On 11/15/2010 11:29 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
This is a silly straw-man. No one[1] formats external HDs with
anything other than MS-DOS FAT. Fedora changing the default for the
main hard disk will not make any difference to this case of your
contrarian user giving away LVM-formatted USB
On 11/15/2010 02:03 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On 15/11/10 13:54, Richard Zidlicky wrote:
snip
there are very good reasons to use anything but DOS-FAT. For example
F10 and F12 automount said filesystems with drastically different options
by default (filename downcasing), using any other FS
On 11/15/2010 02:15 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 08:53:03AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
That's the essence of what's being discussed here
laptop/desktop/workstation installs default to ext4 and experienced
users/sysadmins those that generally know what lvm
On 11/15/2010 05:30 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 03:03:28PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Strongly no to this. We need to have fewer choices during the installation
and more flexibility later. LVM provides this.
So we agree on disagreeing.
Let's go the middle path
On 11/15/2010 09:27 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Nobody has yet proven that LVM is a problem
Well if you don't consider what Lennart mentioned [1] as a con against
usage of lvm by default what pros do you see for having lvm by default
for the novice end user?
JBG
1.
On 11/12/2010 05:03 PM, clum...@redhat.com wrote:
We have been spending a lot of time and thought trying to scheme
about how to accelerate btrfs. At this point, it is actually fairly
stable but still missing key things (most notably a fsck that can
fix the file system!).
Last week at
On 11/09/2010 07:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
In practice, we run very few metrics on Bugzilla
This is the problem we should be gather all kinds of bug metrics and
general component activity from bugzilla.
This is very vital information for QA group to harvest and have.
( without it we cant
On 11/09/2010 09:40 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2010-11-09 at 21:31 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/09/2010 07:50 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
In practice, we run very few metrics on Bugzilla
This is the problem we should be gather all kinds of bug metrics and
general component
On 11/05/2010 07:47 AM, Frank Murphy wrote:
On 05/11/10 07:27, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
So what if I got 100 bug reports and didn't answered 10 bugs you will want to
orphan my package?
Welcome to the world without gtk, openjdk, eclipse-platform, kdelibs
I think maybe it is meant more
On 11/06/2010 01:53 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/05/2010 09:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 05 Nov 2010 17:56:51 +0100, Ralf wrote:
ABRT
It doesn't tell the user that core dumps without reproducer are
worthless in most cases but blindly sends out reports
Parts of the Fedora user
On 11/06/2010 02:11 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 11/05/2010 10:06 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 04 Nov 2010 23:58:21 +, Jóhann wrote:
On behalf of all reporters that have never received a response from a
maintainer on a component they have reported against I not only ask the
ABRT
On 11/04/2010 01:21 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 04.11.2010, 13:28 +0100 schrieb Michael Schwendt:
On Wed, 3 Nov 2010 21:41:22 +0100, Bert wrote:
So can someone please explain my why I should continue to try to
improve Fedora by reporting bugs ?
Glad you ask this. The
On 11/04/2010 04:24 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 04:10:31PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
If the maintainer is not responding to reports or not acting as the link
to upstream ( that if he's not upstream himself ) for the component he's
responsable for in Fedora I
On 11/04/2010 07:47 PM, Matt McCutchen wrote:
If someone else cares and retests, they ideally
would be able to reopen it, but Bugzilla currently doesn't allow that
Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong but as I recall we changed that
deliberately.
( should be a discussion about this in this
On 11/04/2010 10:22 PM, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
2- ABRT should keep track of unresponsive users. If a user has an
outstanding needinfo? flag for the bugs sent through ABRT, he
shouldn't be able to send a new bug report through ABRT for my
packages.
Since this has turned into general pony
On 10/19/2010 03:29 PM, TK009 wrote:
I got an email this morning from the Fusion Linux group. In it, the
group lead suggested this to one of his users -
Fusion 14 betais based on Fedora 14 which isn't released yet so there
could be number of bugs that haven't been fixed yet. I suggest you
On 09/14/2010 10:01 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
* ACTION: : will defer systemd to f15 release to give more time to fix
small issues and docs and general polish. (nirik, 21:12:43)
What are you kidding me!
Gnome-shell better be sparkling out of aunt Tilly pony eyes before we
ship it..sigh
On 09/15/2010 12:01 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 3:56 PM, James Laskajla...@redhat.com wrote:
Much like we introduced and communicated btrfs support in F-11, should
we communicate systemd as a technology preview in Fedora 14?
I would agree with this. I certainly plan to
On 08/29/2010 05:29 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
Beats me, but not to releng, the team who's ability you were calling into
question.
Could you care to explain to me how I'm was calling releng ability into
question?
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 08/27/2010 10:47 PM, Bob Arendt wrote:
Actually I think Fedora*should* articulate who the users are, basically
design and express who and what Fedora is designed for. If you poll
users - people who download Fedora - and cater to their stated desires
for the sake of market share, then
On 08/28/2010 05:31 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 17:16:12 +,
\Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\johan...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not far from reality that Red Hat will get bought by a company
like Oracle so what's preventing us to get the same treatment as
OpenSolaris got
On 08/28/2010 06:42 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
This is utter bullshit. It assumes that anybody who works in the corporate
world and happens to have an interest in Fedora is somehow going to be a
puppet for the Smokey backroom corporate overlords and their evil designs
upon Fedora. It's
On 08/28/2010 08:28 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
What are you afraid of?
I think my concerns have been very clear.
Fedora is not a country, you don't have to move to get away. All the code
is free. Most the code isn't even ours, it belongs to the upstreams. If
somebody were to buy RHT, the
On 08/28/2010 09:40 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
Dennis is his backup (RH employee) and if need be I know jwb (not redhat
employee) is more than capable of handling these problems. Believe it or
not, we do consider these things and cross train. If you have the
several hours per week available
On 08/28/2010 09:40 PM, Mike McGrath wrote:
I know it's not a comfortable thing to deal with, I know I'm not super
happy about it but Fedora exists almost entirely because RH wills it to.
If RH decided Fedora should go away, it would. You could fork, have a
mess of a time getting
On 08/26/2010 12:05 PM, Paul W. Frields wrote:
FYI, Fedora 14 Alpha testers:
Please read the following, since this update issue will hit you after
you install Fedora 14 Alpha and then update.
We probably need to spread this news out wider and add to the Common
F14 bugs page
And emphasise
On 08/11/2010 09:02 AM, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
instead of trying to workaround the problem i actually tried to check
if a clean install of latest package would work properly with this
result:
Installing : systemd-units-5-2.fc15.x86_64
This is far from being the latest packages ( the latest
On 08/11/2010 10:32 AM, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
2010/8/11 Jóhann B. Guðmundssonjohan...@gmail.com:
On 08/11/2010 09:02 AM, Rudolf Kastl wrote:
instead of trying to workaround the problem i actually tried to check
if a clean install of latest package would work properly with this
result:
On 08/04/2010 06:05 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
This from an F13.x86 F14-Rawhide F14-Branched Guest
(Host if F13.x86_64)
Some still from the video:
http://www.zimagez.com/zimage/screenshot-040810-185144.php
http://www.zimagez.com/zimage/screenshot-040810-185343.php
On 07/22/2010 06:37 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Personally, speaking as a person_and_ a sysadmin, it would be
worthwhile to have a big freakin button somewhere that allowed me to
disable all native systemd config files and let me run sysinit style
files when the situation demands... ie crap
On 07/21/2010 03:24 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
I have a few requests for things to add to that page :-)
* What replaces chkconfig
systemd-install
Now first the gotcha then I'll provide chkconfig replacement example.
Admins will need to know that they have to use chkconfig for services
On 07/21/2010 04:03 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
Would it be reasonable to extend chkconfig so that it can know which
services it can no longer control and provide a pointer blurb to
admins when they try to use chkconfig with those services in the F14
timeframe. The reality is any change to
Burying the underlying issue yet again under the carpet or Hall
monitoring it wont resolve it neither will a shouting contest between
people do. People will need leave all emotion behind and look neutrally
at each other point of view and listen to each other constructive
criticism to gradually
On 05/08/2010 02:40 AM, John Poelstra wrote:
Matěj Cepl said the following on 05/07/2010 04:41 PM Pacific Time:
More and more I was writing this email, more and more I tend to agree
with somebody today, who wrote that they key problem of the Fedora
community is unclear vision about its
On 05/04/2010 01:50 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
You must all realize that the ratio of bureaucracy/process burden and
quality of maintainers/packagers go hand in hand. The better the
maintainers/packagers/components are less bureaucracy/process burden is
needed
On 05/04/2010 06:04 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Peter Jones wrote:
Wait just a second - you're arguing that requiring testing doesn't work
because nobody tested the KDE spin within 8 days. You might want to
rethink this position.
Why? I don't see the contradiction. If nobody tests
On 05/03/2010 10:30 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
The point here is that Kevin isn't perfect. As such, he can make
mistakes, just like all of us. By asking for a couple karma nods from
different people, we increase the chance of catching some of those
mistakes. Since the delay exists anyway, it
Is there any reason why we aren't naming this as closed to upstream as
possible?
http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux
http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/8.4/fedora/fedora-12-x86_64/
http://yum.pgsqlrpms.org/8.4/fedora/fedora-12-x86_64/
BTW What's the difference between upstream packages and the
901 - 938 of 938 matches
Mail list logo
