Moving to i686+SSE2 while still keeping full support for i586 would imply:
* A secondary arch
* Bits in preupgrade/anaconda to pick the secondary arch on upgrade
* Extra confusion on the download page
Of course, those aren't all hard requirements, but still, I doubt it's
worth the trouble...
On 6/15/09 5:43 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Krzysztof Halasa (k...@pm.waw.pl) said:
Oh I didn't know my old `2001 PIII 128 MB laptop is that old.
Works fine with F11 BTW.
It's old enough that the processor ceased production before Fedora
even existed.
And that matters because ...?
Shouldn't
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 06:01:14PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Because that's significantly less of our userbase. I'd love to have
> harder numbers, but we're still talking about a set of CPUs that
> (outside of corner cases like the Geode and C3) ceased production
> anywhere from 4 (Athlon) to
Warren Togami (wtog...@redhat.com) said:
>> According to public smolt stats:
>> http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/static/stats/stats.html
>>
>> only 0.38% of the userbase is non-Intel/AMD. (Number of registered systems
>> that report as Geode: 4.)
>
> Please stop quoting the smolt figures for ge
- "Jesse Keating" wrote:
> And this is what pisses me off, and why I say you're holding us
> hostage.
> Whether or not it is a good idea to continue to produce them, you
> don't
> care, you're just going to do it anyway. Great way to run a project.
>
Jesse,
Both Fedora Project and Fedora
On 06/15/2009 08:31 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bill Nottingham writes:
drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said:
Moving to i686 is fine, non i686 chips are mostly dead (but the
perfomance gain from moving to i686 from i586 is questionable at
best).
... how so? It's consistently 1-2% in reasonable benchmar
On 06/15/2009 06:15 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
'outside'. Please don't just dismiss these recent systems, they are a
real issue.
According to public smolt stats:
http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/static/stats/stats.html
only 0.38% of the userbas
On 06/15/2009 02:36 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> What CPUs do we lose that F11 supports?
>
> - Intel i586 (all)
judging by the number of 586 users who register with smolt (less than 0.1%
our entire userbase), not that big a deal.
I don't think smolt accurately tells the picture here. M
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 12:33 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> Maybe we should just make the command line more friendly so users don't mind
> reaching for it. I vote we add clippy.
I'm not saying that necessarily needs to be friendlier to use but it
may need to be more discoverable as to when it is exp
* Ingvar Hagelund
> > > While waiting for amarok-2.x to support scripting or fuse mounts,
> > > I could use some advice on getting 1.4 to work. All the parts seems
> > > to be present, I just can't get them to play together.
> (...)
> My small F11 patch for amarok-1.4.10, based on the version in e
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> If you honestly feel someone is intentionally stacking the Smolt results...
> well, I don't know what to say.
No, just that there are any number of reasons why different physical and
virtual machines might send or not send data to Smolt, so that the sample is
most likely
On 06/15/2009 06:15 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
(Number of registered systems
that report as Geode: 4.)
FWIW, my only Geode (GX) system is so darn slow I have almost everything
non-essential stripped off of it. That would include smolt.
IIRC the thing just barely qualifies as an i586. But I
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:15:32PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) said:
> > On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:01:09PM +0100, Jeremy Sanders wrote:
> > > Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > >
> > > > - Faster and more consistent FP math by using SSE2 registers
> > > > - All
Bill Nottingham writes:
> drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said:
>> Moving to i686 is fine, non i686 chips are mostly dead (but the
>> perfomance gain from moving to i686 from i586 is questionable at
>> best).
> ... how so? It's consistently 1-2% in reasonable benchmarks (real-world
> code, albeit cp
On 06/15/2009 03:34 PM, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
I wonder if a switch like that makes a difference for owners of "newer"
CPUs. Aren't they/we already using x86-64, leaving i386 for old
hardware and netbooks?
Many third-party vendors are just/still getting their stuff working on
64-bit, so, sadl
Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) said:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:01:09PM +0100, Jeremy Sanders wrote:
> > Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >
> > > - Faster and more consistent FP math by using SSE2 registers
> > > - Allows for autovectorization by GCC where necessary
> > > - More clearly delinea
Björn Persson (bj...@rombobjörn.se) said:
> > According to public smolt stats:
> > http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/static/stats/stats.html
> >
> > only 0.38% of the userbase is non-Intel/AMD. (Number of registered systems
> > that report as Geode: 4.)
>
> Do you know the difference between a s
Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) said:
> > >> If thats the case why maintain x86 at all?
> > >
> > > Because it's 58% of our userbase (source: F11 torrent stats.)
> >
> > Do we have any numbers on how many of this systems are x86_64 capable ?
>
> If large parts of the world are walking aro
drago01 (drag...@gmail.com) said:
> > Way back when in February [1], FESCo decided that for Fedora 11, i586 would
> > be the default architecture, and for Fedora 12, it would be some variant of
> > i686. It's time to follow through on that action item.
>
> Moving to i686 is fine, non i686 chips a
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> According to public smolt stats:
> http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/static/stats/stats.html
>
> only 0.38% of the userbase is non-Intel/AMD. (Number of registered systems
> that report as Geode: 4.)
Do you know the difference between a scientific study and a poll on a
>> The slower x86 is, the more motivation there is to move to x86-64.
>
> +1
I for myself run a i586 as server, and have a few Athlon-TB machines arround.
Yes, I still use the x86-version on my Core2Duo machine, but only
because I am lazy ;)
Leave x86 where it belongs, and move on with amd64.
-
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 05:04:34PM -0400, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> ppc/ppc64 is supported in RHEL. It is no longer a primary arch in Fedora.
>>
>> josh
>>
>
>Really? I obviously missed something.
>
>/me will look at FESCo logs.
I'll be a bit m
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:34:32PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>> As a side note, is this impacting override tagging, as well? (I'm not sure
>>> if the two functions are related.)
>>
>> They're unrelated.
>
>Is there a different problem with the override tagging then?
Yes. Mostly getting peopl
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 06:04:15PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
>> Is dropping hardware worth this instruction? I suggested some
>> benchmarking and demonstrated that it's a very small improvement for
>> Theora. I'm not sure if anyone got around to test
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rex Dieter wrote:
Seth Vidal wrote:
So if you're on x86_64
and you have foo-1.1.i386 and foo-1.0.x86_64
and you run:
yum install foo
you would expect foo-1.1.i386 to be installed instead of foo-1.0.x86_64?
REALLY?
Yes, really, imo, ymmv, and all that.
read tha
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> No.
>
> Putting a note there will just need to be cleaned up when I get to fixing
> that bug.
>
> It's incredibly minor.
I'm confused. What do you want us packagers to do, change our spec
files to obsolete the old arch-specific versions, or wai
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:20 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> If large parts of the world are walking around carrying 6 x CDs from
> town to town, then we don't even have accurate stats for ix86 either.
LTSP terminals are a another source of low-end/legacy hardware that
will not typically be repres
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>> Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>> It's not about the upgrade process. It is only about compare_providers.
>>>
>>> You have 3 pkgs providing 'foo'
>>>
>>> foo-1.1.noarch
>>> foo-1.0.x86_64
>>> foo-1.0.i386
>>>
>>> Which one do you pick o
On Monday 15 June 2009 03:31:17 pm Jon Ciesla wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
> > On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> >>> BTW are those new VIA netbooks SSE2-capable?
> >>
> >> Additionally, what will this do to RHEL? I can't imagine RHEL
> >> customers being too happy about this for RHEL7(?), and
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:06:49AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
> >> I doubt having consistently lower FP precision is anything many users
> >> are asking for. The few that do can usually take care of
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 7:53 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Way back when in February [1], FESCo decided that for Fedora 11, i586 would
> be the default architecture, and for Fedora 12, it would be some variant of
> i686. It's time to follow through on that action item.
Moving to i686 is fine, non i
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
> 'outside'. Please don't just dismiss these recent systems, they are a
> real issue.
According to public smolt stats:
http://smolt.fedoraproject.org/static/stats/stats.html
only 0.38% of the userbase is non-Intel/AMD. (Number of registered syst
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Bill Nottingham
> wrote:
> >> It would probably be most interesting to perform that test on the
> >> x86-only ATOM, since I can see CMOV being a bigger win on an in-order
> >> CPU.
> >> (I can't personall
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
>> I doubt having consistently lower FP precision is anything many users
>> are asking for. The few that do can usually take care of themselves.
>
> And yet you say we should push them all to x86_64
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Jerry James wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
Yes, as I explained on irc, it's doable - but where it gets implemented (and
what else it breaks) is not as obvious as an easy fix of adding an obsoletes
to the pkgs which are changing arch.
The bug is
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
>> I doubt having consistently lower FP precision is anything many users
>> are asking for. The few that do can usually take care of themselves.
>
> And yet you say we should push them all to x86_6
Hi,
>> - AMD Geode
> I'm a little worried about this one. Although AMD stopped making
> the processors at the end of 2008, they were sort of popular for
> certain super-cheap, small (for want of a better description)
> "Mac Mini clones" that have been selling well in the UK. L
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
> Is dropping hardware worth this instruction? I suggested some
> benchmarking and demonstrated that it's a very small improvement for
> Theora. I'm not sure if anyone got around to testing freetype,
> firefox, or any of the other couple CPU heavy desktop
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> Yes, as I explained on irc, it's doable - but where it gets implemented (and
> what else it breaks) is not as obvious as an easy fix of adding an obsoletes
> to the pkgs which are changing arch.
>
> The bug is still open and it will get worked on
Gregory Maxwell (gmaxw...@gmail.com) said:
> I doubt having consistently lower FP precision is anything many users
> are asking for. The few that do can usually take care of themselves.
And yet you say we should push them all to x86_64, which has
the same lower precision?
> > - More clearly deli
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Jerry James wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Not that it matters for Fedora, but I doubt many people are paying
>> $whatever_the_price_of_RHEL_is to run on a 6, 7, 10-year old machine. And
>> RHEL 5 only supports (base) i686 or gre
On Monday 15 June 2009 02:48:44 pm Jerry James wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Not that it matters for Fedora, but I doubt many people are paying
> > $whatever_the_price_of_RHEL_is to run on a 6, 7, 10-year old machine. And
> > RHEL 5 only supports (base) i686 o
On Jun 15, 2009, at 5:49 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:30:49AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 21:31 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
Also, I want to look a bit more at isohybrid to see if we can
build iso
images that can just be dd'd, at least for the case of
b
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:30:49AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 21:31 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > Also, I want to look a bit more at isohybrid to see if we can build iso
> > images that can just be dd'd, at least for the case of
> > boot.iso/netinst.iso
>
> Can you tell m
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Not that it matters for Fedora, but I doubt many people are paying
> $whatever_the_price_of_RHEL_is to run on a 6, 7, 10-year old machine. And
> RHEL 5 only supports (base) i686 or greater already.
You know, I haven't seen anybody object to
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:33 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>
> Maybe we should just make the command line more friendly so users don't mind
> reaching for it. I vote we add clippy.
yum install hotwire ;)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/li
Krzysztof Halasa (k...@pm.waw.pl) said:
> Oh I didn't know my old `2001 PIII 128 MB laptop is that old.
> Works fine with F11 BTW.
It's old enough that the processor ceased production before Fedora
even existed.
Bill
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.re
Jon Ciesla (l...@jcomserv.net) said:
> Additionally, what will this do to RHEL? I can't imagine RHEL customers
> being too happy about this for RHEL7(?), and if i386 would still be in
> RHEL, it would worry me that it would only be a secondary arch in
> Fedora. . .
Not that it matters for
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:22:12PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 03:31:17PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> > I'm not sure I understand why not. Are you saying that if RedHat
> > decided that RHEL7 was to support Sparc , there'd be no interest in
> > making that a prima
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Sun, 14.06.09 16:11, Jeff Spaleta (jspal...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Lennart Poettering
>> wrote:
>> > Are you speaking of the same smolt that lists es1371 as most popular
>> > sound card? i.e. a soun
2009/6/15 Casey Dahlin :
>
> Maybe we should just make the command line more friendly so users don't mind
> reaching for it. I vote we add clippy.
You're joking, right?
--
Martín Marqués
select 'martin.marques' || '@' || 'gmail.com'
DBA, Programador, Administrador
--
fedora-devel-list mailing
>> As a side note, is this impacting override tagging, as well? (I'm not sure
>> if the two functions are related.)
>
> They're unrelated.
Is there a different problem with the override tagging then?
Peter
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/ma
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
[snip]
> - Faster and more consistent FP math by using SSE2 registers
I doubt having consistently lower FP precision is anything many users
are asking for. The few that do can usually take care of themselves.
> - Allows for autovectorization
Frank Murphy (frankl...@gmail.com) said:
> Hope I'm not sidetracking.
> Was there also talk of all 64bit cpu's
> getting a 64bit kernel?
> Even if install was 32bit?
Given the work that's required to do that, it should be tracked separately.
Bill
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 03:31:17PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand why not. Are you saying that if RedHat
> decided that RHEL7 was to support Sparc , there'd be no interest in
> making that a primary arch?
RHEL supports Itanic, and that isn't even _built_ for Fedora, neve
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 08:01:09PM +0100, Jeremy Sanders wrote:
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> > - Faster and more consistent FP math by using SSE2 registers
> > - Allows for autovectorization by GCC where necessary
> > - More clearly delineates our support set of targets, sticking true
> > to for
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 01:53:13PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> - AMD Geode
I'm a little worried about this one. Although AMD stopped making the
processors at the end of 2008, they were sort of popular for certain
super-cheap, small (for want of a better description) "Mac Mini
clones" that hav
* Rex Dieter
> amarok2 supports qtscript (which is why it currently has a dependency on
> qtscriptbindings)
>
So, it should be possible to access a mounted iPod db in amarok-2.x
using qtscript?
Ingvar
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailm
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> ppc/ppc64 is supported in RHEL. It is no longer a primary arch in Fedora.
>
> josh
>
Really? I obviously missed something.
/me will look at FESCo logs.
Orcan
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redha
Jon Ciesla wrote:
> Additionally, what will this do to RHEL? I can't imagine RHEL customers
> being too happy about this for RHEL7(?), and if i386 would still be in
> RHEL, it would worry me that it would only be a secondary arch in
> Fedora. . .
>
Can the myth of "RH controls Fedora's direction
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 03:31:17PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>>
BTW are those new VIA netbooks SSE2-capable?
>>> Additionally, what will this do to RHEL? I can't imagine RHEL
>>> customers being too happy about thi
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Jon Ciesla wrote:
Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Jon Ciesla wrote:
BTW are those new VIA netbooks SSE2-capable?
Additionally, what will this do to RHEL? I can't imagine RHEL customers
being too happy about this for RHEL7(?), and if i386 would still be in
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
Thomas Woerner wrote:
> Please think of a scenario like this: Service A is adding
> firewall rules for opening port 20 and 21 (ftp-data and ftp) for
> everyone and service B is opening port 20 and 21 only for a specific
> network segment. What do you want to have here? If you apply A's rules
> firs
On 06/15/2009 04:22 PM, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>> The ability for nautilus to prompt for credentials when the user tries to do
>> something outside his permission level has been missing for far too long.
>> Its annoying to implement, but I'll o
Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Jon Ciesla wrote:
BTW are those new VIA netbooks SSE2-capable?
Additionally, what will this do to RHEL? I can't imagine RHEL
customers being too happy about this for RHEL7(?), and if i386 would
still be in RHEL, it would worry me that it would only
On 06/15/2009 03:01 PM, Jeremy Sanders wrote:
> Why not leave it be and suggest people move to the less brain dead x86-64
> instead? Innovation and legacy support.
>
> The slower x86 is, the more motivation there is to move to x86-64.
>
> Jeremy
>
The 98% of the world that doesn't deal with as
Jon Ciesla wrote:
Also, I was wondering, myself aside, are the newer processors as
prevalent all geographic locations?
Forget geographic locations, I would be more worried about economic
status. I worry that we're shutting out not only poorer /countries/, but
poorer /people/ everywhere, e.g.
On Mon, 2009-06-15 at 20:01 +0100, Jeremy Sanders wrote:
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> > - Faster and more consistent FP math by using SSE2 registers
> > - Allows for autovectorization by GCC where necessary
> > - More clearly delineates our support set of targets, sticking true
> > to forwards i
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Jon Ciesla wrote:
BTW are those new VIA netbooks SSE2-capable?
Additionally, what will this do to RHEL? I can't imagine RHEL customers
being too happy about this for RHEL7(?), and if i386 would still be in RHEL,
it would worry me that it would only be a secondary arch
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Bill Nottingham writes:
What CPUs do we lose that F11 supports?
- Intel i586 (all)
- Intel Pentium Pro
- Intel Pentium II
- Intel Pentium III
- 32-bit AMD Athlon
- AMD Geode
- VIA C3
- Transmeta Crusoe
Oh I didn't know my old `2001 PIII 128 MB laptop is that
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> The ability for nautilus to prompt for credentials when the user tries to do
> something outside his permission level has been missing for far too long. Its
> annoying to implement, but I'll owe a beer to whoever finally does it.
I just th
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Way back when in February [1], FESCo decided that for Fedora 11, i586 would
be the default architecture, and for Fedora 12, it would be some variant of
i686. It's time to follow through on that action item.
I've submitted https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F12X86Suppo
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 03:21:40PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> I've just build ImageMagick 6.5.3.7 for rawhide. This version
> introduces *silent* ABI breakage, as the ABI has changed without
> changing the soname (woohoo way to go upstream!)
Can you not patch in a SONAME change in that case? T
>
> > yum remove pulseaudio
>
> Not quite sure this is the right approach (because -- as you've already
> noticed -- some things unexpectedly depend on PA). What about `yum erase
> alsa-plugins-pulseaudio` instead?
>
Thanks for the suggestion, however, I have gone a different route since
Gnome de
Thomas Woerner wrote:
> Please think of a scenario like this: Service A is adding
> firewall rules for opening port 20 and 21 (ftp-data and ftp) for
> everyone and service B is opening port 20 and 21 only for a specific
> network segment. What do you want to have here? If you apply A's rules
> firs
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Configuration is fine, just as long as there /is/ configuration and not
running a service always exposes it to the world with no way to prevent
that. (Prevention by editing init-scripts doesn't count ;-).)
That's terrible. Unfortunately, I noticed after hitting 'send' :-
Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
Bill Nottingham writes:
What CPUs do we lose that F11 supports?
- Intel i586 (all)
- Intel Pentium Pro
- Intel Pentium II
- Intel Pentium III
- 32-bit AMD Athlon
- AMD Geode
- VIA C3
- Transmeta Crusoe
Oh I didn't know my old `2001 PIII 128 MB laptop is that
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 13:53:13 -0400,
Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> A seconday arch could be done for these older CPUs, if someone is interested
> enough.
>
> Comments? Flames? Predictions of doom?
What's involved with getting a secondary arch going? My main desktop at
home is a dual mp athlo
On 06/14/2009 09:13 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Sun, 2009-06-14 at 14:23 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> I haven't done a graphical root login in the past 10 years probably and
>>> on multiple distribution. Graphical root login is meaningless.
>>
(Can you please configure your mailer to either wrap lines and/or use
format-flowed?)
Casey Dahlin wrote:
On 06/15/2009 03:19 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
Casey Dahlin wrote:
Really, init scripts should open the firewall ports they need when
their service comes up (and I'll propose something fo
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Mon, 15.06.09 14:47, Dave Jones (da...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > > > > Are you speaking of the same smolt that lists es1371 as most popular
> > > > > sound card? i.e. a sound card that has been out of production since
> > > > > about 10 years n
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Ben Boeckel wrote:
A special exemption for noarch in arch compares and version
differences? If it's between some arch and noarch, defer to the
version checker.
Yes, as I explained on irc, it's doable - but where it gets implemented
(and what else it breaks) is not as ob
Bill Nottingham writes:
> What CPUs do we lose that F11 supports?
>
> - Intel i586 (all)
> - Intel Pentium Pro
> - Intel Pentium II
> - Intel Pentium III
> - 32-bit AMD Athlon
> - AMD Geode
> - VIA C3
> - Transmeta Crusoe
Oh I didn't know my old `2001 PIII 128 MB laptop is that old.
Works fine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>> Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>> It's not about the upgrade process. It is only about
compare_providers.
>>>
>>> You have 3 pkgs providing 'foo'
>>>
>>> foo-1.1.noarch
>>> foo-1.0.x86_64
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:45:08AM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
>> A seconday arch could be done for these older CPUs, if someone is
>> interested
>> enough.
>>
>
>Another option would be to retain the current i586 support, and add the
>i686+S
On 06/15/2009 03:19 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> Casey Dahlin wrote:
>> Really, init scripts should open the firewall ports they need when
>> their service comes up (and I'll propose something for upstart 1.0
>> later today to make that make more sense.)
>
> How is that supposed to work when I onl
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Rex Dieter wrote:
Seth Vidal wrote:
It's not about the upgrade process. It is only about compare_providers.
You have 3 pkgs providing 'foo'
foo-1.1.noarch
foo-1.0.x86_64
foo-1.0.i386
Which one do you pick on x86_64 or i686?
We weight extra toward pkgs in the same arc
Casey Dahlin wrote:
Really, init scripts should open the firewall ports they need when
their service comes up (and I'll propose something for upstart 1.0
later today to make that make more sense.)
How is that supposed to work when I only want to allow connections to a
service on a whitelist of
Seth Vidal wrote:
> It's not about the upgrade process. It is only about compare_providers.
>
> You have 3 pkgs providing 'foo'
>
> foo-1.1.noarch
> foo-1.0.x86_64
> foo-1.0.i386
>
> Which one do you pick on x86_64 or i686?
>
> We weight extra toward pkgs in the same arch as the running system
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On 06/15/2009 07:19 AM, Florian Festi wrote:
>
> I've been thinking about proposing a Guideline that says
> "header files should not be placed in noarch packages. Header files can
> contain architecture specific bits. We currently do not
Ingvar Hagelund wrote:
> While waiting for amarok-2.x to support scripting
amarok2 supports qtscript (which is why it currently has a dependency on
qtscriptbindings)
-- Rex
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 06/15/2009 03:04 PM, Robert Marcano wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
>> The problem that does arise is: just because apache is installed doesn't
>> mean its running. Really, init scripts should open the firewall ports they
>> need when their service comes up (and I
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Seth Vidal wrote:
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 15.06.09 14:47, Dave Jones (da...@redhat.com) wrote:
As already mentioned, smolt never heard of HDA. Either I am blind or
there is no trace at all of HDA devices in this web UI.
Maybe I'm con
On Sunday 14 June 2009 21:25:35 Ahmed Kamal wrote:
> yum remove pulseaudio
Not quite sure this is the right approach (because -- as you've already
noticed -- some things unexpectedly depend on PA). What about `yum erase
alsa-plugins-pulseaudio` instead?
signature.asc
Description: This is a di
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 15.06.09 14:47, Dave Jones (da...@redhat.com) wrote:
As already mentioned, smolt never heard of HDA. Either I am blind or
there is no trace at all of HDA devices in this web UI.
Maybe I'm confused - hda is the driver - bu the devices
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 2:17 PM, Casey Dahlin wrote:
> The problem that does arise is: just because apache is installed doesn't mean
> its running. Really, init scripts should open the firewall ports they need
> when their service comes up (and I'll propose something for upstart 1.0 later
> toda
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> - Faster and more consistent FP math by using SSE2 registers
> - Allows for autovectorization by GCC where necessary
> - More clearly delineates our support set of targets, sticking true
> to forwards innovation, not necessarily legacy support
Why not leave it be and su
Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham said:
> What CPUs do we lose that F11 supports?
>
> - Intel Pentium Pro
> - Intel Pentium II
> - Intel Pentium III
> - 32-bit AMD Athlon
Really? So Fedora "i686" won't really be i686? That sucks, and is
confusing. I still have a number of boxes in service tha
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Jon Ciesla wrote:
:)
-sv
Hey, I never suggested that I'm opposed to upgrading all my hardware. Who's
buying? ;)
I'd like to introduce you to EBAY :)
-sv
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-d
1 - 100 of 183 matches
Mail list logo
