- Original Message -
> On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 22:34 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> > The gnome-3.12 copr includes a couple of low-level package updates
> > that
> > change abi/api that affects other desktops, notably:
> > upower-0.99
> > PackageKit-0.9.x
> >
> > Are these 2 required by gnome-3.
Am Sat, 05 Apr 2014 14:39:14 +
schrieb devel-requ...@lists.fedoraproject.org:
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 08:27:59 -0500
> From: Michael Catanzaro
> To: Development discussions related to Fedora
>
> Subject: Re: Considering GNOME 3.12 as an F20 u
On Sat, 2014-04-05 at 22:14 +0200, Kalev Lember wrote:
> However, while testing this, I noticed that COPR repo metadata
> includes
> all older versions of packages ever built in the COPR. This
> unfortunately means that DNF is free to pick older packages to satisfy
> dependencies if it can't work o
On 04/04/2014 05:55 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> Perhaps a versioned dependency on glib2 would be worth adding somewhere,
> but anyway I would not see this problem if this were a normal Fedora update,
> because then I'd get the package for both archs.
Good idea. I've now added versioned dependencie
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 22:34 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> The gnome-3.12 copr includes a couple of low-level package updates
> that
> change abi/api that affects other desktops, notably:
> upower-0.99
> PackageKit-0.9.x
>
> Are these 2 required by gnome-3.12 or would it be possible to use the
> (cu
On Fri, 2014-04-04 at 17:55 +0200, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> I had the same problem. It turned out I was missing the glib2 package
> update from the COPR. The reason was that I had both glib2.x86_64 and
> glib2.i686 installed, but I only enabled the x86_64 COPR. dnf silently
> skipped updating the pa
On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
> On 04/04/2014 05:40 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
>> First after the upgrade I didn't even boot to GDM. Too bad I didn't
>> debug it because I had already been considering a clean install, so I
>> did it right away. My setup was not typical, I ha
Matthias Clasen píše v Čt 03. 04. 2014 v 10:20 -0400:
> Hey,
>
> so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
> Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
> already received fairly wide testing.
>
> But we should be careful, so I want to ask for
On 04/04/2014 05:40 PM, Jiri Eischmann wrote:
> First after the upgrade I didn't even boot to GDM. Too bad I didn't
> debug it because I had already been considering a clean install, so I
> did it right away. My setup was not typical, I had been upgrading since
> F15. But apparently I was not the o
Matthias Clasen píše v Čt 03. 04. 2014 v 10:20 -0400:
> Hey,
>
> so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
> Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
> already received fairly wide testing.
>
> But we should be careful, so I want to ask for
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
> Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
> already received fairly wide testing.
I'll share here what I mentioned on desktop list...
The gnome-3.12 copr includes a coupl
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 23:00 +0530, Gerard Ryan wrote:
> From what I remember, videos directly in my home directory were
> displayed as thumbnails on the main window and they would play fine.
> If I tried to add/open a local video from another location (even
> subdirectory of my home) by clicking on
On 04/03/2014 06:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:09:43PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
You didn't mention the most important question:
Did the API or ABI change in backward-incompatible way?
If the answer to this question is "yes", then the answer to updating
to gnome-3.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 8:30 PM, Gerard Ryan wrote:
>
> I had a problem with the new totem/Videos having a non-responsive UI.
>
Probably https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=725063
--
-Elad Alfassa.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailm
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 01:09:32PM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > And I have yet to see any request have been made to the test list to
> > at least do the same validation on Gnome as is done before we release
> > an new GA release.
> Note that I am not asking about armchair opinions about whethe
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> Did you experience crashes or other serious problems with applications ?
Hi Matthias,
I had a problem with the new totem/Videos having a non-responsive UI.
I'm away on a work assignment until the 13th so unfortunately I can't
verify that i
Hi
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:20 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
>
> Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
>
Yes but I got updates for most of them. Couple of them are still broken
https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/8/places-status-indicator/
https://extensions.gnome.org/extension/
On Thu, 2014-04-03 at 16:32 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> On 04/03/2014 04:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> > Now, in reading that policy, there are quite a few things that match the
> > "Things that would make it less likely to grant a request" list. But, on the
> > other hand, by ha
On 04/03/2014 04:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Now, in reading that policy, there are quite a few things that match the
"Things that would make it less likely to grant a request" list. But, on the
other hand, by having a longer-than-typical Fedora release cycle this time
around, we are already in
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:09:43PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> You didn't mention the most important question:
>
> Did the API or ABI change in backward-incompatible way?
>
> If the answer to this question is "yes", then the answer to updating
> to gnome-3.12 needs to be no, because such chang
On 04/03/2014 04:20 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Hey,
so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
already received fairly wide testing.
But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem r
On 04/03/2014 03:15 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Also, as someone who has been testing this update in the COPR for
about a month now
Did you ( and others ) run through QA release blocking test cases for
Gnome or is this more "I have been running Gnome for about a month now"
kinda thing?
,
Matthias Clasen redhat.com> writes:
> Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
gnome-shell-extension-fedmsg is still not working in Rawhide (see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045669 ). This only affects
Fedora so thought I should mention it here.
--
devel mailing list
d
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:23:02PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > One option we could look into would be for GNOME to set this option on
> > by default for a month or so to give extension authors time to catch
> > up while not breaking any user extension that works unmodified.
> My understanding
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 11:11:58AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> One option we could look into would be for GNOME to set this option on
> by default for a month or so to give extension authors time to catch
> up while not breaking any user extension that works unmodified.
My understanding was
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 03:52:49PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
> Isn't this inevitable? If any extensions only claim to support 3.10 then
> they'll stop working until updated.
I've had a pretty good experience here this time around. Almost ever
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/03/2014 11:07 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> On 04/03/2014 02:20 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work
>> of Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packag
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:07 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
>
> On 04/03/2014 02:20 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
>> Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
>> already received fair
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/03/2014 10:52 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:20:30AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
>> Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
>
> Isn't this inevitable? If any extensions only claim to support 3.10
> then they'
On 04/03/2014 02:20 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
Hey,
so the time has come to consider this - thanks to the great work of
Richard and Kalev on the copr, we have a set of 3.12 packages that have
already received fairly wide testing.
But we should be careful, so I want to ask for concrete problem
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 04:57:10PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> 2014-04-03 16:52 GMT+02:00 Matthew Garrett :
> > Isn't this inevitable? If any extensions only claim to support 3.10 then
> > they'll stop working until updated.
>
> One, at least theoretical, way to resolve this would be to update
2014-04-03 16:52 GMT+02:00 Matthew Garrett :
> On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:20:30AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
> > Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
>
> Isn't this inevitable? If any extensions only claim to support 3.10 then
> they'll stop working until updated.
>
One, at least t
On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 10:20:30AM -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> Did any of your gnome-shell extensions break ?
Isn't this inevitable? If any extensions only claim to support 3.10 then
they'll stop working until updated.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@l
33 matches
Mail list logo
