Greetings,
Thanks for both testers and developers' hard work on F-13-Final RC
validation test events. RC3 were finally tested and the test results are
summarized as below. For a detailed results, please refer to the Final
RC results page[1].
** Installation
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 09:16 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:49:52PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 19:49 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Any ideas how to troubleshoot?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Xorg_problems
Please
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 10:58 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 17 May 2010 12:24:14 +0100, Richard wrote:
4) People adding negative karma because unrelated bug that has been
present in the older version is still not fixed
I get this all the time. It would be nice to be able to
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 10:31 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 00:02 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
snip
(FWIW, I'd prefer a non-zero timeout in all cases, for reasons others
have already mentioned).
And I'd want a zero timeout in most cases because my boot works, and I
Event: Fedora Bug Triage Meeting
Date: 2010-05-18
Time: 15:00 UTC
Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
We haven't had a meeting for a while, so let's go for it today! Don't
have anything particular on the agenda, though. If anyone has a topic
they'd like to discuss, please reply to this
Compose started at Tue May 18 08:15:07 UTC 2010
Broken deps for i386
--
almanah-0.7.2-1.fc13.i686 requires libedataserver-1.2.so.11
almanah-0.7.2-1.fc13.i686 requires libedataserverui-1.2.so.8
anjal-0.3.2-2.fc14.i686
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 00:02 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
With an install _not_ of the kind described above, you currently get a 0
timeout, which is what's mostly under discussion now: whether we should
have a non-zero timeout for all installations, even single-boot.
Of course it shouldn't be
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:34:22AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Of course it shouldn't be zero. This is what I was saying yesterday. Now
if Fedora is really targeting end users who are non-technical (can we
decide this finally, sometime, please?) then this is valid. But if it's
true that we
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:43 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:34:22AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Of course it shouldn't be zero. This is what I was saying yesterday. Now
if Fedora is really targeting end users who are non-technical (can we
decide this finally,
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 10:34 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 00:02 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
With an install _not_ of the kind described above, you currently get a 0
timeout, which is what's mostly under discussion now: whether we should
have a non-zero timeout for all
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 10:52 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:43 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:34:22AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Of course it shouldn't be zero. This is what I was saying yesterday. Now
if Fedora is really targeting end users
This is a report of the weekly KDE-SIG-Meeting with a summary of the
topics that were discussed. If you want to add a comment please reply
to this email or add it to the related meeting page.
--
= Weekly KDE
On Tuesday 18 May 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:43 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:34:22AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Of course it shouldn't be zero. This is what I was saying yesterday.
Now if Fedora is really targeting end users who are
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 20:23 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
So, I know a lot of you out there hate bugzilla flags, but I think we
have problem with the current way we manage release blocker issues, and
flags offer a potential solution.
First the problem:
Right now, anybody can propose a
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 11:47 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Several installation to choose from -- give the user time to make a
choice
Only one OS -- get it running as quickly as possible
I am certainly an experienced user, and I am still not in love with
staring a a grub screen for so many
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 16:49 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
If we put a bit more trust into our kernel updates, and can start making
people a bit angry and filing bugs when there are regressions, maybe we
can do away with that crappy crutch.
User anger really isn't a good motivator.
If it
Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) said:
If we put a bit more trust into our kernel updates, and can start making
people a bit angry and filing bugs when there are regressions, maybe we
can do away with that crappy crutch.
User anger really isn't a good motivator.
If you're really
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 12:11 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) said:
If we put a bit more trust into our kernel updates, and can start making
people a bit angry and filing bugs when there are regressions, maybe we
can do away with that crappy crutch.
On 05/18/2010 10:12 AM, Paul wrote:
Hi,
For quite a while the packaging of monodevelop has patched using the
supplied version of mono.cecil with the one found in gac (which
according to the mono bods, isn't the right place for it - it is a work
in progress so should not be considered
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com wrote:
Only three perl-Catalyst-* are still failing:
perl-Catalyst-Controller-BindLex
BindLex can probably go away at some point... It mainly exists for
legacy purposes, with big DON'T USE THIS, IT'S VERY VERY BROKEN-ISH
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 11:54 -0400, James Laska wrote:
I like the idea of having multiple flags, however am concerned that it
is a significant documentation/training challenge.
Is there benefit in rolling this out in phases? Part#1 would involve
adding only a 'blocker' flag to allow for
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: perl-Razor-Agent-2.84-1.el5.src.rpm SElinux denials on log file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=593393
Summary: perl-Razor-Agent-2.84-1.el5.src.rpm
On 05/18/2010 12:18 PM, Jon Masters wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 12:11 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Jon Masters (jonat...@jonmasters.org) said:
If we put a bit more trust into our kernel updates, and can start making
people a bit angry and filing bugs when there are regressions, maybe we
Wait a sec, when the timeout is zero, don't you get access to the grub
menu if you hold down the shift key?
I always thought that was grub's behaviour, not my PC's behaviour...
--
Mat Booth
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Apologies ... I should have started out with a Thank you for
initiating this thread and sharing your ideas.
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 10:37 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 11:54 -0400, James Laska wrote:
I like the idea of having multiple flags, however am concerned that it
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 12:05:30PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
I am in love with having a system that boots. And experience shows that
I'm in the grub prompt quite often. Now admittedly, I'm doing kernel
builds and the like, but even when I'm not, I'll often need to stick a
parameter on a
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:13:50AM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 09:16 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:49:52PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 19:49 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Any ideas how to troubleshoot?
# F-13-Final Go/No-Go meeting
# Date: 2010-05-19 @ 00:00 UTC [1]
# Date: 2010-05-18 @ 20:00 EDT, 17:00 PDT
# Location: #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.net
Join us on irc.freenode.net #fedora-meeting for this important meeting.
Before each public release Development, QA, and Release Engineering
Hi,
As the new MD relies on a version of Mono.Cecil which is newer than the
version in gac is it permissible to ship MD-2.4 with this newer version?
The version in gac remains untouched by this new version so other
applications reliant on the old version will still run.
Wouldn't it
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:13:50AM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 09:16 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 11:49:52PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Sun, 2010-05-16 at 19:49 +0300, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
Any ideas how to troubleshoot?
On 05/18/2010 02:48 PM, Paul wrote:
Hi,
As the new MD relies on a version of Mono.Cecil which is newer than the
version in gac is it permissible to ship MD-2.4 with this newer version?
The version in gac remains untouched by this new version so other
applications reliant on the old version
#fedora-meeting: FESCo Meeting - https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
Meeting started by notting at 19:03:18 UTC. The full logs are available at
Hi,
We could even package the older mono-cecil in a mono-cecil0690 package,
as a last resort, but we should definitely try porting the apps first.
And to add further problems - guess what the version number is for
mono-cecil bundled with MD? And they're not the same
Grr
TTFN
Paul
--
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 02:14:45PM -0700, Robert Relyea wrote:
On 05/18/2010 07:43 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
The logic here is unclear. Technical users are surely the ones most able
to deal with this situation? I'll point out here that Windows gives no
visible prompt to obtain bootup
Hi,
And to add further problems - guess what the version number is for
mono-cecil bundled with MD? And they're not the same
I'm going to guess that it is either undefined or less than the 0.6.90
version that the system mono.cecil has...
Reports as 0.6.90 but a quick diff shows
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 22:25 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 02:14:45PM -0700, Robert Relyea wrote:
I like the 2 boot time out options. If you clear the 'successful boot'
flag every time you start grub (after remembering what it said so you
can set the appropriate
On 05/18/2010 05:38 PM, Paul wrote:
Hi,
And to add further problems - guess what the version number is for
mono-cecil bundled with MD? And they're not the same
I'm going to guess that it is either undefined or less than the 0.6.90
version that the system mono.cecil has...
Reports as
Adam Williamson wrote:
The window doesn't matter that much anyway, as by no means all packages
pushed to updates-testing during the pre-final cycle have been (or will
be) approved as updates. So it's perfectly possible people who installed
pre-releases will have what you term 'unwanted'
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 15:43 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 10:34:22AM -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
Of course it shouldn't be zero. This is what I was saying yesterday. Now
if Fedora is really targeting end users who are non-technical (can we
decide this finally,
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 10:37 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 11:54 -0400, James Laska wrote:
I like the idea of having multiple flags, however am concerned that it
is a significant documentation/training challenge.
Is there benefit in rolling this out in phases?
Author: robert
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Convert-UUlib/EL-6
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv12733
Modified Files:
perl-Convert-UUlib.spec
Log Message:
Sync with devel branch
Index: perl-Convert-UUlib.spec
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 14:08 -0400, James Laska wrote:
Agreed. I'm just sharing my experiences going through this same
workflow definition where it took many releases to flesh out. So I'm
hopeful it could be defined and documented in a 2 month span, I'm just
not optimistic.
As one who does
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 00:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
The window doesn't matter that much anyway, as by no means all packages
pushed to updates-testing during the pre-final cycle have been (or will
be) approved as updates. So it's perfectly possible people who
Sorry, just saw your reply
On May 14, 2010, at 2:41 AM, Luke Macken wrote:
I'm seeing your POST requests in the logs, but some of them are not
hitting bodhi's save() method, which means it's not getting past the
identity layer. Does it work after you `rm ~/.fedora/.fedora_session`?
Also,
On 05/19/2010 04:20 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 00:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Yes, the broken decision was to enable updates-testing by default for
prereleases and we should never do this again. It just can't work, because
updates-testing is like the Red Pill:
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
While I understand the decision behind enabling updates-testing repo by
default, I think it should be turned off much earlier, perhaps during
the beta release phase. Due to the workflow I follow, one of the
problems
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:27:17PM +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
We can only take this Fedora principle so far. There are many bits of
code in the kernel which work around broken ACPI / BIOS behaviour (as
you well know, sorry for the egg-sucking lesson). If we were being
really annoying
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 23:27 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
Another +1 for Bill's suggestion, that seems like a nice elegant way of
trying to catch the broken cases.
Some distros take this a stage further with the failure safe mode boot
option, and that's also not a hugely wrong idea.
Jon.
--
In article aanlktilubs_7ut0zbk_7rhceohlu9bx82ni-b4189...@mail.gmail.com you
wrote:
Wait a sec, when the timeout is zero, don't you get access to the grub
menu if you hold down the shift key?
I always thought that was grub's behaviour, not my PC's behaviour...
With an old Compaq machine, the
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 23:50 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2010-05-19 at 00:24 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
The window doesn't matter that much anyway, as by no means all packages
pushed to updates-testing during the pre-final cycle have been (or will
be)
nagios-3.2.1-3.fc12 (FEDORA-2010-8702)
Update Information:
Fix for broken update from previous nagios version.
ChangeLog:
* Mon May 17 2010 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com - 3.2.1-3
- Fixed severe issue
Author: pghmcfc
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Test-Distribution/EL-6
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv14069
Modified Files:
perl-Test-Distribution.spec
Log Message:
* Tue May 18 2010 Paul Howarth p...@city-fan.org - 2.00-7
- No signature test, so Module::Signature
Author: robert
Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-Razor-Agent/EL-6
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv16118
Modified Files:
perl-Razor-Agent.spec
Log Message:
Sync with devel branch
Index: perl-Razor-Agent.spec
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-Mouse/devel
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv29928
Modified Files:
.cvsignore perl-Mouse.spec sources
Log Message:
* Mon May 17 2010 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 0.58-1
- include .proverc in tests subpackage
-
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-HTTP-BrowserDetect/devel
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv1057
Modified Files:
perl-HTTP-BrowserDetect.spec
Log Message:
* Wed May 19 2010 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 1.10-2
- bump
Index:
Author: cweyl
Update of /cvs/extras/rpms/perl-HTTP-BrowserDetect/F-12
In directory cvs01.phx2.fedoraproject.org:/tmp/cvs-serv1254
Modified Files:
perl-HTTP-BrowserDetect.spec sources
Log Message:
* Wed May 19 2010 Chris Weyl cw...@alumni.drew.edu 1.10-1
- PERL_INSTALL_DIR = DESTDIR
-
56 matches
Mail list logo
