On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:34:03PM -0500, Will Woods wrote:
>
>> Adam's poll results are valid *only* for Fedora users who:
>>
>> a) Are members of the Fedora forum,
>> b) Enthusiasts/power-users to the degree that they would notice a new
>> thre
On 08/03/10 23:12, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:21:45PM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
>>
>> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
>> profile packages: You're well on your way.
>
> So, no, that's not the intent and it's realised that this is
On 03/09/2010 06:51 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 11:45 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> And why does Fedora need to know about this?
>
> Maybe for some GSoC ideas? I don't know. Has Fedora (or a project like
> this) ever had such data before?
>
>>
>> Fedora is what its contributors m
On 03/08/2010 11:45 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> And why does Fedora need to know about this?
Maybe for some GSoC ideas? I don't know. Has Fedora (or a project like
this) ever had such data before?
>
> Fedora is what its contributors make it and what its government allows
> its contributors to m
On 03/09/2010 06:37 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Correct me if I am wrong, but right now the Fedora project knows little
> to nothing about its user base as a whole from a scientific perspective.
And why does Fedora need to know about this?
Fedora is what its contributors make it and what its
On 03/08/2010 11:05 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> -1
>
> It sure looks like a californian referendum process. Let me make this
> abundantly clear: I have ZERO interest in developing a distro which is
> driven by mob vote of whomever happens to be on the internet.
>
Correct me if I am wrong, but righ
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 20:47 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>
>> Then make it 3 months, 4 months... Leave it in testing forever if you
>> get too many complaints. But make it available for those who want it.
>
> This is not the purpose of updates
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
> Folks,
>
> I will propose this to FESCo through their normal channels.
>
> My proposal is that we create a "Fedora User Survey" and create a link
> on the fp.o website with a few very simple questions. One of those
> questions would be what users think ab
Folks,
I will propose this to FESCo through their normal channels.
My proposal is that we create a "Fedora User Survey" and create a link
on the fp.o website with a few very simple questions. One of those
questions would be what users think about the current update policy,
using plain (and as non
Hi Matthew,
Thank you to you, Josh, and others for putting effort into these
discussions. And thanks for bringing this up in the meeting tomorrow.
Some comments inline below that might be useful, or not.
Before I get into what you wrote, can I also suggest asking Fedora users
what they want? We a
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:34:03PM -0500, Will Woods wrote:
>
>> Adam's poll results are valid *only* for Fedora users who:
>>
>> a) Are members of the Fedora forum,
>> b) Enthusiasts/power-users to the degree that they would notice a new
>> thread
On 03/09/2010 12:53 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 18:45 -0500, Steven M. Parrish wrote:
>> As a maintainer I have seen several of my packages sit in updates testing for
>> over 2 weeks with no comments and no karma. In fact they sat so long I got
>> nag mail about not pushing th
On 03/08/2010 11:45 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 23:21:45 +0100, Sven wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>>> Before being added to updates, the package must receive a net karma of
>>> +3 in Bodhi.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> It is the expectat
Am Montag, den 08.03.2010, 12:34 -0500 schrieb Will Woods:
> Our current users'
> expectations are already set by their past experience with Fedora. If
> they're still Fedora users, they're willing to accept - and *have*
> accepted - whatever we're currently doing.
+1 Amen.
Therefore we should b
On 03/08/2010 04:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
I'd like to add a thought to this that has not been mentioned yet best
I can see.
First let me state that I use Fedora every day for business - real
world business and I'm not using it as an IT or computer person but as a
businessman. I am, in m
> > My basic point here is that the poll, while imperfect, is the best
> > indication we have available so far.
>
> So? From a scientific process perspective, bad data is bad data. And
> if all you have is bad data, then you really have no data at all.
>From a social science point of view (and
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features or purely bu
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 07:55:03PM -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > You're willing to say that if I update one of my packages that has a script
> > of 30 lines, is a leaf node, and the update is to give the script an
> > optional argument t
Sorry for the delay in getting back.
On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 20:05 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> I updated it to mention the ticket handling.
>
> I just wonder, is there no verification done one the request, e.g. is
> everybody allowed to request a build override or is it restricted to
> package (co)ma
>>then i seriously think we are following different lists :/
>>as adam's poll is starting to show the majority of fedora users choose
fedora for the fact that it is >>leading the way with the newer software and
that it has constant updates. (ie >>freedom,friends,features,first!) this
argument that
On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 15:59 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> 1) Make rawhide consumable.
> A) Create rawhide-unstable. Any time a known disruptive change is
> being worked on, it should be built here by the developer. In
> addition, add rpmdiff checks to all builds from devel into
>
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> You're willing to say that if I update one of my packages that has a script
> of 30 lines, is a leaf node, and the update is to give the script an
> optional argument to print output to stdout instead of writing to a file
> that I'm incapabl
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 06:45:49PM -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> 3) Sufficient testing of software inherently requires manual
> >> intervention by more than one individual.
> >>
> > This isn't entirely true either.
>
> #3 is so true th
On Fri, 2010-03-05 at 13:49 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some ideas to speedup the availability of updates. Are there any
> reasons except that the tools to do this do not exist yet, to switch to
> this? I created a wiki page for this:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Till/update_
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 06:28:45PM -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The future
> > --
> >
> > Defining the purpose of Fedora updates is outside the scope of Fesco.
> > However, we note that updates intended to add new functionality
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We assume the following axioms:
>
> 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
> the user are unacceptable.
>
> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> without sufficient
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 17:30:14 -0600,
> Mike McGrath wrote:
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 23:52:24 +0100,
> > > Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It takes days for updates to be distribute
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 02:05:05PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 16:32 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > That's the page for releng's actions in response to a buildroot override
> > request. I'm looking for where it's documented when to ask for a buildroot
> > override, when
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 17:30:14 -0600,
Mike McGrath wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 23:52:24 +0100,
> > Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > >
> > > It takes days for updates to be distributed to mirrors. A week may be
> > > nothing for that importan
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 18:45 -0500, Steven M. Parrish wrote:
> As a maintainer I have seen several of my packages sit in updates testing for
> over 2 weeks with no comments and no karma. In fact they sat so long I got
> nag mail about not pushing them. Requiring a karma of +3 to push is just not
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:12:11PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:21:45PM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
> >
> > If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
> > profile packages: You're well on your way.
>
> So, no, that's not the intent and
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> 3) Sufficient testing of software inherently requires manual
>> intervention by more than one individual.
>>
> This isn't entirely true either.
#3 is so true that is central to what distros are about. Upstream
probably released a good upda
On Monday 08 March 2010 05:32:01 pm Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> ...snip...
>
> Thanks for working on this Matthew!
>
> A small issue:
>
> - If the policy states +3 is needed, does that mean we are locking all
> updates to require this amount, no more no less? This could be bad
> for packages where
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 23:52:24 +0100,
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >
> > It takes days for updates to be distributed to mirrors. A week may be
> > nothing for that important power-user of app 'A', who would find a problem
> > as soon as he *would* t
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> The future
> --
>
> Defining the purpose of Fedora updates is outside the scope of Fesco.
> However, we note that updates intended to add new functionality are more
> likely to result in user-visible regressions, and updates that alt
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:12:11PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
>> profile packages: You're well on your way.
> So, no, that's not the intent and it's realised that this is a problem.
> We need to work on making it
On 03/08/2010 03:31 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:14 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
>> On 03/08/2010 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> If you think the poll is wrong - provide some data to disprove it.
>>
>> I'm sorry, but that's a scientifically specious argument. Invalid d
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We need to work on making it easier for users to see that there are
> available testing updates and give feedback on them. This is clearly
> going to take a while, and there'd undoubtedly going to be some
> difficulty in getting updates for more niche packages through as a
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 23:52:24 +0100,
Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> It takes days for updates to be distributed to mirrors. A week may be
> nothing for that important power-user of app 'A', who would find a problem
> as soon as he *would* try out a test-update.
Some mirrors. Others have stuff
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:27:04PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:59:29 +, Matthew wrote:
> > 1) Updates to stable that result in any reduction of functionality to
> > the user are unacceptable.
>
> Unless the fixes contained within an update are _more important_ than
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:21:45PM +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
>
> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low
> profile packages: You're well on your way.
So, no, that's not the intent and it's realised that this is a problem.
We need to work on making it easier f
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting tomorrow at 20:00UTC (3pm EST) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
Followups:
#314 Wordpress bundles libraries
New Business:
- Daylight savings time. Move meeting time or keep the same?
- #349 comps in git - notti
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 23:45 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Also important, Matthew even fills a FESCo seat. Proposals like that are not
> what I expect from FESCo members. I'm severely disappointing.
Just to even things out: I am very happy with this proposal, and it is
exactly what I expect fr
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:18:17PM +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Proposal
> >
> >
> > The ability for maintainers to flag an update directly into the updates
> > repository will be disabled. Before being added to updates, the package
> > must receive a net karma
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 23:45:57 +0100, I wrote:
> Also important, Matthew even fills a FESCo seat. Proposals like that are not
> what I expect from FESCo members. I'm severely disappointing.
s/disappointing/disappointed/
Only demonstrates that I would prefer to stay away from such crap. Perhaps it's
Nice hack, Michal! As you are aware, I have been slowly preparing things
to get towards the option of using gold for real in the future. Making
this sort of testing easy is about the next thing I thought someone should
do (and wasn't going to hack on myself!), so it's a thrill to see you've
taken
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 23:21:45 +0100, Sven wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
> > Before being added to updates, the package must receive a net karma of
> > +3 in Bodhi.
>
> [...]
>
> > It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
> >
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=484865
Bug 484865 depends on bug 484866, which changed state.
Bug 484866 Summary: perl-Network-IPv4Addr : Conflicts with other packages
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=484866
Dennis Gilmore changed:
What|Removed |Added
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 17:32 -0500, Al Dunsmuir wrote:
> -1. Nay. NoWay. No thanks. Uh uh.
>
> I could find little or nothing in your proposal to which I agreed... so
> decided not to quote any.
>
> I just registered at Fedoraforums.org and voted "adventurous" in
> Adam's poll. Jus
On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 11:38:21AM -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I went back and forth on this one but couldn't figure out how to put it in.
> Perhaps, marked as optional and introduced by something like: If you want to
> take a more active role in watching what your sponsoree does and correcting
-1. Nay. NoWay. No thanks. Uh uh.
I could find little or nothing in your proposal to which I agreed... so
decided not to quote any.
I just registered at Fedoraforums.org and voted "adventurous" in
Adam's poll. Just to make sure my voice is heard, and not the
shouting of f
...snip...
Thanks for working on this Matthew!
A small issue:
- If the policy states +3 is needed, does that mean we are locking all
updates to require this amount, no more no less? This could be bad
for packages where the maintainer might want more testing. Perhaps it
should be 'no less
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 05:23:34PM -0500, David Malcolm wrote:
[...]
> Hope this is helpful; FWIW I think we need better automated testing
> around our updates process.
OK OK, it was half a joke. I agree that automated testing is the way
forward here. Hopefully AutoQA will help here. And we sho
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 23:21 +0100, Sven Lankes wrote:
> > It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
> > easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space of time.
>
> I don't know what to say.
>
> If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky package
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:59:29 +, Matthew wrote:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features or purely bugf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=570905
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398636&action=diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398636&action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-dev
W dniu 08.03.2010 22:59, Matthew Garrett pisze:
> This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
> meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
> regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
> provide features or purely bugfixe
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Before being added to updates, the package must receive a net karma of
> +3 in Bodhi.
[...]
> It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should
> easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space o
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 22:09 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > We assume the following axioms:
> [..]
> > 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> > without sufficient testing.
>
> Your axioms are o
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 22:09 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > We assume the following axioms:
> [..]
> > 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> > without sufficient testing.
>
> Your axioms are o
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:17:01PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> > > without sufficient testing.
> > Your axioms are obviously wrong. An update which simply bumped a
> > release number would have the same functionality.
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Proposal
>
>
> The ability for maintainers to flag an update directly into the updates
> repository will be disabled. Before being added to updates, the package
> must receive a net karma of +3 in Bodhi.
Would that apply also to new packages being pushed as updat
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 10:09:25PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > We assume the following axioms:
> [..]
> > 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> > without sufficient testing.
>
> Your axiom
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 22:09:25 +,
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
>
> Your axioms are obviously wrong. An update which simply bumped a
> release number would have the same functionality. Since you claim
> these are axioms -- self-evident truths that form the basis for
> further argument, an
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:51:12AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 08:28:29AM -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> >leigh scott wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 08:20 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >>
> >>> The maintainers should coordinate, and one of them should bundle both
> >>> pack
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 22:06 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 07:33:37PM +, Branched Report wrote:
> > Compose started at Mon Mar 8 09:15:17 UTC 2010
> >
> > Broken deps for i386
> > --
> > 1:libguestfs-1.0.8
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> We assume the following axioms:
[..]
> 2) It is impossible to ensure that functionality will not be reduced
> without sufficient testing.
Your axioms are obviously wrong. An update which simply bumped a
release number would have
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 07:33:37PM +, Branched Report wrote:
> Compose started at Mon Mar 8 09:15:17 UTC 2010
>
> Broken deps for i386
> --
> 1:libguestfs-1.0.84-2.fc13.i686 requires /lib/libgthread-2.0.so.0.2303.0
> 1:libgue
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 16:32 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:24:24PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:33 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > I can't find the wiki page documenting buildroot overrides so I can't
> > > confirm this. I thought that re
This is the policy that I expect to be discussed during the Fesco
meeting tomorrow. This is entirely orthogonal to the ongoing discussions
regarding whether updates in stable releases should be expected to
provide features or purely bugfixes, and I don't see any conflict in
introducing it befor
For the 13th Release of Fedora, "Goddard," the Fedora Marketing team
ran an open, community based process of slogan submissions, found at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Release_slogan_SOP. That process
included guidelines for producing great slogans, and as a result of
our call, we received a large
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 12:34:03PM -0500, Will Woods wrote:
> Adam's poll results are valid *only* for Fedora users who:
>
> a) Are members of the Fedora forum,
> b) Enthusiasts/power-users to the degree that they would notice a new
> threads/poll within a day of its posting, and
> c) Hold a stro
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 21:18 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 8 March 2010 19:47, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Is there a sekrit PK mode you can use to get such output, does anyone
> > know? Maybe if I just launch it from a console...
>
> No, but I could do such a thing if you file an enhancement b
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 14:54 +, Quentin Armitage wrote:
> The report lists 3 fc12 packages as updates for F-13. Doing a yum update
> of avrdude shows the new version as 5.10-2.fc13 and not 5.10-1.fc12 as
> listed. For man-pages-it, yum update lists 2.80-5.fc13 and not
> 2.80-5.fc12 as listed.
>
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 01:24:24PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:33 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > I can't find the wiki page documenting buildroot overrides so I can't
> > confirm this. I thought that releng was asking for the overrides to be
> > removed when the packa
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 11:04 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I thought to myself yesterday, 'what this long and fractious thread
> about update policy *really* needs is some unscientific and
> controversial numbers'. =) So, I ran a forum poll! Everyone loves those,
> right?
>
> Here it is: http://f
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 11:33 -0500, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> I can't find the wiki page documenting buildroot overrides so I can't
> confirm this. I thought that releng was asking for the overrides to be
> removed when the package was pushed to stable but I could be wrong.
>
https://fedoraproject
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 14:29:42 -0600, Matthew wrote:
> > There are just too many -devel packages and their dependencies to be ever
> > relevant to someone for multi-arch installs. Far more users install i686 on
> > 64-bit CPUs, and I have doubts that x86_64 installation users do much
> > development
On 8 March 2010 19:47, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Is there a sekrit PK mode you can use to get such output, does anyone
> know? Maybe if I just launch it from a console...
No, but I could do such a thing if you file an enhancement bug.
Richard.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, 05 Mar 2010 22:27:48 -0800
Dan Williams wrote:
> > > I have taken over the maintainership from Robert, and the new
> > > usb_modeswitch rpms are in rawhide now.
> >
> > And F-13?
>
> I'm pushing for F13 and F12 at least :) I usually end up getting the
> bugs when modems don't switch, I
Subject: subtree search fails to find items under a db containing
special characters
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=199923
This bug had been reopened due to the regression.
[Proposed Fix]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398612&action=diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 12:14 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote:
> On 03/08/2010 11:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:27 +0100, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> >>
> >> Le Sam 6 mars 2010 20:04, Adam Williamson a écrit :
> >>
> >>> The numbers do surprise me, to be honest. As I write this, i
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> There are just too many -devel packages and their dependencies to be ever
> relevant to someone for multi-arch installs. Far more users install i686 on
> 64-bit CPUs, and I have doubts that x86_64 installation users do much
> development with i686 packages. At most they in
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:29:23 -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> u...@radiopresenter.me.uk (unauthenticated) - 2010-03-08 13:36:44 (karma: 0)
> Error Type: Error Value: Error getting
> repository data for installed, repository not foundFile :
> /usr/share/PackageKit/helpers/yum/yumBackend.py
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 20:51 +0100, Valent Turkovic wrote:
> Hi, Fedora 12 was planned to have installation of packages without
> users needing to enter root password.
>
> How do I enable this feature via PolicyKit?
>
> I read this article:
> http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/polkit-and-pack
On 03/08/2010 02:47 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 09:48 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
>
>> Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
>> 64/215
>> libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in module:
>> type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 18:54 +, Quentin Armitage wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-03-08 at 10:26 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Quentin Armitage wrote:
> >
> > > The glibc packages (including nscd) were in updates-testing, but have
> > > been obsoleted, and so 2.11.90-12 is now the
On 03/08/2010 11:25 AM, Ivana Hutarova Varekova wrote:
> For now in fedora there are 11 packages which contains language
> mutations of man-pages (man-pages-{cs,da,de,es,fr,it,ja,ko,pl,ru,uk})
> and man-pages package.
> Only 2 of them (man-pages-es, man-pages-it) requires man package. I
On Mon, 08 Mar 2010 13:29:23 -0600, Michael wrote:
> Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Nah. The same way you could consider all bodhi comments "spam". If you
> > are the first commenter of a popular package, you receive lots of
> > notifications for all subsequent comments (where sometimes people
> > ev
Hi, Fedora 12 was planned to have installation of packages without
users needing to enter root password.
How do I enable this feature via PolicyKit?
I read this article:
http://skvidal.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/polkit-and-package-kit-and-changing-settings/
but even after doing that it is still the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=571514
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398603&action=diff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=398603&action=edit
--
389-devel mailing list
389-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-dev
On Sun, 2010-03-07 at 09:48 -0500, Neal Becker wrote:
> Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
> 64/215
> libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in module:
> type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
> n_t (No such file or directory).
> libsemanage
On 03/08/2010 06:28 AM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> On 7 March 2010 20:18, Neal Becker wrote:
>
>> Updating : selinux-policy-targeted-3.6.32-92.fc12.noarch
>> 64/215
>> libsepol.scope_copy_callback: audioentropy: Duplicate declaration in module:
>> type/attribute entropyd_var_ru\
>> n_t (No
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=552616
--- Comment #3 from Kevin Fenzi 2010-03-08 13:41:11 EST ---
Hey Spot. Any news here? Have you had a chance to look at the tests?
Compose started at Mon Mar 8 09:15:17 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
doodle-0.6.7-5.fc12.i686 requires libextractor.so.1
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires lib
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 22:17 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> And as you obviously didn't finish reading my sentence, that is not
> the only solution I proposed. Read again, there is a 0 additional repo
> proposal too.
Having multiple package versions in a single repository is essentially
like having
On Sat, 2010-03-06 at 20:47 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Then make it 3 months, 4 months... Leave it in testing forever if you
> get too many complaints. But make it available for those who want it.
This is not the purpose of updates-testing, it is not an alternative
update repo. It is there for
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Nah. The same way you could consider all bodhi comments "spam". If you
> are the first commenter of a popular package, you receive lots of
> notifications for all subsequent comments (where sometimes people
> even use bodhi to argue about something).
Michael, how is posti
1 - 100 of 170 matches
Mail list logo
