Adam Williamson wrote:
To answer the question someone posed earlier in the thread, when I was
doing a lot of testing of various F13 RC2 installs yesterday, none of
them - not the default desktop install from DVD, the desktop spin, the
KDE spin or the Xfce spin - had more than 12 updates
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 23:01 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
The reason is that it is *game* and it is not part of the default set.
Anyone who chooses to install it will get an updated game. I think the
focus here is misguided. We should be paying attention to updates of the
default package set
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 17:19 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Why does the large size of some game files matter? _Number_ of
updates matters (ie. 140 is a bit large) but on the other hand F13 has
been in limbo for such a long time I'm not surprised.
It really hasn't. We accepted submissions
Ralf Corsepius (rc040...@freenet.de) said:
And right now the values used are scaled to the hardware we have at
hand. So adjusting it wouldn't help Fedora one bit.
Makes me wonder about your HW.
Fact is, extending the limits to 200MB (the hard-coded limit is 100MB) I
having no
Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
6.2M wesnoth-1.8.1-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
12M hanazono-fonts-20100222-2.fc13.noarch.rpm
48M
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 02:14:58AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
6.2M
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 02:14:58 -0400,
James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
6.2M wesnoth-1.8.1-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
12M hanazono-fonts-20100222-2.fc13.noarch.rpm
48M xmoto-0.5.3-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
260M wesnoth-data-1.8.1-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
318M openarena-0.8.5-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
I
And so what ?
In OpenArena's case, last stable releases were:
* 0.8.5: 02/23/2010
* 0.8.1: 10/31/2008
You can't blame OpenArena's maintainer for that, do you ?
The same goes for Wesnoth, 1.8.1 maintenance release was issued 2 May
so less than two weeks ago (1.8 was released 1st april !)
Best
On 05/11/2010 11:44 AM, James Antill wrote:
Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
6.2M wesnoth-1.8.1-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
12M
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:14 AM, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
6.2M
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:42 AM, Thomas Janssen
thom...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
What was that for? To start another flamewar including the challenge
for a explicit person?
Quite, a possibly valid point losing out to a flamebait codicil.
-Cam
--
devel mailing list
It is not part of a default package set.
Even if it were, blocking bugfixes in order to reduce updates size is
nothing but stupid.
We have presto/deltarpm for that (since these packages mostly contain
unchanged binary data like images, it should work pretty well).
What's the point in having new
On 05/11/2010 02:00 PM, H. Guémar wrote:
It is not part of a default package set.
Even if it were, blocking bugfixes in order to reduce updates size is
nothing but stupid.
We have presto/deltarpm for that (since these packages mostly contain
unchanged binary data like images, it should
On 11 May 2010 07:14, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
I wonder what the number is for
* Richard Hughes [11/05/2010 11:05] :
I wonder what the number is for packages on the desktop spin? I guess
that's a bit more reasonable.
I'm left wondering what problem we're trying to solve here. I'm gussing
it's one of :
* there are too many updates (for whom? how is this a problem?)
* the
Am Dienstag, den 11.05.2010, 02:14 -0400 schrieb James Antill:
Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64,
This number is kind of irrelevant as nobody will
Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
yeah, over 750 MB where 584 MB belongs to wesnoth and openarena. So without
these two games it's
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I don't think either wesnoth or openarena are on the desktop spin.
They are probably only on the games spin. So the impact of those,
really should not be that big. (Compared to say the effect an openoffice.org
would have.)
... and wesnoth multiplayer doesn't work on
On 05/11/2010 01:14 AM, James Antill wrote:
Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5 are:
6.2M wesnoth-1.8.1-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
12M
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 11:18:23 +0200,
Emmanuel Seyman emmanuel.sey...@club-internet.fr wrote:
* Richard Hughes [11/05/2010 11:05] :
I wonder what the number is for packages on the desktop spin? I guess
that's a bit more reasonable.
I'm left wondering what problem we're trying to
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net wrote:
On 05/11/2010 01:14 AM, James Antill wrote:
Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64,
On 05/11/2010 01:12 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
And so what ?
In OpenArena's case, last stable releases were:
* 0.8.5: 02/23/2010
Feb 2nd, 2010 - that's a long time ago.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 05/11/2010 06:05 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 05/11/2010 01:12 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
And so what ?
In OpenArena's case, last stable releases were:
* 0.8.5: 02/23/2010
Feb 2nd, 2010 - that's a long time ago.
You said that, because you haven't seen really the oldest packages
in
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 10:30 +0200, H. Guémar wrote:
It is not part of a default package set.
Even if it were, blocking bugfixes in order to reduce updates size is
nothing but stupid.
It wasn't bugfixes, it was a new upstream release, and yes size does
matter. All mirrors, public and
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 08:29 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
On 05/11/2010 01:14 AM, James Antill wrote:
Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make anyone
think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates with a
combined size of _over_ 750MB on x86_64, biggest 5
On Mon, May 10, 2010 at 10:14 PM, James Antill ja...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
6.2M wesnoth-1.8.1-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
12M hanazono-fonts-20100222-2.fc13.noarch.rpm
48M xmoto-0.5.3-1.fc13.x86_64.rpm
260M wesnoth-data-1.8.1-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
318M openarena-0.8.5-1.fc13.noarch.rpm
...the last
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for
wesnoth-data due to it's size.
Then fix this deficiency of your process and provide them.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, 11 May 2010 17:19:41 +0100
Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com wrote:
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 02:14:58AM -0400, James Antill wrote:
Thankfully all the giant flamewars and new policies didn't make
anyone think twice about the users, as we already have 140 updates
with a
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 12:23 -0400, James Antill wrote:
Within Fedora deltarpms have a limit of applying only to rpms less than
100MB, so there are no deltarpms. Anyone who wants to blame rel-eng for
that is free to fix the delarpm code...
On that subject, anyone who wants to fix this would be
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 8:46 AM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote:
It's unfortunate that these two big packages didn't make it into the
base repo, but such is life. ;(
As this is the first time we've done the early branching... I
certainly expect mistakes right around the time of the branch
Xose Vazquez Perez (xose.vazq...@gmail.com) said:
On 05/11/2010 06:05 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 05/11/2010 01:12 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
And so what ?
In OpenArena's case, last stable releases were:
* 0.8.5: 02/23/2010
Feb 2nd, 2010 - that's a long time ago.
You said
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for
wesnoth-data due to it's size.
Then fix this deficiency of your process and provide them.
Patches welcome.
--
Jesse
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 08:27:30 -0500,
Michael Cronenworth m...@cchtml.com wrote:
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
I don't think either wesnoth or openarena are on the desktop spin.
They are probably only on the games spin. So the impact of those,
really should not be that big. (Compared to say
On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for
wesnoth-data due to it's size.
Then fix this deficiency of your process and
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for
wesnoth-data due
On 05/11/2010 07:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
As I said
On 05/11/2010 09:35 PM, Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
On 05/11/2010 01:12 AM, H. Guémar wrote:
And so what ?
In OpenArena's case, last stable releases were:
* 0.8.5: 02/23/2010
Feb 2nd, 2010 - that's a long time ago.
Yep. The primary maintainer at that time recently orphaned
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 08:29 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
, and we now have
deltarpms (and a huge thank to to all responsible there), so I really
don't think it's that big of an issue.
As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for
On 05/11/2010 10:31 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
I think the point is that if the release was done in
February, there's really no reason it should be a F-13
*update* at GA.
The reason is that it is *game* and it is not part of the default set.
Anyone who chooses to install it will get an
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/11/2010 07:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/11/2010 06:27 PM, James Antill wrote:
As I said in another reply, there are currently no deltarpms for
wesnoth-data due
On Tue, May 11, 2010 at 12:23:35PM -0400, James Antill wrote:
It again goes to the point of why bother making releases at all, if
they mean so little. And, trying to be less grumpy, maybe moving some
packages to rawhide only style of repos. would make everyone happy (we
could even call it
On 05/11/2010 07:33 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:20 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/11/2010 07:12 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:10 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 05/11/2010 07:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 18:44 +0200, Ralf
43 matches
Mail list logo
