On 13 Dec 2019, at 15:03, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
On Friday, December 13, 2019 12:53:57 PM MST Chris Murphy wrote:
What? There are only two images that are release blocking for optical
media right now.
Everything/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Everything-netinst-x86_64-
_RELEASE_MILESTONE_.i
so
On 8 Dec 2016, at 11:22, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On miércoles, 7 de diciembre de 2016 1:56:32 PM CST Mike Pinkerton
wrote:
I use the Server netinstall image. Use cases include loop mounting
the netinstall .iso on boxes with Grub2 -- works on remote boxes
where there is no physical access
On 6 Dec 2016, at 09:43, Kamil Paral wrote:
Which images to cover, that's the heart of the discussion. If you
look into our test matrix again, we currently block on 6 of them:
* Workstation Live + netinst
* KDE Live
* Server DVD + netinst
* Everything netinst
What comes first to my mind is
On 15 Nov 2016, at 11:37, Bastien Nocera wrote:
As mentioned in the fedora-desktop thread about branding, I don't
like seeing
this sort of randomly generated and nonsensical (and I mean that in
that a string
of hex characters obviously don't *mean* something) shouldn't be
user-visible.
On 10 Jul 2015, at 15:40, Björn Persson wrote:
Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 11:21 -0400, Mike Pinkerton wrote:
Isn't the whole point to eliminate the need for third party
certificate authorities entirely?
Well I think you could choose to do that, or you could choose
On 3 Jul 2015, at 10:44, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
On Fri, 2015-07-03 at 15:43 +0200, Petr Spacek wrote:
For the record, and all this can be solved by DNSSEC + DANE. See RFC
6698.
I was planning to use DANE as a second required check in addition to
the normal certificate chain. That is, if
On 18 Mar 2015, at 08:40, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
On 03/16/2015 06:48 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote:
If the working group deems the software to be that useful,
wouldn't it be better to bring its packaging up to the
quality of the official Fedora repo, and make it more easily
discoverable by all
On 16 Mar 2015, at 12:57, Josh Boyer wrote:
a) This change impacts users, while these COPRs are not useful to
them.
There are no COPR repo files that are installed by default today,
which means none of them use this mechanism yet. Which means there is
literally no change for any user at
On 10 Mar 2015, at 07:00, Matěj Cepl wrote:
On 2015-03-10, 10:15 GMT, Björn Persson wrote:
The user surely knows better what a good password is than the
software does. If the user picks a crappy password, there's
probably a good
reason.
There are two possible reasons why you would say
On 7 Mar 2015, at 20:35, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 7 March 2015 at 15:33, Mike Pinkerton pseli...@mindspring.com
wrote:
On 7 Mar 2015, at 15:52, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 7 March 2015 at 11:53, Mike Pinkerton pseli...@mindspring.com
wrote:
On 7 Mar 2015, at 10:41, Björn
On 7 Mar 2015, at 10:41, Björn Persson wrote:
Mike Pinkerton wrote:
On 6 Mar 2015, at 23:49, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 23:09 +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
I hope https://xkcd.com/936/will be among the inputs to that
discussion.
I'm fond of noting that pwquality has
On 7 Mar 2015, at 02:16, Adam Williamson wrote:
for 15:00 UTC. If your clocks go back this weekend, the meeting should
be at the same local time as it was before. If your clocks don't go
back, it will be one hour earlier.
Spring forward, Fall back.
--
Mike
--
devel mailing list
On 7 Mar 2015, at 15:52, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On 7 March 2015 at 11:53, Mike Pinkerton pseli...@mindspring.com
wrote:
On 7 Mar 2015, at 10:41, Björn Persson wrote:
Mike Pinkerton wrote:
On 6 Mar 2015, at 23:49, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 23:09 +0100, Björn
On 6 Mar 2015, at 23:49, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 23:09 +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
I hope https://xkcd.com/936/will be among the inputs to that
discussion.
I'm fond of noting that pwquality has not yet blacklisted any variant
of correcthorsebatterystaple. I've been
as I can see, firstboot is only useful on one's personal box.
--
Mike Pinkerton
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
in the '%post' install
section of the kick-start file.
Not just virtualized deployments, but also in remote installs on bare
metal.
--
Mike Pinkerton
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http
On 12 Jan 2015, at 12:02, P J P wrote:
On Monday, 12 January 2015 8:47 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote:
Not just virtualized deployments, but also in remote installs on bare
metal.
Okay and the '%post' install section trick won't help there?
IIUC, it'd depend on which tool/application is used
.
Often not the case in small business or third party hosted
environments. Without remote ssh, box is unmanageable.
Even if you want to do key-based authentication rather than password,
you still need to use password initially to get the key onto the
remote box.
--
Mike Pinkerton
loss of usability. If it
is about remotely installed VM images, it's also discussed
here - https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/security/2014-
December/002061.html
Remotely installed on bare metal.
--
Mike Pinkerton
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https
of those
ideas is.
My users are accustomed to Gnome, so I prefer not to change to one of
the alternative desktop environment spins if there is an easy way
forward with Gnome.
--
Mike Pinkerton
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman
On 10 Dec 2014, at 12:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Mike Pinkerton
pseli...@mindspring.com wrote:
I also am trying to figure out how I can use Fedora going forward
to support
general desktop requirements for SMB office workers, creative
types and
others who have
disagree. Perhaps a better
compromise would have been to leave the old defaults in place, and
add a new pre-configured more open zone for those who want fewer
constraints.
--
Mike Pinkerton
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo
On 8 Dec 2014, at 17:07, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 03:20:30PM -0500, Mike Pinkerton wrote:
burning your old market when trying to grow a new one. From a
marketing standpoint, that is just crazy. In a for-profit company,
where products are connected to revenue streams
similar
meanings to this US-English speaker, and all seem like reasonable
choices, although the last three might require a parenthetical
explanation for some folk.
Yes, Myrtle Green would make a nice color for the bike shed.
--
Mike Pinkerton
--
devel mailing list
devel
?
--
Mike Pinkerton
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
-
release package is switched out, then any product requirements or
constraints would disappear and the system would be a traditional,
non-productized Fedora system that could then be configured however
the system administrator chose.
Is that assumption wrong?
Thanks.
--
Mike Pinkerton
--
devel
non-productized
Fedora 21 system and, in due time, from traditional non-productized
Fedora 21 to 22, etc.
Am I mistaken on any or all of this?
--
Mike Pinkerton
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct
On 23 May 2013, at 01:27, Björn Persson wrote:
Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2013-05-23 at 02:20 +0300, Oron Peled wrote:
Thinking about it, the terminology adopted by comps is clearer
and provides a generalization of this -- if someone select something
they get:
- Mandatory packages
On 5 May 2013, at 20:31, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Lars Seipel lars.sei...@gmail.com said:
- the checksums for netinstall images are signed with a Fedora key
- the corresponding public key is made available through https
- therefore the integrity of installer images can be verified
On 4 May 2013, at 02:03, Chris Adams wrote:
Creating a complete chain of trust is hard.
Sure, creating a complete chain of trust is hard, but the closest
thing we have to it today is downloading an iso and verifying its
checksum -- and trusting that (a) the release team verified the
On 3 May 2013, at 09:45, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Why bother with the DVD et all and enter countless debates what
should and should not be on it.
Why not just make the assumption that administrators will use the
netinstall and or ks and desktop users will use live spins?
When you
On 3 May 2013, at 15:07, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Mike Pinkerton pseli...@mindspring.com said:
Does anaconda check package signatures for the netinstall?
I believe so. Checksums are definately checked (RPM won't install a
corrupt package).
Are you sure that signatures
On 13 Mar 2013, at 10:16, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Anyway, here is a proposal for an alternative way to deal with the
boot
sequence.
There have been a number of suggestions that have taken a Windows 8
approach to this problem -- auto-detecting error conditions or
enabling one to reboot
On 13 Mar 2013, at 14:51, Chris Murphy wrote:
By the way, in this brave new fast boot world, how is one expected
to get to the BIOS or firmware set-up programs?
Firmware specific. F1 and F2 are very common. HP and some Toshibas
are Esc.
My question was more timing than keystroke --
On 26 Jan 2013, at 15:28, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le samedi 26 janvier 2013 à 15:20 -0500, Mike Pinkerton a écrit :
On 26 Jan 2013, at 13:09, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 26, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Mike Pinkerton
pseli...@mindspring.com wrote:
If you could SSH into fedup during its offline
On 26 Jan 2013, at 12:11, Chris Murphy wrote:
After 1/2 dozen fedup upgrades during testing, on average the
downtime portion of the upgrade was between 25 and 40 minutes. On a
five year old laptop, with 4GB of RAM, and WDC Scorpio Blue rust
drive (the new computer with SSD did the fedup
On 26 Jan 2013, at 13:09, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Jan 26, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Mike Pinkerton
pseli...@mindspring.com wrote:
If a fedup upgrade can go offline for a lengthy, but uncertain,
amount of time, then the lack of feedback is worrying. You can't
hold your breath for 25 minutes
On 25 Jan 2013, at 14:23, Simo Sorce wrote:
Ah, so you have to reboot anyway, so where is the difference between
your approach and proper offline updates then? Either way you have to
interrupt your work to reboot the machine. One just takes a slight
bit
longer for rebooting...
A) One
On 30 Jan 2012, at 00:17, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Mike Pinkerton wrote:
Additionally, app style programs will become more common in
the future, whether on a portable or a desktop. Those app style
programs are the only way one can create a central marketplace for
small, easily downloaded
On 30 Jan 2012, at 10:01, Emanuel Rietveld wrote:
On 01/30/2012 03:38 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote:
You might not want to encourage the app model, but that boat
already left the dock. For Linux distros to be players on
portables and desktops, they need to recognize
:
/bin- /usr/bin
/sbin - /usr/bin
/lib- /usr/lib
/usr/local - /opt
/usr/sbin - /usr/bin
Bottomline, congratulations Harald and Kay on a good first step to
simplifying and rationalizing the file structure. Now keep going.
--
Mike Pinkerton
Kool-Aid Drinker
41 matches
Mail list logo
