On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
> > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So
In perl we have to often update package to fix one thing, but
this update needs higher version of different package, so we
are forced to update package even in older releases.
Chris and Ralf explained our reasons well in previous posts.
There are more worthless updates, so you should send some gen
On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
>>> here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
>>> fu
> On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > > here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So thes
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
> > working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change anything at
> > all!
> >
>
> Thi
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
> > functions aren't actually deprecated i
On 3 March 2010 13:57, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
here is the kicker. The
> On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>> Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> >>> here is the kicker
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 08:05:23 Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
> > working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change anything
> > at all!
>
> This I believe t
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 09:40:15 Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:53:40 -0800, Jesse wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 02:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > That's a fair point, but there are significantly fewer people around to
> > > fix critical issues should they arise on a weekend, and after working 5
> > > weekd
Paul Wouters writes:
>>> The tor upstream has filed that as bug report as well.
>>
>> ... and understand my reasons not to activate logging
>
> That is not true. It just decided not to pick a fight over that while
> more pressing bugs required you to fix them.
ok; sorry that I thought that you w
On 03/03/2010 10:17 AM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
>> On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Ok... removing deprecated uses is a quest
James Antill writes:
> You are joking, right? I mean apart from the fact that there is a
> _huge_ difference between requiring "mount" and "libX*" ...
please do not blame me for redhat-lsb packaging...
> the _kernel_ requires the package initscripts is installed.
initscripts are not required
On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:57:56 -0500, Toshio wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > > here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0
Kevin Kofler writes:
>> Upstart does not have a good way yet to disable/enable service so you
>> have to edit /etc/init/tor.conf resp. /etc/event.d/tor manually.
>
> Which is one of the reasons why you aren't supposed to use native
> Upstarts scripts yet!
it's a somehow strange situation... ther
Le Mer 3 mars 2010 05:49, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> did a poor job in stating our goals for the operating system, and just
>> hoped that our maintainers would see things the way we saw them.
>
> Why should they see them that way rather than the right way? ;-)
Please stop c
"Chen Lei" writes:
> BTW, /var/lib/tor-data seems not used at all, maybe this directory
> should not be included in tor-core?
thx; was a leftover from GeoIP stuff which was removed due to anonymity
reasons. It will be fixed in the next packages.
Enrico
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedor
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
>> > here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So t
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
>> > here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc1
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> > What kind of tests need to be done always manually? The only ones I can
> > think are tests for the appearance of applications or tests that require
> > specific hardware. But in the general cas
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:33:40AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> You keep saying that 7 days is "enough" but I haven't seen you provide
> _any_ evidence to support it. Noting that it will often take 3-4 days
> before a package in testing can be seen by all users. So maybe you are
So there is an e
On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
[..]
> BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
> Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
>
[..]
Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) and you will get latest
and greatest anyway. Updating old releases to latest
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 13:07:16 Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> [..]
>
> > BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
> > Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
>
> [..]
>
> Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) a
Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> On 03/02/2010 06:06 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
> > Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 01:34 +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> >>> Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Even bugfix releases of KDE require a session restart to fully work.
> >>>
> >>> I consider that a seriou
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:52:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in
>> cleaning up the mess, not making it worse b/c fesco HAS to be about the
>> long term growth and
On 03/03/2010 01:07 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> [..]
>> BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
>> Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
>>
> [..]
>
> Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) and you will get la
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> [..]
>> BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
>> Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
>>
> [..]
>
> Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) and you wi
Author: pghmcfc
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-RRD-Simple/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27937
Modified Files:
perl-RRD-Simple.spec
Added Files:
RRD-Simple-1.44-pod.patch
Log Message:
* Wed Mar 3 2010 Paul Howarth - 1.44-5
- Change buildreq perl(Test
On 03/03/2010 08:38 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > So maybe you are under the impression that all the users who would test
> > your package are anxiously waiting for your packages to be available?
> For those packages where regressions actually matter to people, they
> definitely are. People keep aski
2010/3/3 Josh Boyer :
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:52:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>> We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in
>>> cleaning up the mess, not making it worse b/c fesco HAS to be about t
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:54:57AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:53:40 -0800, Jesse wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 02:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> > Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > > That's a fair point, but there are significantly fewer people around to
>> > > fix critica
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want them as
> well for people who want it in F-11, i give it to them. Why should i
> force someone to upgrade every 6 month? Or even worse to rawhide as
> mentioned in this thread? I had sk
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bridon
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen
> wrote:
>> What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want them as
>> well for people who want it in F-11, i give it to them. Why should i
>> force someone to upgrade every 6 month? O
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:51, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bridon
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen
>> wrote:
>>> What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want them as
>>> well for people who want it in F-11, i give it to th
On 3 March 2010 18:03, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
>> On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> [..]
>>> BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
>>> Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
>>>
>> [..]
>>
>> Wel
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2010/3/3 Josh Boyer :
On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:52:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in
cleaning up the mess, not making
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>> And stages non-critical/important updates so our QA team can test and
>> check them over more thoroughly and align testing goals and days to help
>> foster and create a more active and involved testing infrastructure.
>
> Congratulat
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
>>> working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> So far, I haven't seen any indication of such a team being in existance
> (c.f. dnssec-conf, kernel) nor am I aware of any means for testing such
> perl-modules (perl-modules typically are equipped with a testsuite).
>
> The real testing is performed
Compose started at Wed Mar 3 08:15:10 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires libboost_serialization-mt.so.5
emotion-0.1.0.042-5.fc12
Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen said:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> > I really can't see the value in pushing features
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569568
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System 2010-03-03
09:31:59 EST ---
perl-RRD-Simple-1.44-5.fc13 has been submitted as an updat
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464964
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System
2010-03-03 09:31:54 EST ---
perl-RRD-Simple-1.44-5.fc13 has been submitted as an upda
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 15:16:05 Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen said:
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters
wrote:
> > > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> > > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Mathieu Bridon
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:51, Thomas Janssen
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bridon
>> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen
>>> wrote:
What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want
* Jaroslav Reznik [03/03/2010 15:41] :
>
> It's very easy - latest KDE stable release.
Not if they've never updated their install, in which case they've got
the version of KDE that shipped on release date.
If they updated their distribution until some point in the past,
they've got any version of
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen said:
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
>> > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Emmanuel Seyman
wrote:
> * Jaroslav Reznik [03/03/2010 15:41] :
>>
>> It's very easy - latest KDE stable release.
>
> Not if they've never updated their install, in which case they've got
> the version of KDE that shipped on release date.
>
> If they updated their d
Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen said:
> If you want RHEL, use it.
People keep saying this, as if the opposite of "updates every day" is
"release every 3 years". Those are two extremes, and there is a lot of
space in between.
> > On my mirror, updates/12 is approaching the size of releases/12/F
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen said:
>> If you want RHEL, use it.
>
> People keep saying this, as if the opposite of "updates every day" is
> "release every 3 years". Those are two extremes, and there is a lot of
> space in between.
Sure th
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 15:55:18 Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen said:
> > If you want RHEL, use it.
>
> People keep saying this, as if the opposite of "updates every day" is
> "release every 3 years". Those are two extremes, and there is a lot of
> space in between.
So
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:47:23AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 05:54 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/03/2010 05:17 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:34 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Where is the mock update?
>
>
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> James Antill wrote:
> > This isn't a hard problem, 3.0 should then be marked as a security
> > update.
>
> But the case we're discussing is that 3.0 was pushed long before it was
> known that it happens to fix a security vulnerability. We'
On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 23:57 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I wasn't suggesting that's what happens in Fedora at present, just that
> - given a single update stream in which it's perfectly fine for
> 'security' updates to build on 'feature' updates - it's impossible to
> cherry pick only security
Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> If KDE wants to be on an equal footing with GNOME (another of your
> repeated complains) it needs to learn synchronizing with distro releases
> like GNOME (and kernel, and xorg did).
I don't see this as being practical at all. Not all distros even release at
the same time
Enrico Scholz wrote:
> please do not blame me for redhat-lsb packaging...
You're not being blamed for the redhat-lsb packaging but for requiring
redhat-lsb in the first place. That package is not supposed to be required
by Fedora packages.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@list
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:08 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> So why we can't use it as our advantage and fill this gap?
We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
months) and updates for those releases that focus on bugfix and
security. That is a unique role that is not f
Seth Vidal wrote:
> If you can't understand it, perhaps you should reconsider your role on a
> technical committee like fesco.
I understood your sentence, that doesn't make it any less jargon.
>> * And most importantly, even if we were to accept that it could lead to
>> better QA (which I doubt)
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 09:45 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
> > > working just fine, thank you very much!
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
>
> Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
>
> At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
> attention.
+1
I really don't see why we should treat "previous stable" as a second-class
citizen. It's sup
On Wednesday 03 March 2010 16:43:37 Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:08 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > So why we can't use it as our advantage and fill this gap?
>
> We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
> months) and updates for those releases that
On 03/03/2010 02:47 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>>
>> So far, I haven't seen any indication of such a team being in existance
>> (c.f. dnssec-conf, kernel) nor am I aware of any means for testing such
>> perl-modules (perl-modules typically are equipped w
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
> >Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
> >different?
>
> What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further
> members of FPB and FESCO) to be graduall
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:38 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> James Antill wrote:
>
> >> I
> >> want many updates, but I don't want to be the guinea pig for updates
> >> which just hit testing,
> >
> > And nobody else wants to be the guinea pig for _you_.
>
> People who use updates-testing under the
Also tsocks now are in the repo of fedora, so maybe you can include the tor
stuffs related to tsocks.
Another question is why you use tor-lsb instead of normal initscript , a
tor-sysvinit subpackage may be more suitable for fedora.
在2010-03-03?18:27:47，"Enrico?Scholz"??写道：
>"Chen?Lei"??writes
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> > Are there even any metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
> > bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
> > with updates or new bugs introduced with u
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> The problem is that the end-user has no idea what rawhide means. Why
> not let them know. I said already a few times, give people new to
> fedora (fresh installation) something like openSUSE has. A tour trough
> Fedora, and educate them there. It pops up automatically if you
2010/3/3 Seth Vidal :
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>
>> >> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
>> >Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
>> >different?
>>
>> What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further
>> member
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
>>> Are there even any metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
>>> bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
>
On 03/02/2010 08:42 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
>
>> On 03/02/2010 06:15 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
> X11 is particularly dangerous for this kind of changes, given how low
> it is in the software stack and how some code necessarily looks like
> (hardware drivers in par
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:02:51AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:38 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > No, because updates may depend on previous updates to work properly. We
> > can't possibly test or support all possible combinations of updates.
>
> We can't _now_ ... beca
Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) and you will get latest
> and greatest anyway.
With a wait of up to 6 months. That's way too long. That leaves Rawhide,
which isn't suitable for production use. So no option left.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
d
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
> 2010/3/3 Seth Vidal :
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>
> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
different?
>>>
>>> What do you expect?
* Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 16:00] :
>
> Helper: please run in a terminal "kde4-config --version"
If you're going to ask users to use the CLI, you're better off asking
them the output of "rpm -q kdelibs", the answer will be more precise.
> Not to hard to find out.
And in contradiction to what J
Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> Not if they've never updated their install, in which case they've got
> the version of KDE that shipped on release date.
So the first thing you tell users is to run "yum update" and see if that
fixes their problem. It doesn't make sense to try debugging issues with old
s
On 3/3/2010 2:27, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
>
> Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
>
> At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
> attention.
Right now Fedora releases are either "Supported" or "Unsupported." [1]
If we wan
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:08 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> So why we can't use it as our advantage and fill this gap?
>
> We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
> months) and updates for those releases that focus
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 17:05, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> (And BTW, thanks for your replies in this thread. People really need to
> realize that I'm not the only one who likes Fedora BECAUSE of the version
> upgrades!)
We realize it, at least I do fwiw. I see lot's of people saying how
they like Fedora
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Emmanuel Seyman
wrote:
> * Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 16:00] :
>>
>> Helper: please run in a terminal "kde4-config --version"
>
> If you're going to ask users to use the CLI, you're better off asking
> them the output of "rpm -q kdelibs", the answer will be more pre
Thomas Janssen wrote:
> But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
> since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
> decided what will happen will have to live with it.
>
> Well, there you see how dumb i am. That i speak up for something that
> will not h
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
>> since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
>> decided what will happen will have to live with it.
>>
>> Well, there you see how dumb i am
Chris Adams wrote:
> Some packagers are turning Fedora into a rolling-update package
> collection instead of a coherent distribution.
[snip]
> If Fedora is going to be a rolling update package collection (despite
> what Kevin tries to claim about some mythical "semi-rolling", that's
> what we are
On 03/03/2010 05:24 AM, Björn Persson wrote:
> You mean the system would download updates while I'm working but I would have
> to wait while it installs them? That's of course a little better than waiting
> while it downloads them too, but in my experience the installation phase
> usually takes lon
On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
>> since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
>> decided what will happen will have to live with it.
>>
>> Well, there you see how
Till Maas wrote:
> How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> only updates repo enabled by default.
That's essentially what Adam Williamson and Doug Ledford (both inspired by
Mandriva) already p
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:37:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> actually works (i.e. if it doesn't lead to maintainers only caring about the
> conservative stream).
Packagers would then have the choice, I think this can only be a good
thing. Right now they have the choice, but the user cannot kno
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:09 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:02:51AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> > If we had less updates, that changed less things and required more
> > testing before pushing them to users ... this would be entirely
> > possible.
>
> Less updates mean more c
On 3/3/2010 2:51, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> only updates repo enabled by default.
Splitting the u
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:16 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> Erm, dont take it personally please, but, have you ever used a
> different distro? One example is openSUSE (yes, i use it on some boxen
> here) does exactly that. What's with Debian stable? And i bet even
> ubuntu is like that.
Neither Ope
* Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 17:41] :
>
> Really? And that shows me the QT version now? I must miss something.
"If they ask about F12 KDE, who knows."
Emmanuel
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Tie-IxHash:
aae2e62df7e016fd3e8fdaaea71b0b41 Tie-IxHash-1.22.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman
On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:28 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:52:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >> We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in
> >> cleaning up the mess, not making
On 03/03/2010 04:51 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> For me personally the type of update I'd like to see slowed down is the
> pure enhancement update or new package updates, ones that do nothing but
> swallow up the latest upstream build or scm snapshot to add new
> features.
#1 on your personal list
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:57:53AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Neither OpenSUSE nor Ubuntu are as quick to pick up new technologies and
> run with them into a stable release. Quite often they pick things
> up /after/ Fedora has done a release with them and worked through all
> the hard problems.
On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>
>> 2010/3/3 Seth Vidal:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
> Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why shou
James Antill wrote:
> I would assume you could just change the updateinfo for the the current
> update to mark it as "security", this is a tiny amount of extra work on
> the packager side ... but without it all the work to create the security
> types on updates is worthless.
We can't change Bodhi
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:50:22AM -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On 3/3/2010 2:51, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> > another repo like updates-stable that follows your
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:37:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> > another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> > only updates repo enabled by default.
>
> That's essentially wh
On Tuesday 02 March 2010 11:58:06 Pierre-Yves wrote:
> We could imagine a monthly reminder if you are interested.
A once a month reminder is perfect. :-)
> Best regards,
>
> Pierre
--
José Abílio
___
r-devel mailing list
r-de...@lists.fedoraproject.o
1 - 100 of 202 matches
Mail list logo
