Re: Preteen pics, lolita bbs, sexy girls, nude art
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 08:44:00AM +0400, Aurora Oaks wrote: spam As well as making it to the list, the subject line of this email is currently appearing on http://start.fedoraproject.org/ This is probably not a good thing. Ewan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fixing the glibc adobe flash incompatibility
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 09:34:08AM +, Andrew Haley wrote: On 11/19/2010 08:11 AM, Matej Cepl wrote: People who switch from Fedora because of broken Flash are probably not people we should be most eager to retain. Good grief man, that's almost everybody who watches the BBC on their computer! get_iplayer is in rpmfusion; save yourself the grief of Flash (or that god-awful Air monstrosity). Ewan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:24:15PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 03/12/2010 08:24 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen is that the infrastructure needs to improve, not that the whole world adapts to stone- age infrastructure. This is extremely poor attitude Kevin and reeks of arrogance. Talking down on users and contributors who don't have the privilege of high bandwidth connections isn't what I expected from you. Nothing left to say. That's rather unfair. Fedora already has minimum system requirements, and they're not small. The installer requires quite a chunk of memory, and we chose to drop support for pre-i686 processors because they're ancient, not really up to running Fedora, and anyone stuck with one has alternatives that would be better for them then any attempt to run Fedora on that hardware. One of the great things about the whole Free software system is that one distribution dropping something doesn't mean those users are completely screwed with nowhere to go; it just means they might be better off with something more tailored to their needs. Ewan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Re: Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 03:59:46PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:56:05 -0500 Konstantin Ryabitsev i...@fedoraproject.org wrote: (And if the answer is backport the security fixes to 1.8.1 then I'm afraid I don't really have the skills nor have the time to spend on such massive effort). You can always find a co-maintainer skilled enough to help you in such rare cases... just saying. The Fedora Objectives page[1] says: In general, we prefer to move to a newer version for updates rather than backport fixes. I know this is what we're talking about, but it's not like we lack existing policy on this - the idea that there's no direction to help maintainers do the same things is not correct. Ewan [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Objectives -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Meeting summary/minutes for 2010-03-09 FESCo meeting
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 07:50:25AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: Do you like it when someone, who isn't getting their way threatens to take their ball and go home? There is a big difference between people threatening to take their ball home if something happens that they don't like, and people criticising a proposal on the basis that they think the technical impact of it will be to make it no longer worth their while to maintain packages within Fedora. Many of the responses seem to be more the latter, and shouldn't be simply written of as people throwing a strop. Ewan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed udpates policy change
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 01:21:45PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2010-03-10 at 23:11 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote: Either we (package maintainers) are qualified to make sane decisions about our package or we are not. I don't really see a middle ground here. Being qualified to do something does not mean that one always does it perfectly. Almost everyone's qualified to drive, yet road traffic accidents happen _all the time_. The people who built the LHC were no doubt qualified to do yet, yet it turns out to be a bit broken. The LHC is an interesting analogy; it certainly has problems that can be picked out with 20:20 hindsight, but there was no way anyone could have changed the processes in advance that would prevented them coming up in the first place. When you're trying to build something complicated and push the boundaries of what's been done before then mistakes are inevitable. For all its faults the LHC is absolutely the best thing of its type on the planet. Fear of making mistakes shouldn't stop us building things like the LHC, and it shouldn't stop us building things like Fedora either. We already know how to build things that are safe, boring, and have been done before. Someone's got to build the cool new stuff. Ewan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed udpates policy change
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:12:11PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:21:45PM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote: If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low profile packages: You're well on your way. So, no, that's not the intent and it's realised that this is a problem. We need to work on making it easier for users to see that there are available testing updates and give feedback on them. This is clearly going to take a while, and there'd undoubtedly going to be some difficulty in getting updates for more niche packages through as a result. It seems to me that the problem is a lack of testing, not irresponsible maintainers that don't care about testing. If the testing problem can be solved to the point that a policy like this could work without completely freezing updates for low profile packages then I think maintainers would be keen to have the testing, and you won't need the policy to force the issue. Ewan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PROPOSAL: Fedora user survey
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:33:45AM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote: Hello Seth, Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:23:00 AM, you wrote: Your primary server runs fedora? May I ask why? -sv I have limited time to do system installs and maintenance. Sticking with one distribution helps keep that sane. I have a dual boot XP + Ubuntu machine that I do some play with, but I find it strange, having used Fedora since FC3. You should consider running a RHEL rebuild like Scientific Linux or CentOS then; they're very Fedora-like in most respects, and are supported for very, very long periods. Ewan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: PROPOSAL: Fedora user survey
On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 05:55:33PM +, Terry Barnaby wrote: On 09/03/10 16:50, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote: On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 09:33:45AM -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote: I have limited time to do system installs and maintenance. Sticking with one distribution helps keep that sane. I have a dual boot XP + Ubuntu machine that I do some play with, but I find it strange, having used Fedora since FC3. You should consider running a RHEL rebuild like Scientific Linux or CentOS then; they're very Fedora-like in most respects, and are supported for very, very long periods. The trouble is that Fedora does not want to lose this user or group of users. I don't think it's about the users so much as the uses; I run Fedora on machines it's suitable for, and SL where that's a better fit. I am not lost to Fedora. Equally Al Dunsmuir clearly also has multiple systems (hence wanting to keep one distribution); so there's no reason to think they couldn't do the same. If all of the users that use Fedora for reasonably important tasks (not mission critical) stop using it, it will lose all of the real use testing and feedback to upstream developers that Fedora is good for and Linux needs. I use Fedora for important things, both by home and work desktops run it, I just don't use it for things that I expect to run for a long time without interruption or intervention or alteration. My feeling is that is likely to be happening ... I think Fedora should have a carefully balanced position between the mission critical systems and completely play only systems. I think that's a false dichotomy; Fedora shouldn't be a bad system unsuitable for real work, it should be a good system. But it can still be a good fast-moving system. There doesn't seem much purpose in trying to turn it into a good stable long running server system, when we have a perfectly good one of those already. Clearly, if there was a way to have Fedora's 'freshness', but RHEL's lack of hassle that would be ideal, but it's not clear that there is. Ewan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
