Can I be added to the list of maintainers that need help very badly from the
beginning?
I maintain a number of packages that are very low in the Java stack and would
force the whole Java stack to be removed if they are removed but noone wants to
maintain them.
That's how I gained them! If such
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-XML-DifferenceMarkup:
d753b39fec3c8da3917c35c40d101fef XML-DifferenceMarkup-1.04.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit 4c02cd7b6579f6519b70046a899cc672b47be04f
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Nov 22 09:53:34 2011 +0100
Import
.gitignore |1 +
perl-XML-DifferenceMarkup.spec | 53
sources|1 +
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:09:36 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
Am 21.11.2011 23:50, schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 22:58:50 +0100, RH (Reindl) wrote:
+1
nothing is more frustrating for users as ignored bugreports reintroduced
from
release to relase while th eonly
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:00:33 +0100, MT (Miloslav) wrote:
Nothing is in place to detect inactive maintainers automatically.
We don't really need absolute automation - if a package is not
actively maintained but nobody notices, does it really matter?[1]
Yes. Users notice, but they report
On 11/22/2011 04:51 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
It is indeed intended as such.
I would recommend you stop this thread at
Excerpts from Jóhann B. Guðmundsson's message of Tue Nov 22 00:28:32 +0100
2011:
On 11/21/2011 11:21 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
inactive maintainers and unmaintained
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 02:33:34PM -0500, Steve Grubb wrote:
# ldd /usr/bin/msntest | wc -l
20
# ldd /usr/lib64/libmsn.so.0.3.0 | wc -l
9
Please, be careful. ldd(1) prints recursively all dependencies.
$ ldd /usr/bin/msntest | wc -l
20
$ readelf -a
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 14:36 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
Folks,
Can someone please push the update that I made (with permission) to
shared-mime-info? I'm getting jcm does not have commit access when I
try to make the F16 update. This fix is required to actually be able to
play many MP3 files
Hey all, I'm looking for help testing a project I've been working on
over the last few months. Snap [1] is a cross-platform system snapshot
and restoration utility which uses the underlying package management
system to take snapshots of packages installed as well as files modified
outside of
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Use of uninitialized value in string eq at .. FormFu/Constraint.pm
line 107
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755903
Summary: Use of uninitialized
On 11/22/2011 08:51 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Can I be added to the list of maintainers that need help very badly from the
beginning?
If such an list existed I dont see why that should be a problem.
I maintain a number of packages that are very low in the Java stack and would
force
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: perl-Archive-Tar-1.82 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755906
Summary: perl-Archive-Tar-1.82 is available
Product: Fedora
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: perl-Net-HTTP-6.02 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=755907
Summary: perl-Net-HTTP-6.02 is available
Product: Fedora
Excerpts from Jonathan Underwood's message of Mon Nov 21 22:43:48 +0100 2011:
Hi,
I have just started looking at packaging Yorick[1][2], an interpreted
programming language for scientific simulations. It seems that this is
BSD licensed and so would be suitable for packaging in Fedora.
On 11/22/2011 09:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/22/2011 04:51 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
It is indeed intended as such.
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=755907
Petr Pisar ppi...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
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=755906
Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
commit a75812327163a91391cdec4d9fe55297155fbb6c
Author: Petr Písař ppi...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Nov 22 13:00:23 2011 +0100
6.02 bump
.gitignore |1 +
perl-Net-HTTP.spec |8 ++--
sources|2 +-
3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
---
diff
Comments inline.
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 1:36:53 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On 11/22/2011 08:51 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 12:57:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On 11/22/2011 09:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/22/2011
On 11/22/2011 10:18 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Excerpts from Jóhann B. Guðmundsson's message of Tue Nov 22 00:28:32 +0100
2011:
On 11/21/2011 11:21 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving the
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=755903
Iain Arnell iarn...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
On 11/22/2011 12:37 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
You don't improve distribution, when you start bullying contributors. Bunch
of people were already annoyed with your proposal.
Please provide explanation further how I was bullying contributors.
Thanks
JBG
--
devel mailing list
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 1:57:24 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On 11/22/2011 09:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/22/2011
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 2:42:37 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On 11/22/2011 12:37 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
You don't
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=755907
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org 2011-11-22
07:45:30 EST ---
perl-Net-HTTP-6.02-1.fc16 has
A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Archive-Tar:
60493433f434811b2e610ab754529388 Archive-Tar-1.82.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
commit a59f4d2efd0972bd798f0cca753e90451f04fd7a
Author: Petr Šabata con...@redhat.com
Date: Tue Nov 22 13:47:54 2011 +0100
1.82 bump
.gitignore|1 +
perl-Archive-Tar.spec | 29 ++---
sources |2 +-
3 files changed, 20
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 10:32 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
red_alert (sandro mathys): critpath packages should have detailed test plans
Hm. The list of (implicitly labeled) critpath packages seems to have
proliferated recently: a few days ago I submitted an update for
sane-backends and then
On 11/22/2011 12:35 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Comments inline.
- Original Message -
snip
We seem to disagree here. I value every maintainer even one that steps in
once in a year. And yes I value him more than someone that would open 10
bugreports without instructions how to
On 11/22/2011 12:49 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Hmm, haven't this started with if you're not ready to reply to every
bugreport we will ban you because we don't want your contribution?
If you are referring to
Well if people want more controversial proposal of sign of live that's
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 11:46 +0100, Karel Zak wrote:
Yes, typical problem is (usually) completely broken .pc (pkg-config)
file. My experience is that developers don't have a clue about
'Requires.private' pkg-config field and they add all libraries to
'Requires' or 'Libs', so then binaries are
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 3:34:50 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On 11/22/2011 12:49 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Hmm, haven't
Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to writes:
It looks like there was a soname bump in boost yesterday. Boost affects
enough stuff, that there really should have been a heads up message posted to
the devel list about this.
Yes, Denis Arnaud has kindly prepared a new release, but forgot to give
a
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=755906
Petr Šabata psab...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
On 11/22/2011 01:48 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message -
The problem here is that in my eyes there are no inactive contributors and
there shouldn't be anything preventing people from contributing (even if it's
one update per year).
While I agree that projects that
On Mon, 2011-11-21 at 21:46 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 21.11.2011 21:32, schrieb Till Maas:
Hi,
a recent kernel update[0] broke Fedora's ability to be a VirtualBox
host, because asm/amd_iommu.h was removed. The removal of the file was
noticed during testing, but it seems nobody
On 11/21/2011 09:32 PM, Till Maas wrote:
a recent kernel update[0] broke Fedora's ability to be a VirtualBox
host, because asm/amd_iommu.h was removed.
This is a part of the in-kernel API, not the kernel-userspace
interface. The internal API can change at any time.
External kernel modules can
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 3:57:03 PM
Subject: Re: Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...
On 11/22/2011 01:48 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
-
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com wrote:
Hm. The list of (implicitly labeled) critpath packages seems to have
proliferated recently
Why not impose a self-restriction on the number of critpath packages?
Make a rule like The ratio of proventesters to critpath
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 04:59:54PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
The updates policy is meant to protect users of Fedora within reason.
Compiling, writing, and using third party software on Fedora is a valid use
of Fedora whether or not that software exists within Fedora. This update
may be
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2011-11-21)
===
Meeting started by mjg59 at 18:00:31 UTC. The full logs are available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-11-21/fesco.2011-11-21-18.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:16:01AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
I was rather surprised to find a routine yum update on my F14 system
suddenly wanting to pull in a lot of mysql stuff that I'd not had
installed at the moment.
Are you able to upgrade to a
On 11/22/2011 09:02 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
I do agree with the complainers in the BZ that this was something
inappropriate to do in F14, but what's done is done. Even if you undid
it, anyone who's done yum update recently on an F14 box will have all
those unnecessary deps installed.
Not
Am 22.11.2011 01:59, schrieb Toshio Kuratomi:
The updates policy is meant to protect users of Fedora within reason.
Compiling, writing, and using third party software on Fedora is a valid use
of Fedora whether or not that software exists within Fedora. This update
may be acceptable because
Ken Dreyer (ktdre...@ktdreyer.com) said:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com wrote:
Hm. The list of (implicitly labeled) critpath packages seems to have
proliferated recently
Why not impose a self-restriction on the number of critpath packages?
Make a rule
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 07:42 -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com wrote:
Hm. The list of (implicitly labeled) critpath packages seems to have
proliferated recently
Why not impose a self-restriction on the number of critpath packages?
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 03:08:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 04:59:54PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
The updates policy is meant to protect users of Fedora within reason.
Compiling, writing, and using third party software on Fedora is a valid use
of Fedora
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:12:42AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 03:08:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We don't support out of tree kernel modules at all, so they're not
considered when making the determination about whether an update is
appropriate for a stable
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=752698
Karel Klíč kk...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:32:56PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle, to
publish a list of packages which were not touched by it maintainer in
previous release. For all these packages, new co-maintainer could
stepped up and they
Dne 22.11.2011 17:44, Chris Adams napsal(a):
Once upon a time, Vít Ondruchvondr...@redhat.com said:
It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle, to
publish a list of packages which were not touched by it maintainer in
previous release. For all these packages, new
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 04:23:28PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:12:42AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 03:08:07PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
We don't support out of tree kernel modules at all, so they're not
considered when making the
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:38:23 +,
\Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the only way to achieve something like this for maintainership
we need to drop the ownership module so either nobody owns a
package/component in the project or relevant SIG owns the package.
2011/11/22 Matthew Garrett mj...@srcf.ucam.org:
The kernel ABI is the syscall interface, /sys and /proc. There is no
stable module ABI between kernels - even with a small security update,
the symbol versioning may change in such a way that the module ABI will
change. Given that any
2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to:
One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
still come in by packaging a new package. I think we really want most of
the new packagers coming in as
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:13AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
According to the updates policy the
maintainer needs to consider that their change will cause problems for third
party kernel module packagers and end users that are compiling their own
kernel modules.
We *know* we're going
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:00:43PM +0100, 80 wrote:
The failure is due to Fedora *non-upstream* versionning scheme,
VirtualBox has *already* fixes the API/ABI issue upstream relying on
the kernel version (since 3.2 RC). It has nothing to do with the
kernel non-stable ABI policy (which is
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=752698
Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
On 11/22/2011 12:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:00:43PM +0100, 80 wrote:
The failure is due to Fedora *non-upstream* versionning scheme,
VirtualBox has *already* fixes the API/ABI issue upstream relying on
the kernel version (since 3.2 RC). It has nothing to do
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Use of uninitialized value $root in exists at
.../Role/NestedHashUtils.pm line 121.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=756108
Summary: Use of
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:32:56 +0100, VO (Vít) wrote:
I remember
at leas one example from history when I was not able to reach the
maintainer and at the end he was quite angry that I was so daring to
call him unresponsive, even though I wanted just to help him. Also,
there are other
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:05:37AM -0600, Richard Shaw wrote:
2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III br...@wolff.to:
One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
still come in by packaging a new package.
Genes MailLists wrote:
For those having trouble - one pragmatic way is just to download the
f16 3.1.x source rpm and rebuild it on F15 - VB will now work fine.
You don't need to do that. Just use my attached patch.
(Only use the patch on F15 systems with F15 kernels.)
---
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Just use my attached patch.
It helps if I attach the correct patch.
--- /usr/share/virtualbox/src/vboxhost/vboxpci/linux/VBoxPci-linux.c.orig 2011-08-09 01:30:24.0 -0500
+++ /usr/share/virtualbox/src/vboxhost/vboxpci/linux/VBoxPci-linux.c 2011-11-22
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
make every contributor an proven packager?
Would it be viable to move to something like language SIG based
ownership of packages?
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:37 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III:
One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers
still come in by packaging a new package. I think we really
VO == Vít Ondruch vondr...@redhat.com writes:
VO It would be reasonable, on the beginning of each development cycle,
VO to publish a list of packages which were not touched by it
VO maintainer in previous release.
I certainly hope you realize that there are very many packages in the
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:08:14PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:13AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
According to the updates policy the
maintainer needs to consider that their change will cause problems for
third
party kernel module packagers and end users that
2011/11/22 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com:
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
make every contributor an proven packager?
Allowing any packager to commit to
On 22/11/11 17:53, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Uh, come on, ... package submitters waiting on the NEEDSPONSOR list
could _really_ work a little bit more actively on persuading potential
sponsors of their packaging skills. Instead, some wait silently for
months without doing any package review
On 11/22/2011 05:59 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
2011/11/22 Jóhann B. Guðmundssonjohan...@gmail.com:
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
make every contributor an proven
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:55:59AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
So, yes, it may be fully expected that issuing an update will break out of
tree modules but that doesn't stop it from being one factor to *consider*.
Consideration implies that the following thought process will occur
This
As much as we have disagreed on the previous topic we might have similar
thoughts here :).
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:51:31 PM
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:08:14PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 08:53:13AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
According to the updates policy the
maintainer needs to consider that their change will
TH == Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu writes:
TH As somebody who is in exactly that situation all I can say is that
TH if doing informal reviews is an essential prerequisite to getting
TH sponsored then the wiki could be a lot clearer. Currently it reads
TH more like it's just one thing that may
Miloslav Trmač wrote:
I wouldn't want to get rid of the ownership model altogether, I think
there should be a specific person responsible for handling bug
reports/RFEs. When a group is responsible to handle something not
really pleasant to do, often no single member of that group feels
2011/11/22 Dave Jones da...@redhat.com:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:55:59AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Consideration implies that the following thought process will occur
This update will break out of tree modules, perhaps we shouldn't push it.
That isn't going to happen.
To me, this
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:37 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:
2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III:
One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new
packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:08:18AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:12:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I don't know how much clearer I can make this. The update policy applies
to the supported ABI of the package. For instance, if I have an
application that
On 11/22/2011 05:27 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
First of all why do I need to come up with a concrete proposal to FESCO
why dont they come up with something to try to improve the distribution.
Does that governing body only exist to say yay or nay to others proposals?
FESCo exists
On 11/22/2011 06:51 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
ownership = responsibility
Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
make every contributor an proven packager?
No.
On 11/22/2011 11:55 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com
wrote:
And still there have been self-nominations before.
You could look up FESCo tickets of past nominations.
I never thought about that, perhaps it should be added to the
Am 22.11.2011 18:00, schrieb 80:
The failure is due to Fedora *non-upstream* versionning scheme,
VirtualBox has *already* fixes the API/ABI issue upstream relying on
the kernel version (since 3.2 RC). It has nothing to do with the
kernel non-stable ABI policy (which is notorious).
The
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:57:24AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
First of all why do I need to come up with a concrete proposal to FESCO
why dont they come up with something to try to improve the distribution.
Because demanding that other people do work generally doesn't result in
the
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:51:31 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence
would make every contributor an proven packager?
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 07:24:20PM +0100, Thomas Moschny wrote:
2011/11/22 Dave Jones da...@redhat.com:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 09:55:59AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
Consideration implies that the following thought process will occur
This update will break out of tree modules,
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:28:06PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:08:18AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 05:12:12PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
I don't know how much clearer I can make this. The update policy applies
to the supported ABI
As much as we have disagreed on the previous topic we might have similar
thoughts here :).
- Original Message -
From: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 7:51:31 PM
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:16:30 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hum not so sure that will effectively work at least the cleanup
process needs have take place before we start the next development
cycle atleast no later then GA so basically the performance review
of the
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:40:52 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
can seem to agree on what an appropriate sign of life would be, no
has made a
TH == Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu writes:
TH As somebody who is in exactly that situation all I can say is that
TH if doing informal reviews is an essential prerequisite to getting
TH sponsored then the wiki could be a lot clearer. Currently it reads
TH more like it's just one thing that may
2011/11/22 Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com:
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
I can't speak for anyone else. But for me I'm more than willing to see
other contributors work with me to fix things in packages that I
own. I'll even
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:49:28AM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:28:06PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Consuming the output of ls is a supported way to use ls. Building third
party modules is not a supported way to use the kernel.
That's not the criteria I see
I'd like to add/note:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Become_a_co-maintainer
is another way to become a packager.
Simply work on/with an existing maintainer on their package (submit bug
reports, help test, submit patches, etc) and then ask them if
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/22/2011 11:55 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com
wrote:
And still there have been self-nominations before.
You could look up FESCo tickets of past
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 01:21:40PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
We have considered it. A really long time ago. At that time, it was
decided that we consider out-of-tree modules to be something we don't
support, don't care about, and won't hold up updates for because of
the aforementioned
On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:51:52AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:40:52 +0100
Till Maas opensou...@till.name wrote:
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 02:03:43PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
can seem to agree
Also along these lines...
Perhaps this has been discussed before I'm not aware of it but do we
really need to hold up a package because the submitter needs a
sponsor?
What I mean by that is, if I'm not misunderstanding the process, that
a person who submits their first package must be sponsored
1 - 100 of 162 matches
Mail list logo
