Re: Online Docs group was: I must be doing something seriously wrong...
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 09:05 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 15:09 +0200, Pierre-Yves wrote: > > There is an Online Docs group that has the -docs subpackage for many of > the system-config-* packages. It uses conditionals which are painful, > but would be a way for more -docs subpackages to be visible, and if the > user wishes to have local documentation, if available, for the packages > they've chosen, they can pick that group. > > The group name is a bit... wrong, but maybe a group of people that care > about documentation could help come up with a better name, and help to > ensure that all the available -docs packages get listed in this group. On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 1:10 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 14:16 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: >> Feel free to rename if you have a more suitable idea, though. If there >> is another means to achieve the same purpose, I'm all ears as well. > > The existence of the group is fine, and it should probably grow. The > problem is the name. "Online" at least here in the states means on the > internet, so "Online Docs" would mean documents that your read via the > Internet. "Offline Docs" is almost more correct but still a bit > awkward. Anyway, I don't really have good suggestions. Suggestions: "Local Documentation" "Local Help Documents" -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: I must be doing something seriously wrong...
Christoph Wickert schrieb: Let's not start this discussion again. ;) I'm glad FESCo did the right thing by withdrawing the policy (at least for now). You know, that the flag policy was revert on the last FESCo meeting to take futher examination about it. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: I must be doing something seriously wrong...
Am Mittwoch, den 27.05.2009, 19:20 +0200 schrieb Jochen Schmitt: > Christoph Wickert schrieb: > > When the flags proposal was announced to fedora-devel, so so a public > > decision-making could take place *before* making a policy? > > The proposal was not announced, it's ratification nether and the policy > > was active for months without anybody getting informed. This is what I'd > > call a secret. > > > > > Even the title of thei policy was a bad chosen, because you may thought, > the the > usage of compiler flags may be the topic of this policy. > > Hopefully, but the original question is still unanswered then: How is a > > deluge user supposed the realize the lack of single a function? > > > > > My opinion is to drop the flag policy entirely, so the flags should be > integrated > into the application as planed by the upstream. Let's not start this discussion again. ;) I'm glad FESCo did the right thing by withdrawing the policy (at least for now). > Best Regards: > > Jochen Schmitt Regards, Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: I must be doing something seriously wrong...
Christoph Wickert schrieb: When the flags proposal was announced to fedora-devel, so so a public decision-making could take place *before* making a policy? The proposal was not announced, it's ratification nether and the policy was active for months without anybody getting informed. This is what I'd call a secret. Even the title of thei policy was a bad chosen, because you may thought, the the usage of compiler flags may be the topic of this policy. Hopefully, but the original question is still unanswered then: How is a deluge user supposed the realize the lack of single a function? My opinion is to drop the flag policy entirely, so the flags should be integrated into the application as planed by the upstream. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: I must be doing something seriously wrong...
Am Samstag, den 23.05.2009, 09:52 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer: > On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 10:35:58PM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: > > >Also I've got a notion that FESCo recently approves more and more > >proposals without asking the community for opinions first and even in > >opposition to the community. > > I can't recall that being the case. There certainly may have been some > proposals that were opened during the week that were discussed on that Friday, > but we aren't creating secret proposals and voting on them. All of them come > directly from contributors (usually via fedora-devel discussions) and are > logged in the open fesco trac instance for the meetings. When the flags proposal was announced to fedora-devel, so so a public decision-making could take place *before* making a policy? The proposal was not announced, it's ratification nether and the policy was active for months without anybody getting informed. This is what I'd call a secret. > > > >> > 3. If someone really needs docs, he will realize this himself, > >> >because he is missing knowledge. For flags he doesn't. How is a > >> >deluge user supposed the realize the lack of a function? > >> > >> Deluge is clearly spelled out in the guideline as not needing flags for > >> functionality. Is that statement incorrect? > > > >Please note the difference between "a function" and "functionality". Of > >course the missing flags do not impact the basic function of deluge > >which is sharing files, but there is certain functionality missing. > >People can no longer see the location of their peers on a quick glance > >and have to read instead. > > > I don't find that concerning. Maybe it will help literacy. Hopefully, but the original question is still unanswered then: How is a deluge user supposed the realize the lack of single a function? > josh Christoph -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Online Docs group was: I must be doing something seriously wrong...
On Wed, 2009-05-27 at 14:16 +0200, Nils Philippsen wrote: > Sorry for chiming in late, but I'm just catching up with email after > being on vacation. This particular group was my brain-fart, I just > wanted to have a way to easily include/exclude online help documentation > (mostly to make it easy for people doing live media to leave it out). > Feel free to rename if you have a more suitable idea, though. If there > is another means to achieve the same purpose, I'm all ears as well. The existence of the group is fine, and it should probably grow. The problem is the name. "Online" at least here in the states means on the internet, so "Online Docs" would mean documents that your read via the Internet. "Offline Docs" is almost more correct but still a bit awkward. Anyway, I don't really have good suggestions. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Online Docs group was: I must be doing something seriously wrong...
On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 09:05 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 15:09 +0200, Pierre-Yves wrote: > > Maybe packageKit pointing out / highlighting package that have > > subpackage (such as -docs or -flags) might help this advertisement. > > There is an Online Docs group that has the -docs subpackage for many of > the system-config-* packages. It uses conditionals which are painful, > but would be a way for more -docs subpackages to be visible, and if the > user wishes to have local documentation, if available, for the packages > they've chosen, they can pick that group. > > The group name is a bit... wrong, but maybe a group of people that care > about documentation could help come up with a better name, and help to > ensure that all the available -docs packages get listed in this group. Sorry for chiming in late, but I'm just catching up with email after being on vacation. This particular group was my brain-fart, I just wanted to have a way to easily include/exclude online help documentation (mostly to make it easy for people doing live media to leave it out). Feel free to rename if you have a more suitable idea, though. If there is another means to achieve the same purpose, I'm all ears as well. Nils -- Nils Philippsen "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty n...@redhat.com nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: I must be doing something seriously wrong...
the only usage for soft dependency in my opinion is to offer the user with choices in front ends like yumex and PK in other words they should be considered as does not depend when removing packages or doing a cleanup > yum-remove-with-leaves will happily remove those even if you actually want > them! I filed a bug report about it, and devels added an option to make it works with libraries only I asked them to make it default, they refused but that's not a bug deal https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=481465 I liked the concept of flagging the packages as required by humans and installed for dependencies maintaining such database of why each package was added to the system after install will allow yum to make better cleanup decisions my suggestion 0. this database should be maintained by yum after installation 1. the database contains all the packages dragged for dependency 2. all libraries are dragged for dependency packages 3. installation does not touch that database (except libraries) 4. I'm very boring and talk is cheap :-) -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
