Re: KDE 4.9 F16?
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Karel Volný wrote: > have you noticed those three characters ":-)" just after the > sentence? Yes I did see the smiley but it was a baiting comment. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Philosophy > > Releases of the Fedora distribution are like releases of the > individual packages that compose it. A major version number > reflects a more-or-less stable set of features and functionality. > As a result, we should avoid major updates of packages within a > stable release. Updates should aim to fix bugs, and not introduce > features, particularly when those features would materially > affect the user or developer experience. The update rate for any > given release should drop off over time, approaching zero near > release end-of-life; since updates are primarily bugfixes, fewer I am aware of this policy - but in a very literal sense it "is" a shame that for a Fedora version that is not much more than 6 months old the update rate falls off so much due to this policy - though the kernel devs should be congratulated to keeping things pretty close to the release version even for, in this case, F16. Currently F16 has the same kernel as arch does in its [core] repo. 3.5 will soon be moving to core in arch but F16 I suspect will not be moved to 3.5 at all I guess. > 1) I've never needed to do a reinstall of Fedora machine - the > yum path has worked for me always, with one exception being the > usrmove which I had to fix manually ... YMMV OK you are lucky - I was certainly not that lucky around the Fedora 10 timeframe. Maybe the yum upgrade path is now a whole lot better. Those who have used it are more competent to comment on that than me. > 3) I really doubt if your work reinstalling the machines > justifies calling a shame the fact that the developers don't do > their additional work in upgrading the released distros (in fact, > I doubt this update should go even to F17(*)) and pushing the > change also on other people who think that having to cope with a > new version of software on their machine is a pretty tedious > business Yes it was a workload decision by the devs - as I said that is fine - anyone who is happy with that can continue to work within the constraint of a new system every 6 months either by re-install or yum upgrade if they are happy with it. I am no longer happy with it and I am not making any attempt to complain about it - I am moving on. > good for you - but then I really don't understand why would you > like Fedora to be just like Arch when you can (and do) install > Arch itself? As I said I am moving machines slowly over but I can do them all at once so some remain with F16 for the moment - and whilst they are running F16 it would have been nice to have the same version of KDE as I already have on those (smaller numbers of) machines which are running arch. So I just asked the simple question! > yep, I'm sad to see people leaving Fedora, but then the question > is what to do better to motivate the people to stay - but if it > is such feature then I doubt if we should change ... where would > be the freedom then if all the distros would use the rolling > updates model, where would go those who dislike Arch? Some may not be happy with arch either then they can choose whichever distro they like instead. Maybe some move from Arch to Fedora - maybe they go to Ubuntu - maybe they go to BSD Gentoo or any of the other available options - there is a choice. > but I'm no native English speaker so I may have gotten things > wrong Your English seems just as good if not better than mine and I am native English speaker - it is just a matter of individual viewpoint as to what is a simple question! Maybe I should have just said it was an "innocent" question - all I did was ask and had a reply from the maintainer - that should have been enough. Now it is time to move on I think. -- mike c -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: KDE 4.9 F16?
Dne Po 20. srpna 2012 17:08:30, mike cloaked napsal(a): > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Karel Volný wrote: > > yes, it's a shame that someone is unwilling to upgrade to F17 > > :-) > > > > K. > > That is a pretty snotty remark have you noticed those three characters ":-)" just after the sentence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon#Creation_of_:-.29_and_:-.28 > and very unwarranted. not that much ... see below: > F16 is a currently supported version of Fedora until about > November. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy#Philosophy Releases of the Fedora distribution are like releases of the individual packages that compose it. A major version number reflects a more-or-less stable set of features and functionality. As a result, we should avoid major updates of packages within a stable release. Updates should aim to fix bugs, and not introduce features, particularly when those features would materially affect the user or developer experience. The update rate for any given release should drop off over time, approaching zero near release end-of-life; since updates are primarily bugfixes, fewer and fewer should be needed over time. This necessarily means that stable releases will not closely track the very latest upstream code for all packages. We have rawhide for that. > If you are the owner of a single machine then a re-install is > tedious but not too time-consuming every 6 months. If you are > the admin for a dozen machines or more then re-installing all > of them every 6 months is a pretty tedious business - and like > quite a few other people I re-install usually annually on the > majority of Fedora machines for that reason. 1) I've never needed to do a reinstall of Fedora machine - the yum path has worked for me always, with one exception being the usrmove which I had to fix manually ... YMMV 2) I believe there are some management tools for those who have 12 or more machines that make upgrading them all as easy as upgrading one of them 3) I really doubt if your work reinstalling the machines justifies calling a shame the fact that the developers don't do their additional work in upgrading the released distros (in fact, I doubt this update should go even to F17(*)) and pushing the change also on other people who think that having to cope with a new version of software on their machine is a pretty tedious business (*) also considering the fact the developers provide the kde- testing/-unstable repos > For quite a lot of other people a rolling release distribution > makes less work when maintaining a significant number of > machines - and indeed I am moving my machines progressively > over to a rolling release distribution for that reason. I now > get to be more up to date than current Fedora on those > machines running the rolling release distribution. So even if > I was running F17 I would not be as up to date as Archlinux > for this particular package set. good for you - but then I really don't understand why would you like Fedora to be just like Arch when you can (and do) install Arch itself? yep, I'm sad to see people leaving Fedora, but then the question is what to do better to motivate the people to stay - but if it is such feature then I doubt if we should change ... where would be the freedom then if all the distros would use the rolling updates model, where would go those who dislike Arch? > We all have choices - and I asked a simple and perfectly valid > question - your kind of reply can lead to bad feeling on a list > like this! hm, I though I replied to "shame about F16 though!" ... I don't see any indication that *this* is "a simple and perfectly valid question" but I'm no native English speaker so I may have gotten things wrong K. -- Karel Volný QE BaseOs/Daemons Team Red Hat Czech, Brno tel. +420 532294274 (RH: +420 532294111 ext. 8262074) xmpp ka...@jabber.cz :: "Never attribute to malice what can :: easily be explained by stupidity." signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: KDE 4.9 F16?
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Arnav Kalra wrote: > It took me 3 days to install arch and even after that I was not able to use > wifi, so I gave up on it. I may try again but fedora is much better. > > How do I get to know which person is maintaining x package? I would like to > request packaging of tomahawk 0.5.5 for f17. It is available in rawhide but > installing it is not possible due to missing boost libraries in rawhide/18. Tomahawk seems to be packaged as part of the KDE group - the last person to build it on the latest package list in Bodhi is Rex Dieter. The Fedora package database link seems to be down at the moment but you will be able to query it when it gets back up. -- mike c -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: KDE 4.9 F16?
It took me 3 days to install arch and even after that I was not able to use wifi, so I gave up on it. I may try again but fedora is much better. How do I get to know which person is maintaining x package? I would like to request packaging of tomahawk 0.5.5 for f17. It is available in rawhide but installing it is not possible due to missing boost libraries in rawhide/18. On Aug 20, 2012 10:03 PM, "mike cloaked" wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Arnav Kalra > wrote: > > I agree with mike upgrading can be very tedious. But I do not think that > > installing archlinux is less tedious. > > The initial install of the first attempt at an archlinux install takes > longer than an initial install of Fedora - however once you know what > you are doing almost all of it can be scripted fairly easily - so that > future installs are not really any different in time to installing > Fedora. > > The huge gain then comes 6 months later when no clean install or messy > upgrade is necessary. Arch is continuously updated with packages > close to upstream. So if one machine is installed with Fedora at > release time and another with arch at the same time - then 6 months > later you need to spend the same time again with the Fedora machine > but the arch machine is already using up to date package sets if it > has been updated regularly in the meantime (as would the Fedora > machine presumably). For many machines the small progressive updates > as new package versions come available means that there is no "big > bang" effort needed to install new versions of the entire operating > system any more. As more machines are looked after the gains in time > become increasingly valuable particularly in a corporate environment. > > The issue of rolling release was discussed to death in the Fedora > lists quite some time ago and Fedora made the decision that it would > be unable to and would not support a rolling release model - which is > fine - the devs make whatever decision is agreed among them for the > distribution they put their effort into. Users can continue to run > with that system or can change to a different distribution if they > wish. Same with D.E.s - people have a free choice - I am not trying to > re-raise the whole discussion. > > I feel an urge to be as up to date and cutting edge as possible which > is why I asked the simple question about packaging this D.E. for F16 - > the answer was a categoric "no" - which is fine - that is what Fedora > maintainer for this package have decided - so I will move on when > I only had a couple of machines to look after Fedora suited me fine. > > Anyway feel free to simply ignore me - I asked a question and got an > answer which is fine - and I am not pushing on this any further. > > -- > mike c > -- > test mailing list > test@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: KDE 4.9 F16?
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Arnav Kalra wrote: > I agree with mike upgrading can be very tedious. But I do not think that > installing archlinux is less tedious. The initial install of the first attempt at an archlinux install takes longer than an initial install of Fedora - however once you know what you are doing almost all of it can be scripted fairly easily - so that future installs are not really any different in time to installing Fedora. The huge gain then comes 6 months later when no clean install or messy upgrade is necessary. Arch is continuously updated with packages close to upstream. So if one machine is installed with Fedora at release time and another with arch at the same time - then 6 months later you need to spend the same time again with the Fedora machine but the arch machine is already using up to date package sets if it has been updated regularly in the meantime (as would the Fedora machine presumably). For many machines the small progressive updates as new package versions come available means that there is no "big bang" effort needed to install new versions of the entire operating system any more. As more machines are looked after the gains in time become increasingly valuable particularly in a corporate environment. The issue of rolling release was discussed to death in the Fedora lists quite some time ago and Fedora made the decision that it would be unable to and would not support a rolling release model - which is fine - the devs make whatever decision is agreed among them for the distribution they put their effort into. Users can continue to run with that system or can change to a different distribution if they wish. Same with D.E.s - people have a free choice - I am not trying to re-raise the whole discussion. I feel an urge to be as up to date and cutting edge as possible which is why I asked the simple question about packaging this D.E. for F16 - the answer was a categoric "no" - which is fine - that is what Fedora maintainer for this package have decided - so I will move on when I only had a couple of machines to look after Fedora suited me fine. Anyway feel free to simply ignore me - I asked a question and got an answer which is fine - and I am not pushing on this any further. -- mike c -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: KDE 4.9 F16?
I agree with mike upgrading can be very tedious. But I do not think that installing archlinux is less tedious. On Aug 20, 2012 9:38 PM, "mike cloaked" wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Karel Volný wrote: > > yes, it's a shame that someone is unwilling to upgrade to F17 :-) > > > > K. > > That is a pretty snotty remark and very unwarranted. F16 is a > currently supported version of Fedora until about November. If you > are the owner of a single machine then a re-install is tedious but not > too time-consuming every 6 months. If you are the admin for a dozen > machines or more then re-installing all of them every 6 months is a > pretty tedious business - and like quite a few other people I > re-install usually annually on the majority of Fedora machines for > that reason. > > For quite a lot of other people a rolling release distribution makes > less work when maintaining a significant number of machines - and > indeed I am moving my machines progressively over to a rolling release > distribution for that reason. I now get to be more up to date than > current Fedora on those machines running the rolling release > distribution. So even if I was running F17 I would not be as up to > date as Archlinux for this particular package set. > > We all have choices - and I asked a simple and perfectly valid > question - your kind of reply can lead to bad feeling on a list like > this! > > -- > mike c > -- > test mailing list > test@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: KDE 4.9 F16?
On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 3:48 PM, Karel Volný wrote: > yes, it's a shame that someone is unwilling to upgrade to F17 :-) > > K. That is a pretty snotty remark and very unwarranted. F16 is a currently supported version of Fedora until about November. If you are the owner of a single machine then a re-install is tedious but not too time-consuming every 6 months. If you are the admin for a dozen machines or more then re-installing all of them every 6 months is a pretty tedious business - and like quite a few other people I re-install usually annually on the majority of Fedora machines for that reason. For quite a lot of other people a rolling release distribution makes less work when maintaining a significant number of machines - and indeed I am moving my machines progressively over to a rolling release distribution for that reason. I now get to be more up to date than current Fedora on those machines running the rolling release distribution. So even if I was running F17 I would not be as up to date as Archlinux for this particular package set. We all have choices - and I asked a simple and perfectly valid question - your kind of reply can lead to bad feeling on a list like this! -- mike c -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: KDE 4.9 F16?
Dne So 18. srpna 2012 08:39:01, mike cloaked napsal(a): > On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Rex Dieter wrote: > > mike cloaked wrote: > >> Does anyone know the plans for packaging kde 4.9 in anything > >> other than F18? 4.8.5 is in testing for F16 and F17 - and > >> yet I have been running 4.9 in arch linux from its stable > >> [core] repository for a week or so without any problems at > >> all. It would be nice to see 4.9 in F16 and F17 too? > > > > in short, F17 yes (probably at or near when 4.9.1 lands), but > > F16 no > OK thanks - shame about F16 though! yes, it's a shame that someone is unwilling to upgrade to F17 :-) K. -- Karel Volný QE BaseOs/Daemons Team Red Hat Czech, Brno tel. +420 532294274 (RH: +420 532294111 ext. 8262074) xmpp ka...@jabber.cz :: "Never attribute to malice what can :: easily be explained by stupidity." signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: KDE 4.9 F16?
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Rex Dieter wrote: > mike cloaked wrote: > >> Does anyone know the plans for packaging kde 4.9 in anything other >> than F18? 4.8.5 is in testing for F16 and F17 - and yet I have been >> running 4.9 in arch linux from its stable [core] repository for a week >> or so without any problems at all. It would be nice to see 4.9 in F16 >> and F17 too? > > in short, F17 yes (probably at or near when 4.9.1 lands), but F16 no > OK thanks - shame about F16 though! -- mike c -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Re: KDE 4.9 F16?
mike cloaked wrote: > Does anyone know the plans for packaging kde 4.9 in anything other > than F18? 4.8.5 is in testing for F16 and F17 - and yet I have been > running 4.9 in arch linux from its stable [core] repository for a week > or so without any problems at all. It would be nice to see 4.9 in F16 > and F17 too? in short, F17 yes (probably at or near when 4.9.1 lands), but F16 no -- rex -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
KDE 4.9 F16?
Does anyone know the plans for packaging kde 4.9 in anything other than F18? 4.8.5 is in testing for F16 and F17 - and yet I have been running 4.9 in arch linux from its stable [core] repository for a week or so without any problems at all. It would be nice to see 4.9 in F16 and F17 too? -- mike c -- test mailing list test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
