Am 30.07.2013 11:35, schrieb Ian Malone:
This is the price you pay for having updated versions of libraries
with security fixes and functionality, and it's why Linux
distributions use open source (and one reason non OS software is
tricky), provided the library API hasn't changed you just
On 29 July 2013 03:32, Subhendu Ghosh sghosh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
In the OS/App differentiation, you are expecting each is coming from a
different source.
Apps are either boxed, or coming from a project.
The
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 6:40 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.netwrote:
In the OS/App differentiation, you are expecting each is coming from a
different source.
Apps are either boxed, or coming from a project.
The app provider should fix their version of libxml, and the OS provider
snip
On the other hand some projects might benefit from stable Ring0, 1, which
wouldn't change unexpectedly.
No one said that stuff should change unexpectedly (and that's not
what currently happens either).
Beg to differ. There are lots of asynchronous dep changes (typically
version
On 07/23/2013 08:38 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
I've found it very hard to find the right place to jump into this
discussion.
So, I'll just put out some of my own thoughts about what I want to see
out of Fedora, and then point out how I think this matches or contrasts
with Matts proposal.
Le samedi 27 juillet 2013 à 11:31 +0200, Brendan Jones a écrit :
Is it even feasible to use the Fedora Java/JBOSS stack unless you are an
existing customer?
There is no customer for Fedora, so I am not sure to fully follow you.
And last time I tested, ovirt was working on fedora, so jboss
On 07/27/2013 12:36 PM, Michael Scherer wrote:
Le samedi 27 juillet 2013 à 11:31 +0200, Brendan Jones a écrit :
Is it even feasible to use the Fedora Java/JBOSS stack unless you are an
existing customer?
There is no customer for Fedora, so I am not sure to fully follow you.
And last time I
- Original Message -
From: Brendan Jones brendan.jones...@gmail.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2013 12:31:25 PM
Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile Fedora.next (draft of my Flock
talk)
snip
On the other hand some projects might benefit
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 03:30:19PM -0400, Subhendu Ghosh wrote:
The app provider should fix their version of libxml
The problem is: they don't. Walk up to some random Windows machine and
look how many vulnerable copies of zlib (or some other popular library)
you can find. Aside from maybe Google
On 07/25/2013 07:25 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.07.13 11:22, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:14PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup
company, their developers are inevitably
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/25/2013 07:25 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.07.13 11:22, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:14PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Whenever I go to a tech meetup
No one said that stuff should change unexpectedly (and that's not
what currently happens either).
Actually its the opposite you want to consider the whole picture
when doing changes and not think
of independent pieces stuck together. That's why the lets build some
core platform and put
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Mark Bidewell mbide...@gmail.com wrote:
No one said that stuff should change unexpectedly (and that's not
what currently happens either).
Actually its the opposite you want to consider the whole picture
when doing changes and not think
of independent pieces
2 types of OS - headless servers and UI enabled systems. Need to cater for
both.
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:02 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Mark Bidewell mbide...@gmail.com wrote:
No one said that stuff should change unexpectedly (and that's not
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 9:02 AM, drago01 drag...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Mark Bidewell mbide...@gmail.com wrote:
No one said that stuff should change unexpectedly (and that's not
what currently happens either).
Actually its the opposite you want to consider the
On 07/26/2013 05:23 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/25/2013 07:25 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 22.07.13 11:22, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:14PM +0200, drago01
- Original Message -
From: Peter MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com
To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, July 26, 2013 4:33:18 PM
Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile Fedora.next (draft of my Flock
talk)
On 07/26/2013 05:23
Am 26.07.2013 00:04, schrieb Eric Smith:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
if that would be the case i would not run Apache 2.4, and Zend Opcache
in production on Fdora 17
I wouldn't run *anything* in production on Fedora 17. That's what the
Original-Nachricht
Betreff: Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile Fedora.next (draft of my Flock
talk)
Datum: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 16:04:11 -0600
Von: Eric Smith brouh...@fedoraproject.org
An: Development discussions related to Fedora devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12
Am 26.07.2013 14:20, schrieb Mark Bidewell:
Honestly, I keep seeing this argument in this thread, but it doesn't square
with reality. The concept of an OS and
all of its apps as a monolithic distribution with a single release schedule
is unique to Linux. Every other major
OS (with the
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.netwrote:
but to say a core / apps separation is fundamentally flawed is incorrect
it is correct
* go and play around with ldd /usr/bin/whatever-application
* look how many share openssl, nspr, nss, libxml and a lot of more
On Mon, 22.07.13 11:22, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:14PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup
company, their developers are inevitably using a different (usually
proprietary) desktop
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Lennart Poettering
mzerq...@0pointer.de wrote:
On Mon, 22.07.13 11:22, Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:40:14PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup
company,
Am 25.07.2013 20:29, schrieb drago01:
I am fine with splitting out the actual enduser apps out, but that's
nothing that can happen before we actually have a sane concept of
apps. But for the rest we should work on creating one strong unified
platform rather than a conglomerate of puzzle
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:42 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 25.07.2013 20:29, schrieb drago01:
I am fine with splitting out the actual enduser apps out, but that's
nothing that can happen before we actually have a sane concept of
apps. But for the rest we should work on
Am 25.07.2013 20:53, schrieb drago01:
i saw a lot of (successful) competitors come and go in the
past 10 years in case of our business and if we would have
followed them bldindly we would have gone down the same way
There is a difference between follow blindly and bury your head in the
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
if that would be the case i would not run Apache 2.4, and Zend Opcache
in production on Fdora 17
I wouldn't run *anything* in production on Fedora 17. That's what the
downstream enterprise distributions are for.
--
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 16:04 -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
if that would be the case i would not run Apache 2.4, and Zend Opcache
in production on Fdora 17
I wouldn't run *anything* in production on Fedora 17. That's
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 16:04 -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
if that would be the case i would not run Apache 2.4, and Zend Opcache
in
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 04:22:59PM -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
And what are you going to do for security updates on Fedora 17? Live
without? Backport and rebuild everything yourself?
Update to Fedora 18 or 19 in the next five days.
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
i really do not justify my decisions inside support cycles
because *you* quote out of context and sound like booh nobody
is running Fedora in production
And I didn't say that nobody is running Fedora in production.
--
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 16:22 -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 16:04 -0600, Eric Smith wrote:
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
if that would be the case i
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 07:25:32PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Right now, we have a unified system which we pretty much guarantee cannot be
targeted at all. It's moving too fast at every level.
Honestly this is the only thing that holds together Fedora at all. The 6
month release cycle
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:25:31PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/23/2013 11:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
you claimed more than once that they are a less woth part of the community
because they get paid for their work and are not completly free in their
doings
Yes not because they
On 07/22/2013 03:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
This is a draft of the proposal I'm presenting at Flock, An Architecture
for a More Agile Fedora (http://sched.co/19ugKGM). It represents a big
change to how we as the Fedora project put together our distribution. I've
gone through several drafts of
Dne 22.7.2013 18:29, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson napsal(a):
As for cruft in the spec files, why not bring a proposal to the FPC to
update the packaging guidelines stating that Fedora spec files must
not contain RHEL/EPEL macros? Then the git branches would be
maintained separately and the spec files
New thread to get clear of some of the flames and wreckage...
On 07/23/2013 05:25 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:34:15PM -0400, Peter MacKinnon wrote:
Well, compat libraries are certainly an option but I view that as a tactical
solution to an institutional, um,
Le Mer 24 juillet 2013 16:17, Peter MacKinnon a écrit :
A generalization which I would disagree with in the Java space. I think
many projects
eventually reach steady-state where they have acquired the set of dep
bundles
they need to satisfy their runtime and test requirements. For example,
On 07/24/2013 11:03 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
Le Mer 24 juillet 2013 16:17, Peter MacKinnon a écrit :
A generalization which I would disagree with in the Java space. I think
many projects
eventually reach steady-state where they have acquired the set of dep
bundles
they need to satisfy their
On 07/22/2013 10:51 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:38:54 -0400,
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Obviously, no-bundled-libs is a crucial part of the packaging guidelines
today. As a sysadmin, I know why it's important. This is not just a noble
goal, but
Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 13:54, Bryan Kearney a écrit :
With virt / cloud becoming easier.. is that not a common model? More
smaller machines which are dedicated to one and only one service?
You can try to sweep problems under lots of carpets, and pretend the
problem pile is smaller since the
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:28:02PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
With virt / cloud becoming easier.. is that not a common model? More
smaller machines which are dedicated to one and only one service?
You can try to sweep problems under lots of carpets, and pretend the
problem pile is smaller
: Peter MacKinnon pmack...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 4:54:27 PM
Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile Fedora.next (draft of my Flock
talk)
Shout out to my fellow Flocker, Matt...
Original Message
Subject: RFC: Proposal
Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 15:10, Matthew Miller a écrit :
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:28:02PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
With virt / cloud becoming easier.. is that not a common model? More
smaller machines which are dedicated to one and only one service?
You can try to sweep problems under
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:58:10PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
In the end, making the pile of problems shrink requires working on the
pile of problems. That does not mean you can not deploy over multiple vms,
but if you take the fact you can deploy over multiple vms as an excuse not
to work
On 07/22/2013 03:53 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2013 06:13 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
But it's not an objective of Fedora to have long-term-stable releases
suitable for running servers!
Says who?
That is because Fedora has a 13 month support policy
On 07/23/2013 02:36 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
On 07/22/2013 03:53 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/22/2013 06:13 PM, Eric Smith wrote:
But it's not an objective of Fedora to have long-term-stable releases
suitable for running servers!
Says who?
That is because Fedora has a 13
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:37:57PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Not the current one no but if people are willing to maintain a
longer release cycle there is nothing preventing them from doing so.
The only thing is that it's _really hard_ and almost certainly requires
full-time workers to
On 07/23/2013 02:59 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:37:57PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Not the current one no but if people are willing to maintain a
longer release cycle there is nothing preventing them from doing so.
The only thing is that it's _really hard_ and
:
Shout out to my fellow Flocker, Matt...
Original Message
Subject: RFC: Proposal for a more agile Fedora.next (draft of my
Flock talk)
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 09:38:54 -0400
From: Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org
Reply-To: Development discussions related to Fedora
devel
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 09:49:22AM -0400, Tim St Clair wrote:
+1
Trying to continually level set to the HEAD of Fedora has introduced patch
sets
which only continue to diverge over time. Upstream(s) have expressed
little/no
interest in accepting some of these patches, and I can hardly
Matthew Miller píše v Po 22. 07. 2013 v 09:38 -0400:
Conclusion
---
* Refocus Core to provide a better platform for building on
* Make room for innovation at the Ring 2 level
* Empower SIGs to create solutions that fit
* Won't break what we have
* And we can start right
- Original Message -
From: Robert Rati rr...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 7:01:33 PM
Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile Fedora.next (draft of my Flock
talk)
I think there is another data point to include in the discussion
On 07/23/2013 04:07 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
The proposal looks frankly very cloud-centric.
Agreed the rings to rule them all proposal is a bit cloud centric and
tries to address too many things at one time.
I think we should just start with defining and reaching consensus on a
small core
On 07/23/2013 06:07 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
Matthew Miller píše v Po 22. 07. 2013 v 09:38 -0400:
Conclusion
---
* Refocus Core to provide a better platform for building on
* Make room for innovation at the Ring 2 level
* Empower SIGs to create solutions that fit
* Won't
On 07/22/2013 03:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
So there we have it. Comments and discussion, please!
I disagree with this Proposal, but I would agree with that if you
would call it Goal or Vision.
I agree with you that Fedora will (and should) look like this after 20
years.
But that is
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 05:54:27PM -0400, Peter MacKinnon wrote:
So far, so good...sort of. We can make the basic use case and tests work with
the modified dependencies but in doing so we risk giving up parity with the
Apache baseline (including the JRE) and potentially lose out to other
- Original Message -
From: Marcela Mašláňová mmasl...@redhat.com
To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 7:45:46 PM
Subject: Re: RFC: Proposal for a more agile Fedora.next (draft of my Flock
talk)
On 07/23/2013 06:07 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
Matthew
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:51:43PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
If people are interested in stepping up to make this happen and have a
long-term sustainable plan, that would be awesome.
Come to think of it Red Hat itself is not willing to invest in
extended release cycle of Fedora even
Marcela Mašláňová píše v Út 23. 07. 2013 v 18:45 +0200:
On 07/23/2013 06:07 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
Matthew Miller píše v Po 22. 07. 2013 v 09:38 -0400:
Conclusion
---
* Refocus Core to provide a better platform for building on
* Make room for innovation at the Ring 2
On 07/23/2013 05:13 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:51:43PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
If people are interested in stepping up to make this happen and have a
long-term sustainable plan, that would be awesome.
Come to think of it Red Hat itself is not willing to
Am 23.07.2013 19:25, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
And fundamentally again I think you are wrong we are better off in the long
term standing on our own two feets then
working with downstream or be dependant on RH on way or another or some other
sponsor.
So we are at impasse regarding
I've found it very hard to find the right place to jump into this
discussion.
So, I'll just put out some of my own thoughts about what I want to see
out of Fedora, and then point out how I think this matches or contrasts
with Matts proposal.
Fedora should be an *OS*. Here are some of the
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 14:38:17 -0400,
Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote:
PS: Somewhere in this discussion, it was brought up that Fedora
infrastructure is not running on Fedora. I find that a really depressing
state of affairs. Changing that would be a great goal, imo.
I think
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:38:17 -0400
Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote:
...snip...
PS: Somewhere in this discussion, it was brought up that Fedora
infrastructure is not running on Fedora. I find that a really
depressing state of affairs. Changing that would be a great goal, imo.
I find
On 07/23/2013 06:55 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
We have a increasing number of Fedora instances in places where it
makes sense. We don't exclusively use Fedora everywhere because it
doesn't make sense for a number of things.
Hosting/running what exactly?
JBG
--
devel mailing list
On 07/23/2013 05:33 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.07.2013 19:25, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
And fundamentally again I think you are wrong we are better off in the long
term standing on our own two feets then
working with downstream or be dependant on RH on way or another or some other
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:56:08 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/23/2013 06:55 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
We have a increasing number of Fedora instances in places where it
makes sense. We don't exclusively use Fedora everywhere because it
doesn't make sense for a
On 07/23/2013 07:08 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:56:08 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/23/2013 06:55 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
We have a increasing number of Fedora instances in places where it
makes sense. We don't exclusively use Fedora everywhere
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 21:02:56 +0200,
Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote:
on the other hand it your own dogfoot may lead to *a lot* of more
Note, the English idiom is Eat your own dog food.
care in many aspects if it comes to desicisons like delay a
feature to the next release
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 19:08:36 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/23/2013 07:08 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 18:56:08 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/23/2013 06:55 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
We have a increasing number of
Am 23.07.2013 20:57, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 07/23/2013 05:33 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.07.2013 19:25, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
And fundamentally again I think you are wrong we are better off in the long
term standing on our own two feets then
working with downstream
Am 23.07.2013 20:49, schrieb Bruno Wolff III:
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 14:38:17 -0400,
Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote:
PS: Somewhere in this discussion, it was brought up that Fedora
infrastructure is not running on Fedora. I find that a really depressing
state of affairs.
On 07/23/2013 07:17 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Anyhow, I think this will be my last post here.
Is it really that hard for you to provide a list with services that
aren't running Fedora so I myself and the rest of the community can look
at which those services are and if it indeed is impossible
On 07/23/2013 12:58 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 05:54:27PM -0400, Peter MacKinnon wrote:
So far, so good...sort of. We can make the basic use case and tests work with
the modified dependencies but in doing so we risk giving up parity with the
Apache baseline (including
On 07/23/2013 07:11 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
so you have no plan how large the positive impact is but you
attack Redhat and employees in a subtle way wherever you can?
For the first you do realize that Red Hat is a corporate and my view of
corporate involvement is the same in open source
Le Mar 23 juillet 2013 20:55, Kevin Fenzi a écrit :
On Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:38:17 -0400
Matthias Clasen mcla...@redhat.com wrote:
...snip...
PS: Somewhere in this discussion, it was brought up that Fedora
infrastructure is not running on Fedora. I find that a really
depressing state of
Am 23.07.2013 22:07, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 07/23/2013 07:11 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
so you have no plan how large the positive impact is but you
attack Redhat and employees in a subtle way wherever you can?
For the first you do realize that Red Hat is a corporate and my view of
On 07/23/2013 08:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
and from here is clear that you*blindly* shoot around at Redhat*blindly and
nothing else*
This was everything but blindly shot I'm perfectly well aware that he's
a Red Hat employee I even sent him email at his Red Hat address last week.
If you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/23/2013 04:07 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 07/23/2013 07:11 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
so you have no plan how large the positive impact is but you
attack Redhat and employees in a subtle way wherever you can?
For the first you do
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 03:34:15PM -0400, Peter MacKinnon wrote:
Well, compat libraries are certainly an option but I view that as a tactical
solution to an institutional, um, challenge.
And I believe that is what Matt is driving at: sustainable solutions that
satisfy the user/admin need
On Jul 22, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net
wrote:
Le Lun 22 juillet 2013 15:38, Matthew Miller a écrit :
Whenever I go to a tech meetup or talk to someone from a new startup
company, their developers are inevitably using a different (usually
proprietary)
On 07/23/2013 09:11 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
For the record, I'd like you to have a look at basically any
community-reported bug in the 'sssd' component of BZ or
community-submitted patches on the sssd-devel list. That's a project
comprised nearly entirely of Red Hat employees.[1]
You may
On 07/23/2013 11:02 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
you claimed more than once that they are a less woth part of the community
because they get paid for their work and are not completly free in their
doings
Yes not because they work for Red Hat but because I value people
dedicating and invest their
Am 24.07.2013 00:46, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 07/23/2013 09:11 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
For the record, I'd like you to have a look at basically any
community-reported bug in the 'sssd' component of BZ or
community-submitted patches on the sssd-devel list. That's a project
Am 23.07.2013 22:32, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 07/23/2013 08:26 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
and from here is clear that you *blindly* shoot around at Redhat *blindly
and nothing else*
This was everything but blindly shot I'm perfectly well aware that he's a Red
Hat employee I even
On Jul 23, 2013, at 2:11 PM, Nicolas Mailhot nicolas.mail...@laposte.net
wrote:
Without putting *any* blame on infra, I think that explains why no startup
is using Fedora (which is the reason advanced to justify this proposal). A
startup needs to build its own infra from scratch as fast as
Hi
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
Yes not because they work for Red Hat but because I value people
dedicating and invest their free time to the project more then I value
people that get paid to work on Fedora and are doing so on corporate time
How do you
On Jul 23, 2013, at 2:07 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote:
The fact is we live in a rather thankless community and that is something we
might be better at something that Picard would indeed want us to do.
Thank you for inviting me, with your foul attitude, to be
This is a draft of the proposal I'm presenting at Flock, An Architecture
for a More Agile Fedora (http://sched.co/19ugKGM). It represents a big
change to how we as the Fedora project put together our distribution. I've
gone through several drafts of this and talked to a few people, and I'd
really
On 07/22/2013 01:38 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
So there we have it. Comments and discussion, please!
It does not mention which components the core is made out of, no
dropping the defaults or even moving epel out of Fedora and into their
own infrastructure bits downstream distribution to us
Le 22/07/2013 15:38, Matthew Miller a écrit :
Wait, did you just say Fedora _Core_?
Yes I did.
But, this is not a return to the old Core + Extras, because the line is
drawn based on _what_ and _how_ rather than on who works for what company.
Whatever explanation which can be
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 01:49:08PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
So there we have it. Comments and discussion, please!
It does not mention which components the core is made out of, no
Correct; that is to be determined, and not just by me. At Flock, I will
include pictures of a couple of
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:38:54AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
* E.g.: Everything in @standard, plus the toolchains to build it
How about, like RHEL, the toolchains to build it goes into an
RHEL-Optional-like separate place? If it has to be in the core ring
then either the core ring has to
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 02:28:52PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
What better time to move epel out of Fedora since is really not
related to Fedora et all but is strictly for downstream distribution
based upon us to use ( like RHEL and it's clones )
I'm not sure what you think needs to
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 09:38:54 -0400,
Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Obviously, no-bundled-libs is a crucial part of the packaging guidelines
today. As a sysadmin, I know why it's important. This is not just a noble
goal, but also something that pragmatically makes systems
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 10:43:36AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 03:14:04PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I suspect this would be better if we made it much easier to automate
cpan2spec-style mass importing of packages to RPM. So that, for
example, you didn't need
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 04:06:12PM +0200, Remi Collet wrote:
But, this is not a return to the old Core + Extras, because the line is
drawn based on _what_ and _how_ rather than on who works for what company.
Whatever explanation which can be given, Core is just the worst name
to be
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Matthew Miller
mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
This is a draft of the proposal I'm presenting at Flock, An Architecture
for a More Agile Fedora (http://sched.co/19ugKGM). It represents a big
change to how we as the Fedora project put together our distribution.
On 07/22/2013 02:06 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 01:49:08PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
So there we have it. Comments and discussion, please!
It does not mention which components the core is made out of, no
Correct; that is to be determined, and not just by me.
1 - 100 of 174 matches
Mail list logo
