On 07/29/2011 07:47 AM, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 10:48 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
Just a quick heads-up that I plan to look unto packaging the
gnome shell frippery extensions this weekend, if you've the
same plans or are already working on this, please let me know.
So we
On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be
like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click
install to install an extension.
Distro packaged extensions are frowned upon upstream.
Is it not then better to setup
On 07/29/2011 09:21 AM, drago01 wrote:
2011/7/29 Jóhann B. Guðmundssonjohan...@gmail.com:
On 07/29/2011 08:57 AM, drago01 wrote:
Well in gnome 3.2 (which should be out for F16) extensions will be
like firefox extensions i.e you go to extensions.gnome.org and click
install to install an
On 08/19/2011 12:35 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Friday, August 19, 2011 03:41:33 AM Tim Waugh wrote:
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 16:52 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
It's not so much cups start up being slow as discovering network
printers. That can take up to a minute I think.
This is true...
On 08/19/2011 03:39 PM, Steve Grubb wrote:
We need a way to specify in the service init files which targets the service
is allowed
to run in by default.
You do that in the install section of the unit file
[Install]
WantedBy=$foo.target
So basically all desktop related service should only
On 09/06/2011 02:55 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Reindl Harald (h.rei...@thelounge.net) said:
the alpha was release and
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd
is at 0% - why will F16 released WITHOUT making the system clean which
should have been done for F15
Perhaps the feature
On 09/03/2011 09:47 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 07:46, Reindl Haraldh.rei...@thelounge.net
wrote:
snip..
We need to get a provenpackager to just poke through all the packages and
fix them instead of waiting for the maintainers.
In some cases
On 09/06/2011 08:39 AM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
I created a service for wpa_supplicant. Is there something wrong with it?
Nope Dan had sanctioned it but then another one appear upstream and as
you know we try to avoid deviating from upstream.
Not sure if Bill spoke with Dan about this ( I
On 09/07/2011 01:12 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
These two torrent packages includes init scripts for the daemons and
need to be converted to systemd. I have been meaning to convert but
could use some help. If someone can take a look a look and file a
patch, I will be happy to role them
On 09/07/2011 01:55 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Yes, conversion into two separate services seems to be the most
appropriate solution.
Here is a service file for transmission
https://github.com/eventhorizonpl/systemd-services/blob/master/transmission-daemon.service
From the looks of it
On 09/07/2011 02:29 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
W dniu 7 września 2011 16:18 użytkownik Michał Piotrowski
mkkp...@gmail.com napisał:
2011/9/7 Jóhann B. Guðmundssonjohan...@gmail.com:
On 09/07/2011 01:55 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Yes, conversion into two separate services seems to be the
On 09/07/2011 03:04 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/07/2011 08:20 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote:
(I would prefer dropping sysconfig file altogether, like Lennart
suggested some time ago. And few other. It should work with only
ExecStart= and User= in [Service]).
I am fine with dropping the sysconfig
On 09/08/2011 06:27 PM, Till Maas wrote:
On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 01:16:50PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
I don't think a maintainer can realistically replace wide-spread user
based testing in a variety of environments. In light of that, we can
either accept a maintainer +1 as I tested this as I
On behalf of the systemd convertion team Just wanted to say thanks to
Tom Spot Callaway he's been on fire today packaging submitted unit
files and shipping them.
Your work did not go unoticed!
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 09/13/2011 10:46 AM, Jan-Frode Myklebust wrote:
Could someone please help review the Apache Traffic Server:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683463
I believe it should be more or less complete as far as I see it,
but the current reviewer doesn't have time to complete it
On 09/13/2011 11:03 PM, Michał Piotrowski wrote:
Hi
2011/9/13 Tom Lanet...@redhat.com:
(This isn't new with 9.1, btw --- the last version or so of 9.0
for F16 was the same, since we switched over to native systemd
files.)
I used this service file on F15 and it starts slower
4214ms
On 09/14/2011 10:56 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
Thats right! Just wave your hands and say it is all ok that systemd
is slower now but it is doing
so much more and we will make it better in the future...!
I never said that what I said was it's irrelivent the startup time of a
service on a
On 09/14/2011 11:50 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 09/14/2011 05:13 PM, Genes MailLists wrote
I realize, but that was indeed part of the point of my reply - lets
avoid making up things (with or without hyperbole) - and best we can,
stick to facts and real issues.
You are ignoring the real
On 09/14/2011 02:22 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
Is systemd boot actually any faster? There seems to be no
noticable difference in boot times for me over whatever we
were using in F14. ie. both methods still takes ages, far
longer than should be necessary.
We arent optimising the default
On 09/14/2011 12:35 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 14.09.2011 14:16, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
And FYI to all those that gloriously want to upgrade and claim that it's
bug free or they ( all of what two people ) not encountered any issues
inetd-style socket activation is borked in .35
On 09/14/2011 10:32 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I'd like to note that Toshio (abadger1999 on IRC) did in fact not say
this. It was someone else answering them.
Oh no he would never in fact Toshio has been one of the more helpful
person to me always and he is one of the person I look for inspiration
On 09/15/2011 05:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
In general, there are other factors coming into play, such as parallel
startup using more memory, parallelization not providing many advantages
on systems with a small number of CPU cores, hard synchronisation points
in the bootup process,
On 09/15/2011 04:11 PM, Michal Schmidt wrote:
On 09/15/2011 05:54 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 09/15/2011 09:42 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 09/15/2011 05:25 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Anyway, some more figures: On the same machine, bootup times when
booting from a (slow) external (IDE
On 09/19/2011 11:25 AM, Juan Orti Alcaine wrote:
[Service]
WorkingDirectory=/var/lib/gogoc
Type=simple
EnvironmentFile=-/etc/sysconfig/gogoc
ExecStart=/usr/bin/gogoc -f /etc/gogoc/gogoc.conf $GOGOC_OPTS
ExecStop=/bin/kill -s SIGHUP $MAINPID
Try this totally untested instead...
[Service]
On 09/21/2011 01:00 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
You probably did not understand the meaning of removing the ability for
disabling dnssec in the Adam's e-mail. It is not meant to disable the
ability to not use of dnssec completely but that it should not be
possible to simply click away any failures
snip
If people are testing this it would be good if they could test the unit
files for this too on F15+ hosts.
Afaik I have already converted the whole xelerance.com stuff and it's
just laying there in bugzilla.
Create the relevant files in there relevant paths then run...
systemctl
On 10/05/2011 02:41 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
You can try rebuilding your live image with this patch to
spin-kickstarts:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=739446
to see if it makes any difference. it migrates the livesys stuff to
systemd, at least to an extent.
--
Migrating
On 10/05/2011 08:55 AM, Steven Whitehouse wrote:
Ok, excellent, so there is really just one issue to try and resolve in
that case I think, which is the ordering of mounts vs. gfs_controld
start,
Hum...
Could that be solved either by creating mount/path units ( for the mount
point ) and or by
On 10/07/2011 03:38 PM, Aaron Gray wrote:
Hi,
I think this is a development problem. I have tried everything obvious
to get TFTP to work on F14 but to no avail. Could some one in the know
look in to this please.
I have tftp -server working on F14 and have done PXE Instillations
using it.
On 10/07/2011 05:00 PM, Aaron Gray wrote:
Transfer timed out.
Usually one needs full output from the above but anyway check the usual
stuff as in your /etc/xinet.d/tftp file and make sure it's not disabled
as in disable = yes, file permissions etc...
JBG
--
devel mailing list
On 10/19/2011 06:43 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
It looks like I'll be taking over mythtv packaging for RPM Fusion and
I noticed it still only uses a sysv init script.
In the sysv script it sets some ACL permissions on video and audio
devices necessary for the backend service, and then on shutdown
On 10/19/2011 09:48 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
That will work for the user, however, I was also going to allow for
additional options from the sysconfig file, but $OPTIONS wasn't being
expand either.
sysconfig files for daemons kinda is obsolete these days either write
the daemon to parse a
On 10/19/2011 08:29 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
The After=syslog.target is unnecessary these days and should be removed
to keep things simple.
If you expect upstream to ship unit files then you must realize that
upstream needs to ship a unit file that works across distribution on
what ever
On 10/24/2011 03:52 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
I'm really getting to the point where that's a completely unacceptable
restriction. I've already blown off one mysql bug-fix release in F15
because of this restriction, and I see they just released another one
that I'll be unable to ship in F15 because
On 10/24/2011 05:42 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
FWIW, what the tomcat6 maintainers did is that they just ignored the
guideline which says that you cannot migrate to systemd in an update and
pushed this update:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-13456
(which is already in the
On 11/01/2011 01:59 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
So, assuming I'm not grossly misanalysing the data, it seems that we
could drop the proventester requirement from critical path updates with
a negligable change in the quality of the updates. Thoughts?
Agreed flag it as tried and tested stats dont
On 11/03/2011 02:38 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Thu, 2011-11-03 at 10:10 -0400, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
HekaFS runs a daemon from init. It's a Bottle (python-based) http server.
In order to work on, e.g. RHEL6 in addition to Fedora, the old init
script has:
...
vercmd=from
On 11/07/2011 07:41 PM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Mon, 2011-11-07 at 10:35 -0900, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 10:28 AM, Tomas Mraztm...@redhat.com wrote:
Eventual blocking of the packages that violate this Fedora packaging
rule was not yet definitively decided upon, but we agreed
On 11/08/2011 12:04 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
Yupp, newer versions might want to use /run instead of /var/run, and
drop all references to syslog.target. But then again, this is not key,
as nothing breaks if they do.
This is such a large scale change that it's better to make them future
On 11/09/2011 05:49 AM, Ian Kent wrote:
What other form of encouragement can you suggest?
This email thread for a start.
We have had email threads like this for two release cycles now and yet
the main problem still remains the same packagers/maintainers not either
migrating themselves or
On 11/09/2011 04:07 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
IIRC in f16alpha and f16beta with openssh-server installed, sshd was
enabled and run.
I installed f16ga in several vm guests yesterday and even though
openssh-server was installed, it was both not enabled and therefor not
run when the install
On 11/09/2011 06:59 PM, Kaleb S. KEITHLEY wrote:
Seems surprising (to me) that it'd be installed, and the port open in
the firewall, but not enabled.
From my perspective it's quite the oposit as in having it enabled on
the dvd and instantly letting novice end users be vulnerable to ssh
On 11/09/2011 06:45 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote:
Meaning this is a tool that can be used by bluetooth devices to off load
data off my desktop. I don't want to allow any random telephone that
gets near my laptop to be able to attempt to remove data from my computer.
Now now be a sport this
On 11/09/2011 10:58 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I don't know if that broke in Alpha/Beta, but it's always been this way
on past live media. Perhaps we should revisit it thought... enable it,
but make sure premitemptypasswords is set for sshd (which it should be
by default).
Or disable it on the
On 11/14/2011 01:28 AM, Ian Kent wrote:
Anyway, I'll start work on the logging changes and add a unit file and
see how we go. Should autofs install the unit file into the systemd area
or what should do?
So the final unit file should look something like this...
### autofs.service ###
[Unit]
On 11/14/2011 06:38 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
The issue that came up in the discussion was that there is a good group
to use to include for QA. The qa group isn't really used and proventesters
is a bit broad and its future is in question. One possible solution is
to start using the qa group
On 11/14/2011 07:39 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
* AGREED: tell maintainer to please support listening on both ipv4 and
ipv6 in vsftpd.
A rather odd something like this found it self on fesco tables instead
of an RFE against component.
If I'm not mistake the only thing you need to do is set
On 11/14/2011 09:20 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Nov 14, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
that's unfortunate. f16 doesn't pxe install for me, and I'd rather make sure
this
doesn't affect 17 sooner rather than later. Where can I find the compose
scripts
So I can build images locally to
On 11/15/2011 03:28 PM, Ola Thoresen wrote:
Everything here looks correct. Seems like SSSD is authenticating the
user just fine. I'd say the bug is with pure-ftpd, then. File a BZ.
I'd have thought so as well, if at least one of pure-ftpd, proftpd or
vsftpd had worked.
But they all show the
On 11/21/2011 01:14 PM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Hello fellow devs,
I am sure quite a few of you have done some reviews and thought Hey,
a,b,c and d could be automated. For E I could use some more
information that can be automatically gathered. Some of you even
wrote your own tools to do
Given that I'm migrating bunch of legacy init script to native systemd
ones and I have come many packages that seem that maintainer(s) have
deserted them but for some bizarre reason we still continue to package
and keep rolling them between release and now I came across bug 738442
which
On 11/21/2011 09:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Unconvincing. To reassure ownership periodicially won't be sufficient.
It would be just another button to click (like FAS password or cert
renewal) and would not guarantee that the packages would be maintained
properly and that tickets would be
On 11/21/2011 10:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody can seem
to agree on what an appropriate sign of life would be, no has made a
serious FESCo proposal for a contrived sign of life.
I don't think anybody disagrees (well maybe
On 11/21/2011 09:58 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
+1
nothing is more frustrating for users as ignored bugreports reintroduced from
release to relase while th eonly response is from bugzapper about EOL of the
release
That's one symptom of the underlying problem and with my QA hat on I can
tell
On 11/21/2011 10:24 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
JBG == Jóhann B Guðmundssonjohan...@gmail.com writes:
JBG How does FPC handle packagers that violate the packaging
JBG guidelines?
FPC is not tasked with enforcing the packaging guidelines.
So who's ultimately responsible for making sure
On 11/21/2011 10:36 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 14:03:43 -0800
Jesse Keatingjkeat...@j2solutions.net wrote:
This has come up nearly every release cycle. Problem is that nobody
can seem to agree on what an appropriate sign of life would be, no
has made a serious FESCo
On 11/21/2011 11:00 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
[1] It does matter because there is a risk of security vulnerabilities
being unaddressed - but, hopefully, at least for the frequently used
packages somebody would notice.
This in itself should be valid enough point to have proper clean up
process
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
It is indeed intended as such.
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 11/21/2011 11:21 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
It is indeed intended as such.
BTW does anyone have any insight on how
On 11/22/2011 08:51 AM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Can I be added to the list of maintainers that need help very badly from the
beginning?
If such an list existed I dont see why that should be a problem.
I maintain a number of packages that are very low in the Java stack and would
force
On 11/22/2011 09:40 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 11/22/2011 04:51 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving the detection of
inactive maintainers and unmaintained packages.
It is indeed intended
On 11/22/2011 10:18 AM, Stanislav Ochotnicky wrote:
Excerpts from Jóhann B. Guðmundsson's message of Tue Nov 22 00:28:32 +0100
2011:
On 11/21/2011 11:21 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/21/2011 10:50 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
I understand this thread as a comment on improving
On 11/22/2011 12:37 PM, Marcela Maslanova wrote:
You don't improve distribution, when you start bullying contributors. Bunch
of people were already annoyed with your proposal.
Please provide explanation further how I was bullying contributors.
Thanks
JBG
--
devel mailing list
On 11/22/2011 12:35 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Comments inline.
- Original Message -
snip
We seem to disagree here. I value every maintainer even one that steps in
once in a year. And yes I value him more than someone that would open 10
bugreports without instructions how to
On 11/22/2011 12:49 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
Hmm, haven't this started with if you're not ready to reply to every
bugreport we will ban you because we don't want your contribution?
If you are referring to
Well if people want more controversial proposal of sign of live that's
On 11/22/2011 01:48 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov wrote:
- Original Message -
The problem here is that in my eyes there are no inactive contributors and
there shouldn't be anything preventing people from contributing (even if it's
one update per year).
While I agree that projects that
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
make every contributor an proven packager?
Would it be viable to move to something like language SIG based
ownership of packages?
On 11/22/2011 05:59 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
2011/11/22 Jóhann B. Guðmundssonjohan...@gmail.com:
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence would
make every contributor an proven
On 11/22/2011 06:46 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 17:51:31 +
Jóhann B. Guðmundssonjohan...@gmail.com wrote:
What do people see as pros and cons continuing to use the current
package ownership model?
Would it be practical to dropping it altogether which in essence
would
On 11/22/2011 06:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
That problem can be solved technically as in be made transparent to
reports and maintainers ( reporters using our bugzilla but
maintainers using their relevant upstream one )
Not sure how off hand. ;(
The rough idea I had in my head can be
On 11/22/2011 09:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
2. Any update marked as 'critpath breaking' by a proven tester would be
blocked from being pushed stable at all - automatically or manually -
until the PT modified the feedback or it was overridden by someone with
appropriately godlike powers
On 11/22/2011 09:53 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2011-11-22 at 21:31 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 11/22/2011 09:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
2. Any update marked as 'critpath breaking' by a proven tester would be
blocked from being pushed stable at all - automatically
On 11/22/2011 10:03 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
The proposal is to treat a PT hitting the panic button even more
dramatically than a registered user hitting it, the idea being that PTs
should be somewhat better informed and hence less likely to trigger it
falsely, and that we have the mechanism
On 12/02/2011 10:49 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
[root@adam adamw]# virsh net-start default
error: Failed to start network default
error: cannot create bridge 'virbr0': Package not installed
[root@adam adamw]# rpm -qa | grep bridge
bridge-utils-1.5-2.fc16.x86_64
What else could cause this
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 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 08/26/2010 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 08/27/2010 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 08/29/2010 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 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 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 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 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 10/06/2012 08:42 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote:
Questions, feedback, thoughts or rants anybody?
This is something you should be asking on the -test list where the QA
community resides
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 10/09/2012 04:34 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
rsyslog.service
Remind me again of the reason why we are still shipping rsyslog by
default now that we have the journal?
JBG
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On 10/09/2012 07:50 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
On 10/09/2012 03:10 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 10/09/2012 04:34 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
rsyslog.service
Remind me again of the reason why we are still shipping rsyslog by
default now that we have the journal?
An undocumented
On 10/09/2012 08:28 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
The problem is that they generally get to clean up a system long*after*
is has been installed by someone else, crashed, and needs to be recovered.
Here you are fighting about libmicrohttpd ( 48KB ) and qrencode-libs (
46.3KB ) while we have
On 10/09/2012 08:47 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Yes, I can travel back in time and fix someone else's badly installed
server that they are asking me to fix or do forensic analysis of.
Brilliant idea.
Who does not want to travel back in time? =)
JBG
--
devel mailing list
1 - 100 of 938 matches
Mail list logo
