On 6/14/09, Charles Butterfield wrote:
[...]
> Root gdm login - gets harder every release - SHAME ON YOU root nazis!
Interesting. Godwin's law right from the start of a thread? I must buy
a lottery ticket today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Christian
--
fedora-devel-list mailin
On 14/06/09 04:53, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
- "Frank Murphy" wrote:
Just curious.
But if a user has bandwidth problems, how is\are mutiple CD's going
to help, or is it purely on hardware grounds, no dvd-rom.
Does no one remember what happened last time the CD ball was dropped?
Lets
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/06/09 09:40 AM, Mike McGrath wrote:
>
> Can anyone with F11 installed look at what is in their /etc/fedora-release
> and tell me which one you have, and how you installed? Also what version
> of fedora-release you have.
>
> -Mike
>
$ cat /et
Don't be clouded by who is requesting it. Releng qa anaconda et al
would love to stop doing split cds. Less confusion on what to
download would be appreciated by many too. We are one of the last
distros to still do cd media outside of live media. Is this a case of
users not knowing ther
Okay, so I mostly love Fedora. However, here are 4 things that got by
blood really, really boiling, so I thought I'd share my emotions. They
are mostly policy issues, where I think you have gotten it very very
wrong.
Just installed F11 64 bit, here are the things I hate about it in the
first
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 09:04:30PM +, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
>
> - "Kevin Kofler" wrote:
> >
> > If Fedora Unity wants to create them, the burden of making them work
> > should
> > be on them.
> >
>
> If Fedora Project will not or can not give the community what it
> needs that is
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 09:05:13PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > However, the sad truth is that -currently- neither xorg-drv-intel nor
> > xorg-x11-drv-ati / xorg-x11-drv-radeonhd are capable of generating
> > competitive 3D performance (Especially the recent GEM'ed versions of
> > xorg-drv-intel)
Tom Lane wrote:
> Personally I don't use multilib wrappers on arches that don't need it;
> I think not needing extra cases in the wrapper header outweighs the
> added complexity in the specfile. But I'm not going to tell the gmp
> maintainer he's wrong for doing it the other way.
+1
-- Rex
-
I checked the contents of the bind-chroot package in both F10 and f11
- as I was puzzled about running bind-chroot since things seemed
rather different to previous behaviour.
In F11 the contents contain
/var/named/chroot and within this directory are
/dev containing file null, random and zero
and
Robert Marcano writes:
> I think you are right about x86_64 probably is going to have a DVD
> Rom, I only have needed the CDs when installing i386 servers isolated
> from the internet. I think we should start considering the option to
> ship the net install ISO as a hard disk image to be used for
Robert Scheck writes:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Probably because it's less maintenance work in the specfile to just always
>> add the wrapper. (On the other hand, it means extra work (adding an #ifdef)
>> when adding a secondary arch.)
> Well, how would it help to have a wrapp
Good evening,
I'm still on the way to get the Zarafa Groupware into Fedora (see Fedora
Package review request https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=498194)
and beside of the ongoing legal issue, I've also found a technical issue
where I need some help.
At the moment, it's a bit difficult: I
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> Because as a Fedora packager, neither am I responsible nor do I care
> about ia64 packages. Replace ia64 by alpha (or any other secondary
> arch) and rerun my answer.
Sorry, but wrong answer for a Fedora packager. If you lack knowledge, you
should try to
On 06/12/2009 01:08 AM, Mani A wrote:
The GUI is well designed and is worth packaging
http://www.paehl.de/pdf/gui_pdftk.html
It is not present in the package database.
feel free to add it to
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainers_wishlist (unless you
want to package, submit fo
On 06/12/2009 04:54 PM, Adam Miller wrote:
I'm retired firestarter, I picked it up recently as it was orphaned
but as we are moving towards PolicyKit and there's no upstream to
assist with the port and after a discussion we had here on the list I
decided it was time to retire it.
Now, with that
- "Kevin Kofler" wrote:
>
> If Fedora Unity wants to create them, the burden of making them work
> should
> be on them.
>
If Fedora Project will not or can not give the community what it needs that is
where the community steps up, this is exactly what we did for Fedora 7.
There is no req
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Robert Scheck wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Probably because it's less maintenance work in the specfile to just always
>> add the wrapper. (On the other hand, it means extra work (adding an #ifdef)
>> when adding a secondary arch.)
>
> Well, h
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Probably because it's less maintenance work in the specfile to just always
> add the wrapper. (On the other hand, it means extra work (adding an #ifdef)
> when adding a secondary arch.)
Well, how would it help to have a wrapper for ia64 if no non-ia64 pac
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009, Chris Adams wrote:
> Just for starters, long before x86_64 came into the picture, we had
> i386, i486, i586, and i686. On Alpha, you have (IIRC) ev4, ev5, ev6,
> ev67, etc.
You have seen, that these wrappers treat alpha as alpha and %{ix86} as i386
and that's it?! So your exp
Robert Scheck wrote:
> can somebody please explain me, why we've multilib wrappers for packages
> at non-multilib architectures such as arm, alpha, ia64 and sh?
Probably because it's less maintenance work in the specfile to just always
add the wrapper. (On the other hand, it means extra work (addi
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> I apologize in advance, for the overly harsh language. (Not specifically
> directed at you, Kevin).
I don't believe that you're being overly harsh. I've been surprised
in general in the amount of "whining" that I've been reading in this
thre
Once upon a time, Robert Scheck said:
> can somebody please explain me, why we've multilib wrappers for packages
> at non-multilib architectures such as arm, alpha, ia64 and sh?
multiarch != multilib
Just for starters, long before x86_64 came into the picture, we had
i386, i486, i586, and i686.
There will be an outage starting at 2009-06-15 23:00 UTC, which will last
approximately 1.5 hours.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2009-06-15 23:00 UTC'
Affected Services:
Buildsystem
Websites
specifical
Hello everbody,
can somebody please explain me, why we've multilib wrappers for packages
at non-multilib architectures such as arm, alpha, ia64 and sh?
- http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/gmp/gmp-mparam.h?view=co
-
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/e2fsprogs/ext2_types-wrapper.
Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
> Yeah some guy in a mud hut with no DSL only a 56k modem, Power 4 hours a
> day... NetInst FAIL.
We can't support everything. I'm sure there are some people still using a
486, we already don't support them anymore.
A reasonably fast Internet connection is basically req
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Robert 'Bob'
Jensen wrote:
> Does no one remember what happened last time the CD ball was dropped? Lets
> not repeat history just for fun. We have been down this road before, it
> was ugly and only lasted one release. Torrent tracker numbers BTW do not
> always t
Jesse Keating wrote:
> If we don't do split CDs, Fedora Unity is likely to do them. If we
> don't produce and test split media as part of our beta/release cycle,
> we'll likely not find bugs with their usage until after the release is
> made and Fedora Unity attempts to make them. As long as /som
Gilboa Davara wrote:
> I subscribed to Phoronix' RSS feed and at least 1/3-1/2 of their news
> stories are on OSS driver (mostly Intel and ATI) driver development -
> far more than any other OSS new site. [1]
Too bad their hardware benchmarks do not match the development news, and too
bad they als
Once upon a time, Robert 'Bob' Jensen said:
> I remember Seth talking a while back about yum's performance. As I remember,
> sure yum worked fine on his computers but try it on the OLPC. He then
> understood what the bugs and complaints were about.
Uh, OLPC doesn't have a CD drive either AFAIK.
On 13/06/09 19:53, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
- "Frank Murphy" wrote:
Just curious.
But if a user has bandwidth problems,
how is\are mutiple CD's going to help,
or is it purely on hardware grounds, no dvd-rom.
Does no one remember what happened last time the CD ball was dropped?
Was
- "Frank Murphy" wrote:
> Just curious.
>
> But if a user has bandwidth problems,
> how is\are mutiple CD's going to help,
> or is it purely on hardware grounds, no dvd-rom.
>
Does no one remember what happened last time the CD ball was dropped? Lets not
repeat history just for fun. We h
drago01 wrote:
> There are alot of open source games[1} that are useable to for
> benchmarking. glxgears is NOT a benchmark. If you don't have anything but
> glxgears than you have NO benchmark.
+1
> [1]: openarena, nexuiz, ...
Also etracer, torcs etc. Basically everything 3D with an FPS display
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
>
> Your thoughts?
>
Is there a geographic regional bias in the data?
1) Are all countries/regions downloading the split cds at less than 5%
of the download activity for the given country region?
2) Is there a geographical bias in the direct d
- "Robert Marcano" wrote:
> No/slow internet is commonly followed by old hardware, it is a common
> combination in my country. Recently on Fedora Venezuela mailing list
> we were discussing creating a special respin just because of the
> bandwidth problem here
>
These are the exact people t
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:02 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
>
> Just curious.
>
> But if a user has bandwidth problems,
> how is\are mutiple CD's going to help,
> or is it purely on hardware grounds, no dvd-rom.
>
No/slow internet is commonly followed by old hardware, it is a common
combination in my cou
On 2009-06-13 09:24:12 PM, Axel Thimm wrote:
> It's correct that the bug is open a while, but technically your first
> ping as on 2009-06-05 00:05:35 EDT, that's hardly two weeks.
>
> I was waiting for 1.15.0 (out three days ago) to check whether the
> patch is still neccessary. But it looks like
On 13/06/09 19:22, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
- "Itamar Reis Peixoto" wrote:
the user's still able to install using netboot.iso.
Yeah some guy in a mud hut with no DSL only a 56k modem, Power 4 hours a day...
NetInst FAIL.
Just curious.
But if a user has bandwidth problems,
how i
He recently responded, though he seems to be not so active now:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=474017
Milos
On 13.6.2009 19:38, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
that's true.
I am also have a bug reported for nx package waiting for a long time.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Ricky Zh
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 02:38:28PM -0300, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
> that's true.
>
> I am also have a bug reported for nx package waiting for a long time.
There are new nx packages in updates-testing since a week now. Which
bug are you referring to?
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Ricky Zh
- "Itamar Reis Peixoto" wrote:
> the user's still able to install using netboot.iso.
>
>
Yeah some guy in a mud hut with no DSL only a 56k modem, Power 4 hours a day...
NetInst FAIL.
I remember Seth talking a while back about yum's performance. As I remember,
sure yum worked fine on hi
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Remember, the minimum CPU for 32-bit x86 today is i586 (Pentium), and
> IIRC there was discussion about rebuilding for i686 (Pentium Pro).
>
You are technically right , but I am talking about the Fedora release
Tag (that was i386), so If you
- "Chris Adams" wrote:
> Remember, the minimum CPU for 32-bit x86 today is i586 (Pentium), and
> IIRC there was discussion about rebuilding for i686 (Pentium Pro).
>
If we really want to decrease the mirror foot print how about we off load some
of the 640MB+ data and docs files that are sh
Once upon a time, Robert Marcano said:
> I think you are right about x86_64 probably is going to have a DVD
> Rom, I only have needed the CDs when installing i386 servers isolated
> from the internet.
Remember, the minimum CPU for 32-bit x86 today is i586 (Pentium), and
IIRC there was discussion
that's true.
I am also have a bug reported for nx package waiting for a long time.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Ricky Zhou wrote:
> Hi, as per the process at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers,
> does anybody know how to contact Axel Thimm? We've be
Hi, as per the process at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers,
does anybody know how to contact Axel Thimm? We've been pinging him at
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=484855 for over two weeks
now, although the bug has sat there for much longer alr
the user's still able to install using netboot.iso.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen
wrote:
>
> - "Tom Lane" wrote:
>> Are we sure about that? The reasons not to bother would be just as
>> strong for Unity, no?
>>
>> I agree with that chain of reasoning, but am not conv
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Robert 'Bob'
Jensen wrote:
>
> OK lets remove any doubt, if Fedora Project does not produce them Fedora
> Unity will if at all possible. The last time the CD media was dropped the
> crys and screams of terror from the "third world" that have never seen a DVD
> r
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 11:12 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 07:04:12PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> > Hmm, I'd want netboot.img back, since I normally use a USB stick to
> > start the network install (OK, there is the possibility of using
> > livecd-iso-to-disk, but that's a lo
- "Tom Lane" wrote:
> Are we sure about that? The reasons not to bother would be just as
> strong for Unity, no?
>
> I agree with that chain of reasoning, but am not convinced of the
> starting premise.
>
OK lets remove any doubt, if Fedora Project does not produce them Fedora Unity
wil
> Can anyone with F11 installed look at what is in their /etc/fedora-release
> and tell me which one you have, and how you installed? Also what version
> of fedora-release you have.
$ cat /etc/fedora-release
Fedora release 11 (Leonidas)
Installed this morning using x86_64 DVD.
$ rpm -q fedora-r
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 08:46:54AM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> (Reposting to f-d-l from my blog post last night.
> http://domsch.com/blog/?p=85 includes a couple nice graphs to help
> illustrate.)
>
> CDs are Dead. Long live CDs.
I created a proposal page, in the same fashion as those that came
Jesse Keating writes:
> On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 08:46 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> Your thoughts?
> If we don't do split CDs, Fedora Unity is likely to do them.
Are we sure about that? The reasons not to bother would be just as
strong for Unity, no?
> If we
> don't produce and test split media a
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 07:04:12PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 09:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Matt Domsch said:
> > > CDs had their place, back when DVD readers weren't commonplace, and
> > > before we had LiveCD/LiveUSB medias. Now, DVDs are fairly c
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 09:34 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Matt Domsch said:
> > CDs had their place, back when DVD readers weren't commonplace, and
> > before we had LiveCD/LiveUSB medias. Now, DVDs are fairly common, the
> > LiveCDs work great for a lot of installs, and we have bo
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 08:46 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> Your thoughts?
If we don't do split CDs, Fedora Unity is likely to do them. If we
don't produce and test split media as part of our beta/release cycle,
we'll likely not find bugs with their usage until after the release is
made and Fedora Un
Once upon a time, Matt Domsch said:
> CDs had their place, back when DVD readers weren't commonplace, and
> before we had LiveCD/LiveUSB medias. Now, DVDs are fairly common, the
> LiveCDs work great for a lot of installs, and we have both a small
> (158MB) network-based bootable CD installer for n
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 12:20 +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 21:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 05:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >>
> >> > > and no, glxgears is not a benchmark!
> >> >
> >> > Indee
(Reposting to f-d-l from my blog post last night.
http://domsch.com/blog/?p=85 includes a couple nice graphs to help
illustrate.)
CDs are Dead. Long live CDs.
I was running some stats on the Fedora 11 release, and an interesting
thing caught my eye. Very few people are downloading the six (or in
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 06:05:52AM +0300, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> Up until 30 minutes ago, I was unaware of the fact that they use
> test-suite compiled binaries.
> Though I'd imagine that in Phoronix' view, having (far) different
> compile options in the distribution supplied binaries might generat
On Friday 12 June 2009 09:02:39 am Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> As I only need the CAP_SYS_BOOT, I will define it manually in the source
> code and will remove the include, that's ugly but anyway... :/
Alternatelyas of today, libcap-ng is now in Fedora. It has a far simpler
API and you should be a
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:05:10PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 17:25 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 07:55:56PM +1000, Eric Springer wrote:
> > > I agree with the sentiment that phoronix reviews are lazy, poor, etc
> > > -- but that doesn't mean n
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Gilboa Davara wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 21:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 05:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>> > > and no, glxgears is not a benchmark!
>> >
>> > Indeed, glxgears really sucks as as a benchmark, Phoronix's benchmark
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 21:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 05:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> > > and no, glxgears is not a benchmark!
> >
> > Indeed, glxgears really sucks as as a benchmark, Phoronix's benchmark suite
> > (as imperfect as it is) is definitely more useful
On Sat, 2009-06-13 at 05:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Gilboa Davara wrote:
> > Might I remind everyone here that Phoronix was the first to offer a
> > comprehensive benchmark suite to the OSS world.
>
> On the other hand, they actively hurt Free Software by continuously
> providing free adverti
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> Fedora Rawhide-in-Mock Build Results for x86_64
> perl-Catalyst-Action-RenderView-0.10-2.fc12 (build/make) cweyl,perl-sig
> perl-Catalyst-Component-InstancePerContext-0.001001-2.fc11 (build/make)
> iarnell,perl-sig
> perl-Catalyst-Controller-B
65 matches
Mail list logo
