Re: It’s time to transform the Fedora devel list into something new

Hi all, On 21/04/2023 10:50, Jarek Prokop wrote: > As a person in my early 20s, I hate how everything is becoming > web centric and no one can convince me to feel otherwise. hm... I thought this was kind of a generation conflict. Glad to be proven wrong. I enjoyed Fedora being on mailing

Re: Tenacity

Hi Stan, On 09/02/2023 16:55, stan via devel wrote: I downloaded the wxWidgets code from their site, and compiled it using their instructions on f37. Compiled easily, with only a warning about missing midi support. I installed it in /usr/local When I tried to get tenacity to use it, though,

Re: F37 proposal: Officially Support Raspberry Pi 4 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Hi, On 07/07/2022 17:36, Onuralp SEZER wrote: For example can you run wayland, or usage of fully supported GPU usage, Rs-pi's Camera usage, SPI , I2C , GPIO usages (PWM,Analog and others) Indeed. Also, the installation process has room for some improvements... Cheers! --alec PS: Please

Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers​

On 16/06/2022 13:40, Miro Hrončok wrote: The following packages require above mentioned packages: Depending on: libftdi (21), status change: 2022-06-16 (0 weeks ago) lirc (maintained by: hobbes1069, jwilson, leamas)     lirc-0.10.0-34.fc36.src requires libftdi-devel =

Retired: java-wakeonlan

I have retired java-wakeonlan. I don't use this anymore, and it's not installable. --alec ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct:

Retired: system-config-repo

Dear list, I have retired system-config-repo. This is something I should have done long ago. I did the upstream as a basically failed experiment, and I doubt anyone will miss it. When it now failed to build I finally got my finger out. --alec ___

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F31 to F32

On 04/03/2020 16:24, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Do you want to make Fedora 32 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time and > try to run: > Error: Problem 1: package VirtualBox-6.1-6.1.2_135662_fedora31-1.x86_64 requires python(abi) = 3.7, but none of the providers can be installed -

Re: No longer supporting mailing lists:

On 26/08/2019 16:12, Alec Leamas wrote: oops... Or, perhaps Postorious/GNU Mailman.  Fedora has moved to it and seems happy. It offers some web-related functionality on top of a traditional mailing. The evil of subscribing to both debian-devel and fedora-devel and mixing it up. Please

Re: No longer supporting mailing lists:

On 26/08/2019 16:04, Gerald B. Cox wrote: The best way to solve this is to create a duplicate discussion group on Discourse for Development and monitor it's use. The only way people are going to be able to decide if it's good for them or not is to try it. _ Or, perhaps Postorious/GNU

Re: HEADS UP: /usr/bin/python is Python 3 in rawhide

> On 7/15/19 7:09 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote: > Finally some light at the end of the python-transition tunnel :) > > - Panu - If you see some light down the tunnel, it might be the train coming... Cheers! --alec ___ devel mailing list --

Orphaning: supybot-git, adobe-source-libraries and openerp

Dear list, As heading says: I have orphaned the packages supybot-git, adobe-source-libraries and openerp. This is overdue since long, I have not maintained these packages properly. Of course, they are all free to pick. Cheers! --alec ___ devel

Re: fedora-review — do we have a maintainer?

On 16/08/18 14:54, Fabio Valentini wrote: > Thanks for your help! You are listed as the main admin for the > fedora-review project on pagure [0] - can you give me (decathorpe), > Miro (churchyard), and Neal (ngompa) access to the project? > Done. Welcome tto the project, you are all admins!

Re: Prioritizing ~/.local/bin over /usr/bin on the PATH

On 15/06/18 19:52, Przemek Klosowski wrote: > I have mixed feelings about that. On one hand,  I agree that this is NOT > a serious security issue (it's essentially a local compromise requiring > an existing local compromise), so if someone claims it'll make their > life easier, I want to say

Re: [ACTION NEEDED #2] Missing BuildRequires: gcc/gcc-c++

> On Wed, 07 Mar 2018 08:43:21 +0100 > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > This is the second iteration of my mass-scratch-rebuild without > gcc/gcc-c++ in the buildroot[0]. Everything what was written in > original mail still applies. > > Since people might have fixed

Re: F27 strange rpmbuild failure

On 05/02/18 16:06, Petr Viktorin wrote: > On 02/04/2018 10:08 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: >> In other words, it's sort of a known bug with fixes under way, slowly... > We're preparing a Change to fix this exact issue in Fedora 29. Started > just last week, actually: > https:/

Re: F27 strange rpmbuild failure

On 04/02/18 21:36, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Sunday, February 4, 2018 2:29:26 PM EST Alec Leamas wrote: >> Many questions here, and a large package. Still, searching the logs I >> cannot see any python files - are there any such at all? > > None at all. Its all java, javascr

Re: F27 strange rpmbuild failure

On 04/02/18 19:30, Steve Grubb wrote: > On Sunday, February 4, 2018 12:42:56 PM EST Antonio Trande wrote: >> Not enough information to check signature validity. Show Details >> >> On 04/02/2018 18:13, Steve Grubb wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-bytecompile /usr/bin/python 1

Re: Wyland is a disaster

On 20/01/18 19:14, Howard Howell wrote: > Hi, guys, > I'm sorry, but wyland is a disaster for me. I do work on lots > of different software platforms, and things are just not working well. > They kind-of-work, which is the really worst condition one can have. For me, this looks more

Re: EPEL support in "master" branch (aka speeding up Fedora development)

On 20/01/18 13:52, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Jan 20, 2018 12:29, "Igor Gnatenko" > TL;DR: >> - We need an authoritative source that tells us packagers which >> Guidelines apply to which branch (or what has to be done differently - >> or can be done better -

Review exchange

Dear list, I have submitted ddupdate [1] and need a review. I'm ready to make one in return, preferably a python or a C/C++ package. ddupdate is a simple, python3 application. Cheers! --alec [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1532023

Retiring openerp7 and openerp-client

Hi all, As heading says, I'm retiring these openerp packages. They need more love than I'm able to give them since I nowadays don't use them anymore. The difference between being employed and running a one person company that is... Cheers! --alec ___

Re: Proposed Mass Bug Filing: Renaming "python-" binary packages to "python2-"

On 01/07/17 01:17, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sat, Jul 01, 2017 at 12:45:51AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote: Spot on. There is a Swedish proverb. I don't know whether an English version exists, but in translation it is: One time is no time; two times is a habit. Since the Python API

Re: Directory permissions for games

On 27/06/17 14:13, Rémi Verschelde wrote: 2017-06-27 14:01 GMT+02:00 Nico Kadel-Garcia : Where does the game save its files? Does it need to be in a shared game repository, or does it save them in the user's home directory? If the games need to be saved into a common

Re: error: package javafx.collections does not exist

On 08/02/17 14:39, Martin Gansser wrote: Hi, I am trying to compile MSearch, a program needed by Mediathekview. https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Packages/MediathekView/MSearch.spec dependencies: openjfx, i compiled the src.rpm file from:

Re: How to build both python 2 and 3 bindings from autotools?

On 26/01/17 00:10, Peter Hutterer wrote: Before I start hacking up something nasty I figured it's better to ask: how do I build both py2 and py3 bindings from a package using autotools (i.e. AM_PATH_PYTHON)? So far my idea revolves around installing both python-devel packages and overriding

Re: packaging problem - rm: cannot remove ... Permission denied

On 22/01/17 12:38, Martin Gansser wrote: Hi, i want o create a rpm package of a small plugin for nuvolaplayer, but this fails with this error: + cd /home/martin/rpmbuild/BUILD + '[' /home/martin/rpmbuild/BUILDROOT/nuvola-app-spotify-2.2-0.1git1828d92.fc25.x86_64 '!=' / ']' + rm -rf

Re: newbie: Linking python C extensions blues

On 13/01/17 15:55, Alec Leamas wrote: Still struggling with my first package. Don't know if this belong to this list (let me know if not) Thank you for listening... solved by a 'pip uninstall'. The beginning is hard. Cheers! -alec PS It's Friday, 13

newbie: Linking python C extensions blues

Still struggling with my first package. Don't know if this belong to this list (let me know if not) Anyway, I package the extension and make a 'pip install' which builds it. Linker command is: gcc -pthread -shared -Wl,-z,relro -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld

Re: To use or not to use: packaged flask

On 12/01/17 11:53, Petr Viktorin wrote: On my Fedora 25, I can import flask.cli from the system packages just fine. But note that Fedora 24 has an older version of Flask packaged – one that doesn't include flask.cli yet. Ah... that sorts things out. Time to upgrade... > Packages with

To use or not to use: packaged flask

Hi out there! I'm dipping my toes in flask, completely newbie. Doing so, I see a lot of fedora flask packages, but no-one anywhere recommends using these - it's all about pypi. I "think" I prefer the packaged version, partly because I'm using another package with native code (which, as I

Re: SSL: CERTIFICATE_VERIFY_FAILED

On 08/01/17 13:30, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: On Sun, Jan 8, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Till Maas wrote: ~/.fedora.upn (User Principal Name) And the problem with trying to get the FAS username from kerberos is that it only works while the use has a valid ticket for kerberos

Re: Changing default "docker" storage to to Overlay2 in Fedora 26

Hi! Is there a local convention that discussion about containers is using top-posting? "Curious" --alec On 06/01/17 23:12, Vivek Goyal wrote: There is more conversation on this issue here. https://pagure.io/atomic-wg/issue/186 I wished there was a single thread of conversation on this

Re: Packages FTBFS with Python 3.6

On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 00:18:47 +0100 Miro Hrončok wrote: > python-xlwt Fixed Cheers! --alec ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Many directories without owning packages

On 02/11/16 17:49, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: I'm still curious if this elegant shell code could be used to enhance the current tests f-r has. As noted, they are extremely expensive, in a class of it's own besides the build and install tasks. I don't think so, f-r works on packages built from

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Re: Many directories without owning packages

On 02/11/16 15:55, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: On Tuesday, 01 November 2016 at 13:05, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: Actually, a check for this would be useful to have in both fedora-review Actually, f-r is testing this since long. However, the review approach is different: does this

Re: RPM %changelog?

On 25/10/16 14:56, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 05:00:21PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard, the changelog is part of that. It would be pretty crappy to just declare we're going to stop using RPM changelogs and bake some random new idea

Re: Orphaning python-lirc package

On 16/09/16 10:32, Ján ONDREJ (SAL) wrote: Hello, I'm orphaning python-lirc package, which is long time not supported by upstream and has no python3 support. Last release has been in 2005. There is an alternative python-lirc package, but with different python import (lirc instead of

Re: Versioning the Packaging Guidelines

On 09/09/16 14:39, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 8:13 AM, Alec Leamas <leamas.a...@gmail.com> wrote: Dear list, There is an ongoing thread in debian-devel on their Standards-Version usage. Reading this, it strikes me that Fedora lacks this info. It wouldn't be that dif

Versioning the Packaging Guidelines

Dear list, There is an ongoing thread in debian-devel on their Standards-Version usage. Reading this, it strikes me that Fedora lacks this info. The basic package lifecycle is that it is reviewed to current standards, and after that start lagging from the actual standards. To which extent

Re: Kernel 4.7 rebase plans

On 31/08/16 17:15, Peter Robinson wrote: Perhaps. But this has been a common problem for me with many recent kernel updates. But if it's only me, I presume it's the mirror. Tried with "dnf upgrade --refresh" ? -- I'm more the sledgehammer type, so I did dnf clean all. But to no avail.

Re: Kernel 4.7 rebase plans

On 31/08/16 16:41, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Alec Leamas <leamas.a...@gmail.com> wrote: On 29/08/16 18:25, Laura Abbott wrote: Please test and give karma again. A reminder that if you do find regressions please note on the bodhi update corresponding to the

Re: Kernel 4.7 rebase plans

On 29/08/16 18:25, Laura Abbott wrote: Please test and give karma again. A reminder that if you do find regressions please note on the bodhi update corresponding to the kernel you tested AND file a bugzilla with information. It's somewhat hard since the corresponding kernel-devel packages

Re: Alternate places to install specialized binaries

testing this on-line reply thing... I guess the java tools are either scripts or java code i. e., architecture-independent. I just presume Rich's tools are compiled code which cannot live in /usr/share for that reason. But... to presume is a bad habit. Cheers! --alec -- devel mailing list

Re: Alternate places to install specialized binaries

On 10/06/16 14:01, Sérgio Basto wrote: (3) Rename them and put them in %{_bindir}. This is technically difficult, because the binaries have manual pages which would all have to be patched to refer to the new names. Rich. What if you rename them, and instead of patching the manpages

Re: F25 System Wide Change: Use /etc/distro.repos.d as default reposdir

On 19/05/16 21:26, Neal Gompa wrote: On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 11:42 AM, John Florian <john.flor...@dart.biz> wrote: From: Alec Leamas [mailto:leamas.a...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 09:39 To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Re: F25 System Wide Change: Use /etc/distro.r

Re: F25 System Wide Change: Use /etc/distro.repos.d as default reposdir

On 19/05/16 15:16, John Florian wrote: From: Jonathan Wakely [mailto:jwak...@fedoraproject.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 15:15 Another +1 here. There are plenty of software vendors (e.g. Google and Adobe, to name two people might have heard of) that provide the option of installing their

Re: is there a reason for starting zookeeper.service in background?

On 12/01/16 10:54, Muayyad AlSadi wrote: the problem here is the bash script wrapped around in the good old days of solr there used a param passed to solr.jar to make the fork magic in java (maybe it was --daemon) but now it's done in bash with "nohup" followed by "while true lsof

Re: is there a reason for starting zookeeper.service in background?

On 12/01/16 19:33, Muayyad AlSadi wrote: Will I do agree it's a hack. But it's better than forking in bash. And usually I don't care about the exact time socket/port is active because zookeeper is supposed to handle fail over. [ the rest below..] Please don't top-post [1] Cheers! --alec

Re: is there a reason for starting zookeeper.service in background?

On 11/01/16 21:19, Christopher wrote: I'm a co-maintainer for ZooKeeper, and I'd like to help get this right, if possible. More importantly, I'm interested in setting a precedent for Java system services in systemd. So, forgive my ignorance, but what exactly is the generally recommended way of

Re: Specs using %define

On 24/12/15 22:01, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > To satisfy my curiosity, I grepped the convenient tarball of specfiles > (http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/repo/rpm-specs-latest.tar.xz) for lines > matching "(? there were more than 1900 hits. > iguanaIR (leamas) Fixed in git, no builds made.

Patching workflow (Was: Recommended way of proposing changes ...)

On Sun Oct 18 20:00:23 UTC 2015 Kevin Fenzi wrote > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 21:41:41 +0200 > Alec Leamas wrote: > >> Perhaps OT, but I cannot resist: Have you discussed the overall >> workflow here? Cloning package, unpack sources, create patches, make >> a build, revise

Re: Recommended way of proposing changes in someone else Fedora packages configuration

On 18/10/15 18:46, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 15:36:24 +0200 > Marcin Zajączkowski wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I would like to propose a minor (yet important) change in one of the >> Fedora packages configuration (a SPEC file and/or a patch). Is it >> possible to create

Re: Packaging of PlayOnLinux

On 15/10/15 16:50, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 10/15/2015 09:32 AM, Jiří Konečný wrote: >> That's my backup solution. But why RPMFusion if there won't be any >> problem with it in Fedora repository. > > I just linked you the problem with it, which you snipped out. Another precedence might be

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2015-10-07)

On 09/10/15 21:13, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I completely, wholeheartedly agree with you here. However, the > unfortunate fact of life is that we can lead a horse to water but > cannot make them drink. Our previous policy was essentially holding > the horse's head under the water until it

Re: Proposal to reduce anti-bundling requirements

On 30/09/15 14:35, Stephen Gallagher wrote: Just to circle around here (in case people don't read my reply to the FESCo meeting agenda), I'm making the following revised proposal[1] to FESCo which may or may not be discussed at today's meeting (given that it was submitted late): FWIW, I also

Re: Packaging Icinga 2 requiring SELinux assistance

On 23/09/15 13:16, Petr Lautrbach wrote: On 09/22/2015 08:46 PM, Shawn Starr wrote: However in long terms it's better to incorporate a package policy to the system policy. You can either file a bug against selinux-policy or try to contribute yourself using this [2] howto. That howto is

Re: Sponsors - who does (not) work on FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets

On 15/08/15 11:21, Christopher Meng wrote: And some people contributed a lot in the past, after this result will you request revoking their sponsorship and wipe them out? My thought is some of these above can be dropped since they indeed no longer work in Fedora Project, leaving the privilege

Re: [Fedora-packaging] Is it time to allow Chromium in Fedora?

On 12/08/15 17:14, Matthew Miller wrote: It's important to note that popularity is not the sole reason for exceptions for Firefox. Overall, everyone should review the existing discussion in the guidelines about bundling exceptions and consider how this might fit in (possibly including revisions

Re: Submitting bodhi updates is very slow at the moment

On 12/05/15 13:36, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Ter, 2015-05-12 at 09:39 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: This update is currently being pushed to the Fedora 22 testing updates repository. But isn't pushed yet (12 hours later !?) . 12 hours is nothing these days, infra seem to have problems.

Re: Naming packages when upstream uses dashes in the release version

On 06/05/15 10:21, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: So, what would the rpm be named? foo-3.80.1-1.rpm or foo-3.80-1-1.rpm? Is the latter a possibility? No. The NVR is by definition foo-version-release, a thing like foo-3.80-1-1.rpm is basically illegal syntax. Dashes in the name are OK since

Re: Naming packages when upstream uses dashes in the release version

On 06/05/15 10:51, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: So basically, one could end up using foo-3.80-1.1.20150506.rpm, No. The release part (here 1.1.2015050) should not contain any part of the upstream release number. The same goes for foo-3.80-1_1.rpm. I think the reasonable options are

Re: Naming packages when upstream uses dashes in the release version

On 06/05/15 11:23, Alexander Ploumistos wrote: I still think someone with more experience than me should add something to the wiki, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Separators does not list such an exception (or if it does, I don't get it). I think you are right.

Re: Error with scratch build using fedora-create-review

On 05/05/15 20:56, Richard Shaw wrote: That last couple of times I've used fedora-create-review I've gotten an error: $ fedora-create-review --user hobbes1...@gmail.com mailto:hobbes1...@gmail.com rpmbuild/flmsg/SPECS/flmsg.spec rpmbuild/flmsg/SRPMS/flmsg-2.0.10-1.fc21.src.rpm Starting scratch

fedora-review karma.

Dear list, We need some urgent karma for fedora-review. The reason is that an upcoming mock release breaks it unless this update is pushed [1]. So, karma would be very much appreciated for the current updates [2] and [3] so we can resolve this mess. If you need some testing done in return

Re: fedora-review karma.

On 04/05/15 18:55, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 04.05.2015 um 18:52 schrieb Alec Leamas: Dear list, We need some urgent karma for fedora-review. The reason is that an upcoming mock release breaks it unless this update is pushed [1]. So, karma would be very much appreciated for the current

Re: [Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies

On 14/02/15 01:45, Ken Dreyer wrote: Here's the new policy that I would vote for: 1) We allow bundled libraries, and each bundled library MUST have a virtual Provides: bundled(foo) in the RPM spec. (The packager SHOULD provide a version number too, with the admission that it is

Re: [Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies

On 12/02/15 19:32, Stephen Gallagher wrote: (Logistical note: please keep all replies to this thread on devel@lists.fedoraproject.org) tl;dr Shall we consider requiring a lesser package review for packages that are not present on Product or Spin install media? Thanks for bringing this up. We

Re: Firefox addon signing

On 12/02/15 16:53, Simo Sorce wrote: Malware can easily binary patch firefox to ignore verification, I do not think trying to defeat sideloading with this kind of verification makes much sense. Of course you may decide to exempt only extensions in non-user-writable locations, if you are on

Re: FESCo elections are open

On 03/02/15 19:19, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: And yes, FESCO is mainly a social skills test and workplace... all committees that have to deal with programmers and their egos are going to be. Amen :) --alec -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: FESCo elections are open

On 30/01/15 16:10, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2015 15:58:00 +0100 Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: There were not really any questions directly related to products. Perhaps some could be added next time? In any case, I am in the Server working group myself, feel free to ask

Re: FESCo elections are open

On 30/01/15 16:24, Haïkel wrote: If you don't trust your fellow contributor to do a good job, then, feel free to apply to the position. It's not like that, not at all. I think FESCo is doing a great job. I'm just raising the question about the balance between different interests. The input

Re: FESCo elections are open

On 27/01/15 01:01, Jaroslav Reznik wrote: Greetings, FESCo elections are now open and we're looking for five new committee members. Elections closes promptly at 23:59 UTC on February 3rd. Don't forget to vote! Yes, too late, I know. But when I finally look at this I'm bit confused, perhaps

Re: Bundled libraries

On 08/01/15 18:07, Anshu Prateek wrote: hi, I am trying to package aerospike. It uses some of libraries as modules / git sub-modules. https://github.com/aerospike/aerospike-server/tree/master/modules Do the jansson, jemalloc and luajit fall under the purview of bundled libraries ? Well,

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 06/01/15 17:39, Bill Nottingham wrote: - I shouldn't be searching for gcc, gcc-c++, make, etc. as separate promoted to GNOME Software applications; those should be treated as part of a development kit that's installed and updated as a unit, any more than I should be searching for

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 05/01/15 10:04, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: - Original Message - That said, what about describing the developer usecase as a project, focusing on a user using both GUI and CLI tools? - Get the sources (if they exist). - Install a toolchain, GUI-based or not. - Install dependencies:

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 05/01/15 06:25, Rahul Sundaram wrote: That is potentially one way to address it. I think it is somewhat confusing to have two different interfaces for dealing with software and it also means that the additional metadata included in GNOME Software won't be available for command line

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 05/01/15 10:18, Richard Hughes wrote: On 5 January 2015 at 05:25, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com wrote: That is potentially one way to address it. I think it is somewhat confusing to have two different interfaces for dealing with software I think if we do want to re-include a package

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 02/01/15 21:05, Miloslav Trmač wrote: - Original Message - well, and that is why there are tasks you *can * do 1000 times more better in a terminal or in a 3-liner shell script with one or two params and others where you are much faster using the GUI this world is grey hence

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 05/01/15 17:35, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: Here in the fourth world USA, we aren't actually seeing a decrease in slow lines but an increase as the oligarchy in control of networks is figuring out ways to advertise faster speeds but actually only deliver much slower ones. You can get 200 MB

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 05/01/15 19:10, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 05.01.2015 um 17:48 schrieb Alec Leamas: I don't envy how the political climate on your continent has affected this for you. However, connecting to the top of this sub-thread, for the Fedora Workstation usecase this is not necessarily that bad

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 02/01/15 11:42, Richard Hughes wrote: Because as of now, gnome-software just doesn't fit the workstation bill I think you're misunderstanding what most developers do. We probably spend about 10 minutes installing development packages (on the command line) when setting up a new OS instance.

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 03/01/15 20:26, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: /*Luya Tshimbalanga*/ wrote on Fri, 02 Jan 2015 17:29:14 -0800: Add-ons cannot cover development libraries, unless every library is an add-on for all IDEs! Then is IDE packaging issue. When it comes of using a development applications, the

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 31/12/14 16:25, Richard Hughes wrote: On 30 December 2014 at 23:31, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com wrote: b.) Would it be helpful, friendlier, and better emphasize the special focus, if these group install items mentioned above were exposed in GNOME Software with an appropriate icon?

Re: CLI tools in Gnome Software?

On 01/01/15 23:25, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote on Tue, 23 Dec 2014 12:43:40 -0600: On Tue, 2014-12-23 at 17:12 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: Are CLI tools welcome in Gnome Software? No, we don't consider CLI tools to be applications, and only

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 30/12/14 13:07, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 12/29/2014 04:48 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: And if walking this path, the Workstation default mode would be the one corresponding to a developer, right? Define Workstation. I don't know which audience the people, who implemented it, were aiming

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 30/12/14 20:57, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: On 29/12/14 04:33 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: This certainly works, but is it really a reasonable trade-off in a developer context where things like compilers and interpreters are part of the very core? What role does Gnome Software play here? How

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 30/12/14 22:58, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: On 30/12/14 12:34 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 30/12/14 20:57, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: On 29/12/14 04:33 AM, Alec Leamas wrote: Gnome Software is to abstract the package concept to only focus on applications accessible to desktop. Agreed. And I

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 30/12/14 22:58, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: On 30/12/14 12:34 PM, Alec Leamas wrote: On 30/12/14 20:57, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Bottom line: isn't there is a mismatch between Gnome Software (GUI applications only) and the idea of a developer using both CLI and GUI tools? And if so, how

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 29/12/14 10:50, Richard Hughes wrote: On 29 December 2014 at 03:28, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote: we either are going to have to get out of the way of the steamroller or get rolled over it. [cut] Linux isn't UNIX. The desktop doesn't revolve about command line tools

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 29/12/14 16:18, Richard Hughes wrote: On 28 December 2014 at 15:48, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: wouldn't it raise questions about the Gnome Software application's role in the workstation product? I don't think it does, no. I'm a Red Hat employee, a Fedora user, but also

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 27/12/14 23:26, Richard Hughes wrote: On 26 December 2014 at 20:32, Alexander Ploumistos If gnome-software aims to be novice-user-friendly, at least the latter should definitely be an option. I don't see the logic there, sorry. Novice users don't understand the fine nuances of the

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

On 28/12/14 18:05, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 9:48 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: Possibly. But isn't there quite a difference between the novice user and the Fedora Workstation target user i. e., developers? Not necessarily. I wrote: Yes, Workstation

Re: Incorrect FSF Address error from rpmlint

On 2014-12-23 20:28, Gerald B. Cox wrote: I'm getting an incorrect FSF address when I'm building a package. I checked here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address and built the package with the recommended file. Still get the error. I checked the address

Re: Incorrect FSF Address error from rpmlint

On 23/12/14 21:55, Gerald B. Cox wrote: On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Alec Leamas leamas.a...@gmail.com mailto:leamas.a...@gmail.com wrote: The check is not only applied to COPYING but also to the license text in source files. Have you checked those? Got it. Thanks! You're

Re: chromium

On 20/12/14 17:40, Christopher wrote: The fact that there isn't a popular 3rd-party repo packaging Chromium does not appear to be relevant to Fedora. I don't see anybody discouraging it. Perhaps you should approach a popular 3rd-party to suggestion packaging Chromium in their repos? I made

License change: lirc

Current version in rawhide is (GPLv2 and MIT). As of 0.9.0, the license was plain GPLv2. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

lirc: so-name bump

I have pushed a new version 0.9.2 of lirc to rawhide. It changes the so-name from 2:1:2 to 3:0:3 . I'm sorry for not notifying in advance, I just missed it. This is upwards-compatible change, so while there is a need to rebuild it can wait for some time. The following apps are

lirc: so-name bump

I have pushed a new version 0.9.2 of lirc to rawhide. It changes the so-name from 2:1:2 to 3:0:3 . I'm sorry for not notifying in advance, I just missed it. This is upwards-compatible change, so while there is a need to rebuild it can wait for some time. The following apps are

Re: Workstation Product defaults to wide-open firewall

On 09/12/14 18:39, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On 9 December 2014 at 10:27, Chris Murphy li...@colorremedies.com [cut] OS X's firewall is disabled by default. Where's the outcry? It was a long time ago and it basically caused it to have extra configurations before it could be 'ok'd'

Re: Workstation Product defaults to wide-open firewall

On 09/12/14 18:53, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: In the end, this is a tempest in a teapot. The release is out and it is done. I don't like it, but my yelling and screaming and spitting in an autistic rage did not fix it so its time to move on so that is what I am going to do. Amen --alec --

  1   2   3   >