Geoff Galitz wrote:
>
>> The aim was to create platform, not
>> strictly focused on enterprise. We wanted create something mixed.
>> Something with enterprise, testing, backport levels and efforts. The
>> project has been started but never really haven't happened.
>>
>
> I'll go on the reco
Dag Wieers wrote:
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement like
"...latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages..." or any
other statement that might imply, suggest, hint, or even smell of
breaking compatibility with RH, f
Karanbir Singh wrote:
> also, I completely lost interest in this thread when it went into
> ranting lands, guess it might be worth catching up on.
>
not really. :-/
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:16 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> Didi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/3679382429_d535f79823_o.jpg
(info offered by NedSlider)
>>>
>>> Have a look at t
the end of this circle for me
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 07/04/2009 08:07 AM, Geoff Galitz wrote:
>> The project is a confluence of a sub-project under the cAos project,
>
> Is this still true? Is Centos still officially associated with cAos? Or
> was that supposed to be in the past tense?
No, CentOS has nothing to do with caos in quite a few years
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
>>
>>> BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement
>>> like "...latest release has many up-to-date desktop
>>> packages..."
>>
>> ummm -- it is of course true that changes happen; rebasings do
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement like
"...latest release has many up-to-date desktop packages..." or any
other statement that might imply, suggest, hint, or even smell of
breaking compatibility with RH, for whatever reason,
>The project is a confluence of a sub-project under the cAos project,
Is this still true? Is Centos still officially associated with cAos? Or
was that supposed to be in the past tense?
-geoff
-
Geoff Galitz
Blankenheim NRW, Germany
http://www.galitz.org/
http
>
> enough is enough already.
>
> can some centos admin please discipline, ban and/or get rid of Radu-Cristian
> FOTESCU aka beranger...@yahoo.ca
>
> please?
>
> not only has he physically threatened a contributor, his language & behavior
> are more than inappropriate for such a profess
- Original Message
> From: R P Herrold
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 8:51:35 PM
> Subject: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
>
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
>
> > BUT... when someone from the Centos
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
> BUT... when someone from the Centos team makes a statement
> like "...latest release has many up-to-date desktop
> packages..."
ummm -- it is of course true that changes happen; rebasings do
as well; and the CentOS project [and the upstream] docume
- Original Message
> From: R P Herrold
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Sent: Friday, July 3, 2009 6:18:15 PM
> Subject: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
>
> On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
>
> > In all fairness to all the rebels, if som
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
> In all fairness to all the rebels, if somebody from the
> Cento's team would have responded in a timely matter to the
> original yes/no question of this thread,
... and an allegedly 'yes or no' question can take three and a
half 24 line screens to
In all fairness to all the rebels, if somebody from the Cento's team would have
responded in a timely matter to the original yes/no question of this thread,
maybe this thread wouldn't have deviated to the point at which is at.
Something definitely got lost in the translation, but in the future
enough is enough already.
can some centos admin please discipline, ban and/or get rid of Radu-Cristian
FOTESCU aka beranger...@yahoo.ca
please?
not only has he physically threatened a contributor, his language & behavior
are more than inappropriate for such a professional atmosphere that ha
Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
>> Didi wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/3679382429_d535f79823_o.jpg
(info offered by NedSlider)
>>> Have a look at the time the photo was taken. The bo
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
> Didi wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2558/3679382429_d535f79823_o.jpg
>>> (info offered by NedSlider)
>>
>> Have a look at the time the photo was taken. The booth only opened at
>> 10
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 06:37:17AM -0700, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
> > no, trolling works much better on high volume lists
> > like this one.
>
> I officially declare that whoever uses the word "troll"
> is underbrained (aka stupid moron). The verb "to troll"
> was invented by some ***arrogan
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
no, trolling works much better on high volume lists
like this one.
I officially declare that whoever uses the word "troll"
is underbrained (aka stupid moron). The verb "to troll"
was invented by some ***arrogant*** F/LOSS developers
to assert that any *conve
Didi wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
>>> >From http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090629
>>>
>>> "Right next to the Gentoo stand was a group of young people, proudly
>>> displaying their affiliation w
> no, trolling works much better on high volume lists
> like this one.
I officially declare that whoever uses the word "troll"
is underbrained (aka stupid moron). The verb "to troll"
was invented by some ***arrogant*** F/LOSS developers
to assert that any *conversation* that looks slightly
crit
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
>>
>> >From http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090629
>>
>> "Right next to the Gentoo stand was a group of young people, proudly
>> displaying their affiliation with CentOS.
>> D
Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
>> >From http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090629
>>
>> "Right next to the Gentoo stand was a group of young people, proudly
>> displaying their affiliation with CentOS.
>> Dag Wieers, the well-known maintaine
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 7:58 AM, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
>
> >From http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090629
>
> "Right next to the Gentoo stand was a group of young people, proudly
> displaying their affiliation with CentOS.
> Dag Wieers, the well-known maintainer of a once very popula
Linux Advocate napsal(a):
> david, could u tell me how to build frm SRPMS. i m not good in this area and
> would like to improve.
>
As usual wiki is the good place to start from:
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/RebuildSRPM
I personally use the Mock:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Projects/Mock
ht
Ron Loftin wrote:
> As a really radical suggestion, perhaps you should consider moving this
> "discussion" to the rpmforge mail list, since it seems that most of your
> issues are focused on that repository. You might even find a larger
> collection of viewpoints there.
no, trolling works much be
On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 06:36:23PM -0700, Michael A. Peters wrote:
> Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
... (trimmed)
> >>
> > I can see that RF has a slightly newer version of
> > python-imaging-1.1.6-2.el5.rf.i386
... (deleted R-C rant) ...
> I don't find updating something like python acceptable.
Les Mikesell wrote:
> Michael A. Peters wrote:
>> How it interacts with epel I don't really care about, but it should not
>> update vendor packages, and anything that requires an updated vendor
>> package will be broken on yum configurations that protect the base install.
>
> I think you've conf
Michael A. Peters wrote:
>
> How it interacts with epel I don't really care about, but it should not
> update vendor packages, and anything that requires an updated vendor
> package will be broken on yum configurations that protect the base install.
I think you've confused rpmforge with somethi
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
>> Buildlogs are available from:
>>
>> http://packages.sw.be/comix/_buildlogs/
>>
>> I hope you come back and tell me what was your problem.
>
> I have to be back on my continent before addressing this issue.
> So far, I can see that the build of Comix seems to hav
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
> - audacious has a missing dependency (audacious-plugins)
> - comix SRPM does not rebuild
>
> That's 2 packages, I think we do quite well if that is it :)
But this is only because I am not crazy
As a really radical suggestion, perhaps you should consider moving this
"discussion" to the rpmforge mail list, since it seems that most of your
issues are focused on that repository. You might even find a larger
collection of viewpoints there.
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 11:32 -0700, Radu-Cristian FO
> I believe that YOU are the only person on this list
> who has expressed an interest in "audacious"
> (whatever it is & does) for CentOS during these several
> days of rant.
I believe that YOU are the only person on this list
(whoever you are & do) to have suggested popularity as
a required
> Buildlogs are available from:
>
> http://packages.sw.be/comix/_buildlogs/
>
> I hope you come back and tell me what was your problem.
I have to be back on my continent before addressing this issue.
So far, I can see that the build of Comix seems to have been done
by Dries, and that it was
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
>>> What was the problem with audacious again ?
> Maybe the problem is indeed you, and not the repository. You expect too
> much from people who volunteer their own time. As I said now multiple
>
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
My point being: audacious does build, but it has a missing
dependency.
Which still == broken repo.
Sure, but when you started that thread you didn't mention your problem
with the comix package. I was still confused why you would talk about
S
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
The audacious package is willing to wait that long
>> :)
>>
>>> Nope, because I've built it *for myself*,
>>> i.e. in my repo.
>>>
>> And was your patch rejected from the places you are
>> complaining about?
>>
>
> There. Is. No. Q
> >> The audacious package is willing to wait that long
> :)
> >
> > Nope, because I've built it *for myself*,
> > i.e. in my repo.
>
> And was your patch rejected from the places you are
> complaining about?
There. Is. No. Question. About. Any. Patch.
When you build audacious from SPEC + tar
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
>
>> The audacious package is willing to wait that long :)
>
> Nope, because I've built it *for myself*, i.e. in my repo.
And was your patch rejected from the places you are complaining about?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
__
> My point being: audacious does build, but it has a missing
> dependency.
Which still == broken repo.
> You were referring the whole time to SRPMs that do not build.
> But you never give me an example of one.
On the contrary, I mentioned Comix. But again, I never try the
SRPM, but the SPEC+
Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
>
>>> Anyway, as I said previously, I would rather see the CentOS
>>> Project concentrate on the core product and do a really good
>>> job on that (i.e, a move closer to the old 4 week release lag
>>> than the current 10 week re
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 03:43:41PM -0700, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
> > I Can not speak for others, but the only time i have
> > seen Karanbir be stern with anyone is when they do
> > deserve it.
>
> Well, I've read him saying in various ways and on
> several occasions something that would eq
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
Anyway, as I said previously, I would rather see the CentOS
Project concentrate on the core product and do a really good
job on that (i.e, a move closer to the old 4 week release lag
than the current 10 week release lag), and I would much rather
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
>> What was the problem with audacious again ?
>
> # yum install audacious
> ...
> Resolving Dependencies
> --> Running transaction check
> ---> Package audacious.i386 0:1.3.2-5.el5.rf set to be updated
> --> Processing Dependency: audacious-plugin
Ned Slider napsal(a):
> Bingo! That's the whole point Russ - members of the Community don't know
> what's going on with *their* Community Enterprise OS because there is no
> dissemination of information.
>
> What I *do* "know" is that 5.3 took ~10 weeks to release, and before
> that 4.7 took ~7
into personal attacks. venting happens once awhile. so lets all work
together to keep making centos a good cholce for users.
- Original Message
> From: Les Mikesell
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2009 8:42:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Dag'
>
> On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 14:18, Linux Advocatewrote:
> > could u tell me howto build frm SRPM? i am not good at this area and would
> like to learn this.
>
> This article in the Wiki should get you going...
> http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/RebuildSRPM
>
> HTH,
> Filipe
thanx.
_
great. thanx.
- Original Message
> From: Robert Heller
>could u tell me howto build frm SRPM? i am not good at this area and
> would like to learn this.
>
> Simple form (should work with most packages):
>
> # rpmbuild --rebuild package-version-release.srpm
>
> 'man rpmbuild' for m
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
>
> As I said, and as everyone on this list knows:
> KB is not a person to talk with. Usually, KB would
> throw offensive assertion to people. No matter
> what KB would say, and no matter how important is
> KB to the CentOS project, a quick search through
> the cen
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
>
> RPMRepo is the best proof that collaboration is close to impossible.
Collaboration isn't exactly the point - in fact the differences are a good
thing. There are legitimate reasons (besides the obvious differences of
opinions) for incompatibly different version
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
>
>
>> If a SRPMS builds under CentOS 5.0 and it doesn't
>> under 5.3,then this package is broekn.
>>
>> Ok, you're making it yourself very hard now, but I
>> will accept scripts/tools that can verify this.
>> I don't think any other repository is
>> even doing th
On Wed, 2009-07-01 at 00:10 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
> R P Herrold wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Ned Slider wrote:
> >
> >> Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are
> >> already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro
> >> at present), ...
> >
> > It
> Anyway, as I said previously, I would rather see the CentOS
> Project concentrate on the core product and do a really good
> job on that (i.e, a move closer to the old 4 week release lag
> than the current 10 week release lag), and I would much rather
> see this than effort diluted by taking o
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 12:10 AM, Ned Slider wrote:
> R P Herrold wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Ned Slider wrote:
>>
>>> Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are
>>> already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro
>>> at present), ...
>>
>> It may be clear
R P Herrold wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Ned Slider wrote:
>
>> Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are
>> already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro
>> at present), ...
>
> It may be clear to Ned, but is not the case.
>
Then we disagree. Other
> I Can not speak for others, but the only time i have
> seen Karanbir be stern with anyone is when they do
> deserve it.
Well, I've read him saying in various ways and on
several occasions something that would equate "RTFM",
only it was put in such an offensive way that even
myself, as an ext
- Original Message
> From: Radu-Cristian FOTESCU
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 3:59:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
>
>
> > Where did you see the QA requirements for the packages
> > in c.k.o
> Where did you see the QA requirements for the packages
> in c.k.o ?
I didn't. But since you say that there is a reason for
them to be in "testing", I then assumed the reason was
"testing". But then, the activity usually called "testing"
is part of a process usually called Quality Assurance.
B
ntOS mailing list
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:11:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
> >
> > David Hrbác a écrit :
> >
> > >
> > > Niki,
> > > that's starting the flame. Compare to PLD linux... mo
>
> Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are
> already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro at present),
> why doesn't everyone do as Dag suggested, and adopt a handful of
> packages and help maintain them at rpmforge for the benefit of everyone.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 14:18, Linux Advocate wrote:
> could u tell me howto build frm SRPM? i am not good at this area and would
> like to learn this.
This article in the Wiki should get you going...
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/RebuildSRPM
HTH,
Filipe
_
david, could u tell me how to build frm SRPMS. i m not good in this area and
would like to improve.
- Original Message
> From: David Hrbác(
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:52:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
>
Niki, could u tell me howto build frm SRPM? i am not good at this area and
would like to learn this.
- Original Message
> From: Niki Kovacs
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:11:54 PM
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
>
&
Thanks
- Original Message
> From: Karanbir Singh
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 11:46:15 AM
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Dag's comment at linuxtag
>
> On 06/29/2009 08:06 PM, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
> > The whole point of the
On 06/30/2009 05:05 PM, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
> OTOH, it's such an accomplishment to have *all* the packages
> in "testing" since 2007 and none of them passing the QA
> requirements...
Where did you see the QA requirements for the packages in c.k.o ? Also,
why are you ignoring what has alr
> yes, perhaps the english language is alien to you - the
> word 'testing' means something, there is a reason why
> those packages are there in 'testing' - people who
> dont know what they are doing are recommended to
> NOT use them.
Karanbir, I've always 'appreciated' you being such a 'nice'
On 06/30/2009 03:46 PM, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
> We even have centos.karan.org, with all the packages for 5 in...
> "testing", since 2007. Oh boy.
yes, perhaps the english language is alien to you - the word 'testing'
means something, there is a reason why those packages are there in
'test
On 06/30/2009 09:22 AM, David Hrbác( wrote:
> that's starting the flame. Compare to PLD linux... more than 1
> RPMs... Not more that unpaid 40 people involved, actively committing
> only about 5 people...
I have much respect for the PLD guys, they have a fantastic system in
place, and I think
On 06/30/2009 11:03 AM, David Hrbác( wrote:
> The "project" is to be found here http://rpmrepo.org/ I guess there's no
> leadership right now.
rpmrepo.org suffered from a too-many-cooks and everyone wanting to
workout what the other guys were upto before deciding to do much - there
were a few ex
On 06/30/2009 12:10 PM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
> There was a time where CentOS contrib repo has been announced. It was
> meant to be a package source for 'community-contributed' packages. So
> why not just merge stable RPMForge packages over there and start a
> 'semi-official' CentOS orientated repo
On 06/29/2009 08:06 PM, Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
> The whole point of the question is to make sure that Centos will remain 100%
> binary compatible with PNAELV, at least in terms of package version. This
> does not mean that others will not have the ability to break this 100% binary
> compatibil
> What was the problem with audacious again ?
# yum install audacious
...
Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package audacious.i386 0:1.3.2-5.el5.rf set to be updated
--> Processing Dependency: audacious-plugins >= 1.3.0 for package: audacious
...
--> Missing Dependency: au
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
> But I *do* have a problem with RPM Fusion and Karanbir's repo, because
> they keep packages in "testing" even if nothing happens (they could stay
> there until 2014, right?).
oh _+please+_ troll elsewhere .. no-one forces you to use any
third
> He wants me to do some things for him for free
> (unfortunately I am a freelancer and not a millionaire).
Not for *me*!!!
It's only a matter of perception. I normally don't like
when a SRPM doesn't build, and I believe that until it's
fixed, it should either be removed (alongside with the
c
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Ned Slider wrote:
> Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are
> already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro
> at present), ...
It may be clear to Ned, but is not the case.
I wish people not in the know would not purport to
char
> Firefox was better than Mozilla.
Nay. Only Firefox 0.9 was better than Mozilla.
Later on, bloatware won.
> It's definitely worth noting that, Epiphany &
> Firefox popped up so quickly because they built on
> Mozilla's rendering, etc.
Yes, it's easier to add bloatware on a solid open-sourced
> How many employees does Canonical have? AFAIK, it all
> started with a group of 30 odd Debian developers.
Yes, but when they started, they mainly rebuilt the upstream
(Debian) packages, right?
> Compare this with the russian ALT Linux distribution:
> 150 paid full time developers only to main
> So we have centosplus and extras which are the repos with
> "access denied" for packages inclusion. Dag's rpmforge
> which is so huge with a lot of dependencies not suitable
> for "testing/bleeding edge/alternative" packages. So
> what's the suitable repo? That's why people are going to
> run
Dag Wieers napsal(a):
>
> The biggest problem for me is that we do not have the infrastructure in
> RPMforge. I still need to build the x86 and x86_64 stuff, Fabian does
> the PPC packages.
Yes, "we" don't. As for me, there's no time and need to reinvent the
wheel. There are many etalons to look
Ned Slider napsal(a):
> Rather than dumping *even more work* on the core CentOS project (who are
> already clearly struggling to provide even the core distro at present),
> why doesn't everyone do as Dag suggested, and adopt a handful of
> packages and help maintain them at rpmforge for the bene
Dag Wieers napsal(a):
>
> I am all for a solution, but unless it already works I would not call it a
> solution, but a short-term (and possibly long-term) risk.
>
I hasn't been working and I dare to say not because the community... So
I don't see any way how can contrib work after those years.
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, Marcus Moeller wrote:
>> I have been using RPMforge much longer than EPEL and only have a few
>> packages from EPEL on my 5.3 (32 bit) desktop. When I added the EPEL
>> Repository to Priorities, the number of packages excluded went from
>> approximately 400 to 1705. My belief
Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Linux Advocate wrote:
>
>
>> beranger...@yahoo.com... , u have a problem with dag...and now it looks
>> like u have a problem with linus torvalds himself u talk abt the need
>> for cooperation,etc but you apparently dont get that 'you have to gi
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, David Hrbác( wrote:
Niki Kovacs napsal(a):
Well, no flame intended. So let me just add this. I'm a happy RPMForge
repo user. No other third-party repos. I've learned how to circumvent
the odd quirks in the repo (like: how do I use VLC and Audacity at the
same time). And if
Marcus Moeller wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>> I have been using RPMforge much longer than EPEL and only have a few
>> packages from EPEL on my 5.3 (32 bit) desktop. When I added the EPEL
>> Repository to Priorities, the number of packages excluded went from
>> approximately 400 to 1705. My belief is that h
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009, David Hrbáč wrote:
Dag Wieers napsal(a):
The difference is that you can only install one distribution, but you can
install tons of incompatible repositories.
And the believe that one repo will rule them all (which is what Fedora and
EPEL wants you to believe) is just de
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Linux Advocate wrote:
> beranger...@yahoo.com... , u have a problem with dag...and now it looks like
> u have a problem with linus torvalds himself u talk abt the need for
> cooperation,etc but you apparently dont get that 'you have to give
> respect to get respec
On Mon, 29 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
>
>> I am still waiting for it. I am willing to give you commit
>> access to fix all the things that irritate you. I offered
>> the same to others.
>
> Actually, how do we know what builds and validates in RF and
> what doesn't?
>
> You should rath
Hi all,
> I have been using RPMforge much longer than EPEL and only have a few
> packages from EPEL on my 5.3 (32 bit) desktop. When I added the EPEL
> Repository to Priorities, the number of packages excluded went from
> approximately 400 to 1705. My belief is that had I not given EPEL a
> very l
On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 06:51:54PM -0700, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
> > led to the great compiler we have today. The same
> > would hold for any large project (the kernel, firefox, etc.)
>
> And... are you happy with the quality of the huge $h1t which
> is Firefox? Because I am not.
Firefox
Geoff Galitz napsal(a):
> I'll go on the record as being willing to volunteer to help with a
> distribution/version neutral repo. Such a thing would benefit my business.
> Is anyone currently leading this project?
The "project" is to be found here http://rpmrepo.org/ I guess there's no
leadership
Niki Kovacs napsal(a):
> Well, no flame intended. So let me just add this. I'm a happy RPMForge
> repo user. No other third-party repos. I've learned how to circumvent
> the odd quirks in the repo (like: how do I use VLC and Audacity at the
> same time). And if a package is not in RPMForge (whic
Bogdan Nicolescu wrote:
>
> not to be rude but back to the core of the original question:
>
> is is safe to assume that future releases of Centos will remain a
> "built from publicly available open source SRPMS provided by a prominent
> North American Enterprise Linux vendor. CentOS conforms fu
David Hrbác a écrit :
>
> Niki,
> that's starting the flame. Compare to PLD linux... more than 1
> RPMs...
Well, no flame intended. So let me just add this. I'm a happy RPMForge
repo user. No other third-party repos. I've learned how to circumvent
the odd quirks in the repo (like: how do
On 30 Jun 2009, at 9:46 AM, Geoff Galitz wrote:
>
>
>> The aim was to create platform, not
>> strictly focused on enterprise. We wanted create something mixed.
>> Something with enterprise, testing, backport levels and efforts. The
>> project has been started but never really haven't happened.
>
Niki Kovacs napsal(a):
> How many employees does Canonical have? AFAIK, it all started with a
> group of 30 odd Debian developers.
>
> Compare this with the russian ALT Linux distribution: 150 paid full time
> developers only to maintain the distro.
>
> As for Red Hat, according to recent news,
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU a écrit :
> (And I won't mention the quality of Ubuntu's packages.)
> As for TUV, they decided they can only support ~2.5k packages,
> regardless of the fact that they're the #1 Linux company.
How many employees does Canonical have? AFAIK, it all started with a
group of 30
> The aim was to create platform, not
> strictly focused on enterprise. We wanted create something mixed.
> Something with enterprise, testing, backport levels and efforts. The
> project has been started but never really haven't happened.
I'll go on the record as being willing to volunteer to he
Dag Wieers napsal(a):
>
> The difference is that you can only install one distribution, but you can
> install tons of incompatible repositories.
>
> And the believe that one repo will rule them all (which is what Fedora and
> EPEL wants you to believe) is just debunked by yourself above :-)
>
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
