non-copyleft, the license does not require distributors of derived works to provide source. I can't imagine Fedora accepting a contribution in binary form, so I believe this is a non-issue. -- Matt -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
