Re: deltarpm usefulness?
It is not always about speed. There are still plenty of places in the world where people are on limited data plans and to them using delta rpms makes a lot of sense. They can work with slow speeds but not with high data expenses. So i feel turning it on by default and having a setting to turn it off is still a sane choice. Just my 2 cents. Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj On Sun, Nov 7, 2021, 9:33 AM wrote: > Send devel mailing list submissions to > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via email, send a message with subject or > body 'help' to > devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > devel-ow...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of devel digest..."Today's Topics: > >1. Re: deltarpm usefulness? (Gary Buhrmaster) > > > > -- Forwarded message -- > From: Gary Buhrmaster > To: Development discussions related to Fedora < > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> > Cc: > Bcc: > Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2021 02:30:30 + > Subject: Re: deltarpm usefulness? > On Sun, Nov 7, 2021 at 2:22 AM Demi Marie Obenour > wrote: > > > I have almost always seen it *increase* download times, > > In my experience, while the download times may > be (slightly) reduced, on a number of my (slower) > systems, the rebuild of the rpm itself took longer > then it would have taken to download the full rpm. > > As with all else, your mileage WILL > vary.___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.
I don't know about how important EFI and reducing the bootloader technical debt is for the project, but at least for me personally, it will be a straight way out. My hard disk has a traditional MBR based structure with about a TB of very important data. I don't know of a 100% reliable way of converting it to GPT. While I do have backup for most important files, not everything is backed up nor do I have means to do so. The system works perfectly fine for me and I see no reason why I should opt for EFI. What is the value add for me, at least till I don't upgrade to a newer system? which I won't be at least for next 2 years. So forcing such a no-value-add change to existing user will drive them away. At least I would opt for a different distro in such case even though it's not something I want to do. I feel the better approach would be to use it as default for new installations, if the disks are appropriately formatted or are empty at the time of installation. Else a fall back to grub should be transparently done. Just my 2 cents from a user's perspective. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Unable to login to Wayland session on Fedora 26 Workstation
I have gone ahead and filed a bug for this (Bug ID: 1468029) and proposed it as final blocker as we are so close to Final release of Fedora 26 and this definitely seems like a blocker to me. A working Wayland session is a requirement for final release if I am not wrong. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Unable to login to Wayland session on Fedora 26 Workstation
Hi, I am using Fedora 26 Workstation x86_64 right from the time of Alpha release, it was upgraded from Fedora 25 Workstation using dnf system upgrade. I don't know when it happened, but today I noticed that on using any of the two sessions (Gnome or Gnome on X) from GDM, I always get an X session. I confirmed it by trying to do the Alt+F2 -> r command and shell restarted on both times, so it is confirmed that X is running. I tried re-installing packages gdm, gnome-session, gnome-session-wayland-session, gnome-classic-session and gnome-session-xsession but the problem is still there. On checking the .desktop files in /usr/share/xsessions, I found that for both gnome.desktop and gnome-xorg.desktop, the Exec line reads gnome-session only with no session name parameters etc. I don;t remember what should be the command lines for these, can anybody enlighten me? Also, should this be reported as a blocker bug? Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora 23 Rescue Grub Entry Remains after Upgrading to Fedora 24
Hello Everyone, Yesterday, I upgraded my fully updated Fedora 23 Workstation installation to Fedora 24 using dnf system upgrade plugin without any issues. However, I noticed that though Fedora 24 kernel (currently 4.5.5-300.fc24.x86_64) is installed and present at the top of the list in grub entries, the rescue entry for the system is not updated to use the current Fedora 24 kernel. It is still based on the last Fedora 23 kernel with fc23 in its name. Is it the way it should be or is it something that should have been taken care of by the upgrade process? If that is the case, I think I should open a bug in Bugzilla. I tried running dracut -fv and after that grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg, it updated the text of the rescue entry to read Fedora 24 Workstation, but still after booting, uname -a shows fc23 kernel. Anybody got any idea about how can I regenerate it? Thanks. Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj On Sunday 29 May 2016 10:38 AM, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: Send devel mailing list submissions to devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org You can reach the person managing the list at devel-ow...@lists.fedoraproject.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of devel digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: Packages to be Retired because of Broken Dependencies (2016-05-27) (Sérgio Basto) 2. Re: Packages to be Retired because of Broken Dependencies (2016-05-27) (Sérgio Basto) 3. Re: DNF Issue, packages being incorrectly removed - was: Re: corebird (Gerald B. Cox) 4. Re: DNF Issue, packages being incorrectly removed - was: Re: corebird (Gerald B. Cox) 5. Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes (Nico Kadel-Garcia) 6. Re: New PyPI link format for Python packages (Ken Dreyer) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Upstream Projects Schedule on F24 Wiki Page
Hi All, I just noticed that the Upstream Projects Schedule section on the below page (Fedora 24 release schedule page) on wiki is not updated for Fedora 24. Is it intentional? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/24/Schedule Thanks. -- Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
modem-manager-gui update in F22 testing repo since 7 days
Hi Everyone, There is an important fix for the package modem-manager-gui which resolves a crash on startup in the current version (current version is not usable at all on Fedora 22) in the updates-testing repo. It is there since 7 days and needs 1 karma point to get pushed to stable. Can somebody please test it out and do the needful? or can the maintainer push it since its been 7 days already? Thanks. -- Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj -- 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: Fedora 22 Repositories contain Fedora 21 Packages?
Thanks a lot for the quick clarifications Matthew, Kevin and Josh! This is why I love Fedora project, the most awesome community we have! :) Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj On Saturday 23 May 2015 01:16 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Sat, 23 May 2015 01:10:21 +0530 Sumit Bhardwaj wrote: Hi All, I have a fresh installation of Fedora 22 RC1 with all the extra stuff I needed installed. Today I was going through the list of packages installed on my system and was a little bit surprised to find some packages ending in "fc21" in their names. Now, for an upgraded system that might happen, but on a clean install, why I am getting FC21 packages? Because per my understanding, for any branched release, packages are completely rebuilt. Then how did this happen? There was no mass rebuild for f22. There was not time in the schedule to do it and still release around when we wanted to. Additionally, there's aways some few packages that fail to rebuild in the mass rebuild but yet continue to work fine. So, on any release you could see packages from older versions, it's nothing to worry about. More to the point, do I have to care about or do something about these? Will these be auto upgraded later with their FC22 counterparts? No. No need to worry. When/if they need an update for some reason, they would be built with a newer version and you would update. kevin -- 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: Getting changes from new RC builds to previous ones
Hi Kevin, Thanks for explanation. That cleared things up for me. I was not aware of the bleed "repo", and indeed all those updates were there. Need to read the wiki more :) As a matter of fact, I just got all the updated packages from the RC2 build from "fedora" repository, so its clear to me now. Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj On Saturday 23 May 2015 12:19 AM, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: Re: Getting changes from new RC builds to previous ones (Kevin Fen -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Fedora 22 Repositories contain Fedora 21 Packages?
list-1.0.8-9.fc21.noarch d-feet-0.3.9-1.fc21.noarch xorg-x11-proto-devel-7.7-12.fc21.noarch python-beaker-1.5.4-10.fc21.noarch nodejs-mkdirp-0.3.5-5.fc21.noarch python-ecdsa-0.11-3.fc21.noarch nodejs-ini-1.1.0-5.fc21.noarch nodejs-retry-0.6.0-7.fc21.noarch nodejs-sntp-0.2.4-3.fc21.noarch nodejs-asn1-0.1.11-5.fc21.noarch nodejs-npmconf-0.1.3-2.fc21.noarch nodejs-aws-sign-0.3.0-3.fc21.noarch mono-winforms-2.10.8-7.fc21.x86_64 nodejs-minimatch-0.2.12-4.fc21.noarch po-debconf-1.0.16-4.nmu2.fc21.noarch nodejs-archy-0.0.2-10.fc21.noarch python-feedparser-5.1.3-7.fc21.noarch paktype-naskh-basic-fonts-4.1-4.fc21.noarch redhat-menus-12.0.2-8.fc21.noarch nodejs-semver-2.1.0-3.fc21.noarch nodejs-which-1.0.5-10.fc21.noarch nodejs-config-chain-1.1.7-3.fc21.noarch nodejs-sigmund-1.0.0-7.fc21.noarch nodejs-child-process-close-0.1.1-4.fc21.noarch python-dns-1.11.1-4.fc21.noarch jnr-x86asm-1.0.2-5.fc21.noarch pdfmod-0.9.1-8.fc21.noarch joda-time-2.3-2.tzdata2013g.fc21.noarch ghostscript-fonts-5.50-33.fc21.noarch system-config-date-docs-1.0.12-2.fc21.noarch python-beautifulsoup4-4.3.2-3.fc21.noarch nodejs-rimraf-2.2.2-2.fc21.noarch nodejs-chownr-0.0.1-11.fc21.noarch libcue-1.4.0-4.fc21.x86_64 python-pyasn1-modules-0.1.7-4.fc21.noarch nodejs-read-package-json-1.1.3-2.fc21.noarch python-BeautifulSoup-3.2.1-8.fc21.noarch telepathy-filesystem-0.0.2-7.fc21.noarch rubypick-1.1.1-2.fc21.noarch python-decorator-3.4.0-5.fc21.noarch comps-extras-23-2.fc21.noarch nodejs-boom-0.4.2-4.fc21.noarch nodejs-hawk-1.0.0-2.fc21.noarch pytz-2012d-7.fc21.noarch nodejs-http-signature-0.10.0-5.fc21.noarch nodejs-request-2.25.0-2.fc21.noarch mono-web-2.10.8-7.fc21.x86_64 nodejs-uid-number-0.0.3-9.fc21.noarch Thanks. -- Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj -- 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: [Test-Announce] Fedora 22 Final status is Go, release on May 26, 2015
Hurrah! Heartiest congratulations to everyone involved! BTW, does this means that RC3 is the final build?? No more RCs, right? Thanks. Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj On Saturday 23 May 2015 12:19 AM, devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org wrote: Send devel mailing list submissions to devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org You can reach the person managing the list at devel-ow...@lists.fedoraproject.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of devel digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: InsightToolkit fails to build on rawhide due to missing SSE instructions (Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski) 2. Re: New implementation of pthread condition variables in rawhide (Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski) 3. Re: New implementation of pthread condition variables in rawhide (Siddhesh Poyarekar) 4. Re: New implementation of pthread condition variables in rawhide (Siddhesh Poyarekar) 5. F-22 Branched report: 20150522 changes (Fedora Branched Report) 6. Re: ABRT report for package soundconverter has reached 10 occurrences (Michael Schwendt) 7. Re: Getting changes from new RC builds to previous ones (Kevin Fenzi) 8. Re: [Guidelines change] Changes to the packaging guidelines (Frank Ch. Eigler) 9. Minutes from Env-and-Stacks WG meeting (2015-05-21) (Honza Horak) 10. Re: ABRT report for package soundconverter has reached 10 occurrences (Richard Marko) 11. Re: ABRT report for package soundconverter has reached 10 occurrences (Vít Ondruch) 12. Re: ABRT report for package soundconverter has reached 10 occurrences (Vít Ondruch) 13. Re: ABRT report for package soundconverter has reached 10 occurrences (Vít Ondruch) 14. (Jaroslav Reznik) -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Getting changes from new RC builds to previous ones
Hey Parag / Everybody, RC3 has also been released however, I haven't got a single update yet post installation of RC1. If I am not wrong, TC and RC builds are composed from Fedora stable repo. So if packages are being added to this repo before composing the RC builds, how come these updates are not getting pushed to me? Just curious. Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj On Thursday 21 May 2015 11:28 AM, Parag Nemade wrote: Hi, On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 10:41 AM, Sumit Bhardwaj wrote: Hi All, I have switched to Fedora 22 Workstation yesterday, fresh install using RC1 ISO. Everything is working well. However, today I noticed RC2 build is up. But since final freeze in effect, I got no updates when checked today with dnf upgrade --refresh command. Is there any way I can pull these changes into my current setup? I intend to keep this setup and take it to final release without reinstalling. I think you should get RC2 package updates by tomorrow. The request to push those packages to F22 stable can be tracked in ticket https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/6120#comment:25 Regards, Parag. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Getting changes from new RC builds to previous ones
Hi All, I have switched to Fedora 22 Workstation yesterday, fresh install using RC1 ISO. Everything is working well. However, today I noticed RC2 build is up. But since final freeze in effect, I got no updates when checked today with dnf upgrade --refresh command. Is there any way I can pull these changes into my current setup? I intend to keep this setup and take it to final release without reinstalling. Thanks. Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Updates repositories switch to Fedora 22 normal Updates
Hi, Noticed that we have now entered the Final Freeze, so I was wondering when will the Fedora 22 repositories will auto-switch to the normal updates repositories from current update-testing? If I am not wrong this change is pushed via a package update somewhere around this time. I usually wait till this time and then do my upgrade. Otherwise, when repos are switched, sometimes a lot of packages get downgraded/upgraded while doing distro-sync. This is just my way of doing things...no real benefits etc that I can think of. Thanks. -- Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj -- 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: F22 System Wide Change: Legacy implementations of the Java platform in Fedora
Hi All, I have been reading this mail chain for some time and there is something I wanted to say. It's kind of a long mail, I apologize for taking so much of your time but request you to please bear with me. I work as a technical consultant on IBM WebSphere, IBM BPM, Java/J2EE and Python technology stacks, who has to code on Java/J2EEquite often as well and I use Fedora 21 Workstation as my primary OS. My field of work is such that I need to use JDK versions 1.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, all from time to time. This is because as time passed, solutions delivered to customers were built using incremental versions of Java/J2EE specifications and were not frequently upgraded. In my role, the changes/fixes I do to these enterprise apps are usually small and require only a certain jar file to be recompiled, or in some cases only one class. In such cases, maintaining binary compatibility is a must and for that I need to recompile that one jar/class with the original version of JDK that was used to compile the rest of the project in the first place. I use Oracle java in most cases due to corporate policies (for personal use, I use the latest version of OpenJDK). Now as per Oracle's policy, which I am sure is similar for OpenJDK as well, a particular version of JDK/JRE is updated till and even some time after the next major version is released, and then at a certain Update level, Oracle stops supporting it. That update version becomes the final update for that particular major release, and is sent into archives, while updates keep on getting released for the current version. With Oracle JDK, there are two installation approaches available for RPM based systems. They provide an RPM package which installs java in /usr/java, i.e. in system area and the latest installed java version become default. However, they also provides tarballs of JDKs, that contain certain standard directory structure of JDK intact inside one folder. These tarballs can be extracted and placed in any place on file system and once JAVA_HOME is pointed towards these+PATH is locally updated to include it, user can basically use this JDK without any issues. What version of Java is installed in system as default, in system area (/usr/java) become irrelevant. With IDEs like Eclipse and NetBeans the process is even simpler, as you can define these individual folders as JDKs for particular API versions in IDE configuration permanently and while creating a project can choose to use any of these "defined JDKs". This is the approach that I take. I have the last updated versions of all the JDKs from 1.4 to 8 in my /opt folder. I have these configured in Eclipse and NetBeans for each API version and I use them all as required by the project. So I guess if OpenJDK can follow the same approach and can give an option to download tarballs of older versions and use them in place, without requiring any installation, as a definite directory structure, then the problem is solved. There is no need to maintain old version per se in repositories, as these are not updated anymore and the user will be able to use multiple versions without conflict of any kind. As for the default JDK, it can be kept how it is now i.e. The latest available JDK can be maintained in Fedora repos as they are being maintained now and updates can be provided for the defined lifetime of that JDK. Let me know what you guys think about this approach. -- Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 18:22 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > On 02/24/2015 05:21 PM, Mario Torre wrote: > > On Tue, 2015-02-24 at 15:37 +0100, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > >> On 02/24/2015 02:15 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote: > >>> On 02/24/2015 12:43 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > >>>> I am against official guidelines or policy for legacy JDK packages. I > >>>> don't think that any such policy is needed and it would only encourage > >>>> adoption of old packages for which there might be no security updates. > >>> > >>> Well thats the point - people are calling for them. And wont to maintain > >>> them with this risk. > >> > >> I thought that the point of this change proposal was "enabling community > >> to maintain legacy JDKs", not encouraging people to package them without > >> good reason or without involvement to truly maintaining them. Packaging > >> older JDKs is *already* possible, so IMHO this change accomplishes > >> nothing but showing people how they can dump old, unmaintained software > >> into Fedora. > > > > Well, in this case it would not be un-maintained, the Fedora package > > would *not* be maintained *by us* (the Red Hat Java Team) indeed, but we > > are still actively contributing to the upstream software in its various > > versions. While you as a packager cannot specifically c
Re: Removal of Fedora Planet post links from start.fedoraproject.org
Well, I understand your point Matthew. Yes, often the post are on the geekier side and may not be related to Fedora project as such, but most of them are about Linux in general and day to day problems/solutions in a Linux user's life. I am not aware of the intentions behind the Planet Fedora aggregator's invention but if I am not wrong, all the blog posts that appear on it are from Fedora contributors only, from some project or other. Many times these posts are very informative and solve highly technical problems or provide way around some tricky situations based on real life experiences. So Planet Fedora is important for me personally, both as a user and as a developer. Going to it directly by entering the URL is ok but is a additional step. What you are saying about the start page is correct and yes, it should cater to the wider audience as much as possible. What I think can be done at least is since the new UI has tabs on top, another tab can be added that points to the planet fedora aggregator. It still won't be that useful but at least it won't be completely gone from the page. I think its an important part of it and I am sure there will be few other also, if not many, who developed a habit of checking it from start page over time like me. I will do some more thinking on it and if I come up with some subtle design changes that can incorporate planet Fedora links without actually changing the new design language and audience view of the page, I will surely share it. In that case, with whom can I share these? -- Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj On Tue, 2015-02-17 at 11:54 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:07:37AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > Hope its the right place to discuss this. Recently, during the redesign > > > of the start.fedoraproject.org page, the links to updated/new posts from > > > planet.fedoraproject.org were removed. Any specific reason for this? > > Often, those posts were not Fedora related, and generally out of our > > control. I'm glad you found them usually interesting — that's valuable > > feedback. > > After some coffee, I should add some more explanation. Fedora has many > times more users than developers, and the start page should primarily > appeal to that wider audience. Most of the content on the planet — even > that which is properly Fedora-related — is pretty highly tilted towards > the geekier contributor side. There's nothing wrong with that, but it > can be overwhelming. So, the goal with the Magazine is to be more > user-focused (although there's still a lot of contributor-focused stuff > mixed in as well; we're still working on the balance). > > If you're deeply involved and want the firehose, > http://planet.fedoraproject.org is there. If *you'd* like to contribute > user-focused content (even reposting from your blog, or whatever), see > <https://ask.fedoraproject.org/en/question/52782/how-do-i-contribute-to-fedora-magazine/?answer=52786#post-id-52786> > > There's also value in having users aware of the wider community and > drawing them in, so, again... we're working out the balance, and > everyone's help figuring that out is welcome. > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Removal of Fedora Planet post links from start.fedoraproject.org
Hi All, Hope its the right place to discuss this. Recently, during the redesign of the start.fedoraproject.org page, the links to updated/new posts from planet.fedoraproject.org were removed. Any specific reason for this? I, for one, used those links for quickly going through the new blog posts. Planet Fedora blog articles are much more frequent than those posted in fedora magazine (although that is needed as well). So 8 out of 10 times when I opened my browser, I used to get something new to read and follow from there to the actual blog if I find it interesting. Now with blog links gone, I feel less and less compelled to open the page every time I open my browser and I feel like removing it as my start page. I think the idea behind having a start page is to have users actually use it as start page and find value in doing that. I personally feel that is gone, because now, most of the times I get the same articles. So once a day visit to fedora magazine is enough. -- Regards, Sumit Bhardwaj -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
