orphaning gwibber, any takers?
I know Gwibber is widely used by Fedora users because there are a crapton of abrt reports for it and I just can't keep up with it. :) Let me know if you have a desire for maintaining Gwibber in Fedora. From what I've heard, a release of 2.30 is on the horizon [1], and I just don't have the time to reproduce bugs :) [1]: http://identi.ca/notice/18051236 -- Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments pgpUqMXAgkt4p.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Opinion on Logo usage?
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 09:51:10PM -0700, Ryan Rix wrote: Hey everyone; I need some advice on how to use the Fedora logo. According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Logo/UsageGuidelines it's okay to use change the typeface of the Fedora text to white if the color backing it is Fedora blue (under Never Use the Logo on Similarly-Colored Backgrounds); Now, if I wanted put the logo on top of the Constantine wallpaper, the contrast is very bad, and nearly illegible, since it's very close to Pantone 2935 in many places. Would it be a grey area to make the Fedora typeface white in this case? See [1] for a screenshot of what we are talking about.. What would be the best way to do this? CCing design-team's list -- good idea to ask logo-related questions there. It's definitely recommended to make the Fedora typeface white in this case -- if you can't read Fedora without squinting, change it. The code currently loads the png from /usr/share/pixmaps/fedora-logo-small.png and generates the Welcome to text from MgOpen Modata Bold in the same Panotone 2935 of the logo typeface. If the logo typeface was made white, it would constitute keeping a separate image in the Fedora-tour data directory or adding another image to the fedora-logos package, I'd assume? The former is not a Good Thing, and the latter would probably take some intervention with Fedora-legal? I'm not sure of the details, tbh. What are everyone's thoughts? Any workarounds come to mind? Filing a bug against fedora-logos and attaching the proposed PNG with a rationale would probably do the trick. -- Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments pgpzeaQ1vBClH.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Broken dependencies with Fedora 11 updates-testing - 2009-11-11
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 01:46:44AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 11/12/2009 01:05 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies: == The results in this summary consider Test Updates! == package: tremulous-1.1.0-8.fc11.i586 from fedora-11-i386 unresolved deps: libopenal.so.0 --- Seriously, can the openal maintainer please stop breaking the ABI in updates? This isn't the first time. Is there a real necessity to do so? Can someone give me a definitive answer on whether or not I need to rebuild tremulous and tremfusion with the new ABI? I'm willing to, I just need the confusion to go away. -- Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org Why, a four-year-old could understand this report. Find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head or tail out of it. -- Groucho Marx, Duck Soup pgpZalmmUgz8E.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Docs preparing to convert to Creative Commons BY-SA 3.0 Unported license
Today, the Docs team finalized the conversion of the licensing of our documentation and project content from the Open Publication License (OPL) to a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). Docs originally reached a consensus to change the license in June 2009, and after answering questions raised by the community, the Docs team decided to go ahead with the transition. While OPL is a free and open documentation license, moving to a more widely known and adopted license and the one used by the likes of Wikipedia and GNOME Project helps us share our content more easily with the rest of the Free software community. Additional information can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Relicensing_OPL_to_CC_BY_SA We'd like to thank Tom 'spot' Callaway, Fedora's legal ninja, and Richard Fontana of Red Hat Legal for their help with the conversion. We look forward to continue working with the community and share our documentation freely. -- Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org Why, a four-year-old could understand this report. Find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head or tail out of it. -- Groucho Marx, Duck Soup pgptz3uwQZ7Ov.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Fedora-devel-announce mailing list fedora-devel-annou...@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: koji buildroot inconsistencies? chain-build does not fix...
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 03:13:15PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: How to fix this paradox? Just bump the release, recommit and retag. -- Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org Why, a four-year-old could understand this report. Find me a four-year-old child. I can't make head or tail out of it. -- Groucho Marx, Duck Soup pgp1fSyxWsYGo.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: FESCo meeting summary for 2009-06-26
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 05:18:52PM -0500, Adam Miller wrote: Just curious... Is the KDE liveCD considered a Spin or an official release image? KDE Live ISOs are official, last time I checked. -- Ian Weller i...@ianweller.org GnuPG fingerprint: E51E 0517 7A92 70A2 4226 B050 87ED 7C97 EFA8 4A36 pgpLLNiUfUMBM.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
