- "John5342" wrote:
> 2009/7/8 Ding Yi Chen :
> >
> I don't think this has anything to do with motivation. You have an
> idea and on the face of it it sounds great but even the greatest
> ideas
> can be doomed by the details. If you don't believe me (or Kevin) then
> go for it and when you g
- "John5342" wrote:
> > Firstly, not all people turn the automatic upgrade on.
> > Secondly, there are folks use rpm -hiv or build from srpm.
> > In that case, they are more likely to spot the bugs.
>
> I am not talking about upgrades. I am talking about updates. Most
> people just run upda
- "Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira" wrote:
> Hello guys.
>
> How can we add gtk2-immodules and gtk2-immodule-xim by default in a
> PT_BR Fedora installation ?
>
> We need to correct this problem ASAP for Fedora 10 ,11 and rawhide
>
> We are receiving a lot of claims about this problem in Brazi
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Michael Stahnke wrote:
>> Feel free to take a bug and help out. It's a 24 hour event, and we
>> have about 135 bugs. If we can get 6 bugs an hour triage and
>> updated, that would be all of them.
>
> This is surely a worthy goal, thanks for
Michael Stahnke wrote:
> Feel free to take a bug and help out. It's a 24 hour event, and we
> have about 135 bugs. If we can get 6 bugs an hour triage and
> updated, that would be all of them.
This is surely a worthy goal, thanks for working on it.
I am curious what the plan is for bugs that ar
2009/7/8 Ding Yi Chen :
>
> - "Kevin Kofler" wrote:
>
>> Ding-Yi Chen wrote:
>> > Therefore, I would like to propose an alternative approach,
>> > namely, project Denture. See my blog post for further information:
>> > http://dingyichen.livejournal.com/14055.html
>> >
>> > Any comments?
>>
>>
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
[snip]
> So, if Frobnitz Inc. distributed Mono, and then filed suit against
> Microsoft for infringing one of Frobnitz' patents in the Microsoft C#
> implementation, they would lose the right to distribute Mono [1].
[snip]
> In other words, it's
2009/7/8 Ding Yi Chen :
>
> - "John5342" wrote:
>
>> 2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen :
>> >
>> > 於 二，2009-07-07 於 14:44 +0100，John5342 提到：
>> >> 2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen :
>> >> >
>> >> > Any comments?
>> >>
>> >> In theory your proposal sounds great but i see just one major flaw
>> >> that probably doesn'
- "Kevin Kofler" wrote:
> Ding-Yi Chen wrote:
> > Therefore, I would like to propose an alternative approach,
> > namely, project Denture. See my blog post for further information:
> > http://dingyichen.livejournal.com/14055.html
> >
> > Any comments?
>
> As I've tried to explain to you la
Kevin Kofler writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
I don't get that impression. When I end up upgrading, as a result of the
entire distro upgrade, or otherwise, to a new autotools, I make sure that
I go through my existing configure scripts with a fine-toothed comb. Every
time this happens I always en
Kevin Kofler writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
That's great, and if this discussion was about cmake, then this would be a
valid point. But, this thread is not about cmake.
That CMake has this feature implies that the autotools suck for not having
it and forcing you to patch the configure script
Kevin Kofler writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
This may come as a shock to some, but configure does not often change
unless configure.ac changes too.
So, I'm not sure what does the frequency of changes to configure.ac has to
do with anything.
Where your argument falls apart is that patch fuzz i
- "John5342" wrote:
> 2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen :
> >
> > 於 二，2009-07-07 於 14:44 +0100，John5342 提到：
> >> 2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen :
> >> >
> >> > Any comments?
> >>
> >> In theory your proposal sounds great but i see just one major flaw
> >> that probably doesn't have a solution. Your idea of packa
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 03:33:27PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
>On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 23:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > Why was this update marked as security, but not bundled with the package
>> > that actually had the security issue that you were rebuilding for? When
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> I don't get that impression. When I end up upgrading, as a result of the
> entire distro upgrade, or otherwise, to a new autotools, I make sure that
> I go through my existing configure scripts with a fine-toothed comb. Every
> time this happens I always end up tweaking som
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> That's great, and if this discussion was about cmake, then this would be a
> valid point. But, this thread is not about cmake.
That CMake has this feature implies that the autotools suck for not having
it and forcing you to patch the configure script for your usecase.
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> This may come as a shock to some, but configure does not often change
> unless configure.ac changes too.
>
> So, I'm not sure what does the frequency of changes to configure.ac has to
> do with anything.
Where your argument falls apart is that patch fuzz is a local concep
Bill McGonigle wrote:
> With being tied up with ECMA and the various well-publicized efforts to
> get RAND licenses on them, these aren't the parts most people were
> worried about.
But the thing is, RAND does not necessarily mean royalty-free, let alone
compatible with Free Software licenses (no
alfin...@boxbe.com
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:48 AM, Matthew Woehlke <
mw_tr...@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
> Junk Score: 4 out of 10 (below your Auto Allow threshold) | Change:
> https://www.boxbe.com/mail-screening&tc=205147289_978180501
> Approve sender:
> https://www.boxbe.com/policy_update
Argh... I know I said I wouldn't, but this one really needs to have some scale
applied.
On Wed, Jul 08, 2009 at 12:43:28AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > They just "promised" (and their word is worthless in this regard) not to
> > sue you.
>
> So what about the patents owned by redhat?
> http://www.
Matthew Woehlke writes:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the
promise down the drain.
...if only. The odds of *any* company that might buy out M$ (well, if it
isn't started by Gates and/or Ballmer and/or such) being as bad as
alfin...@boxbe.com
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 4:25 AM, Robert 'Bob' Jensen
wrote:
> Junk Score: 1 out of 10 (below your Auto Allow threshold) | Change:
> https://www.boxbe.com/mail-screening&tc=147907721_1484328999
> Approve sender:
> https://www.boxbe.com/policy_update?sender=fedora-devel-list%40
drago01 wrote:
So what about the patents owned by redhat?
http://www.redhat.com/legal/patent_policy.html
It's also just "promise".
True. However anything RH shipped as GPLv3 that uses a RH patent is no
longer a mere promise, it's a legally binding patent license. Something
that has yet to com
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
In a couple of years Microsoft is bought by Fu-Bar Inc and there goes the
promise down the drain.
...if only. The odds of *any* company that might buy out M$ (well, if it
isn't started by Gates and/or Ballmer and/or such) being as bad as M$
have got to be pretty
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> And no I am not doing something illegal because the company which
>> holds the patents stated in a legally binding document that I can
>> implement this standards as long as I don't sue them over a patent
>> that is covered by the
drago01 wrote:
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matthew Woehlke<> wrote:
(Thank you.)
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=sflc+microsoft+patent+promise
(Granted, much of that is about OOXML, but it seems to be referring to the
same OSP, and even so, given the op
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 18:16 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Jesse Keating writes:
>
> > These days distributing via tarball is bizarre. Distributed source
> > control is changing the way that projects work and release. Sure there are
> > plenty of projects out here that don't work this way but
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 23:36 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Why was this update marked as security, but not bundled with the package
> > that actually had the security issue that you were rebuilding for? When
> > the entire list of packages is in one email then it makes sense
EPEL bug day is fast approaching and we are looking for your help. This is a
chance to get involved with EPEL and help make the overall product a little
better.
Goal: Reduce or update bugs from EPEL.
Strategy: The vast majority of EPEL bugs have been classified loosely into
three categories.
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matthew Woehlke<> wrote:
> (Since I see some people here doing it... *cough*Please do not quote my
> e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.*cough* Thank you.)
>
> Simo Sorce wrote:
>>
>> People, why don't you all stop playing lawyer and wait that some lawyer
Note: this is my last email on this thread
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:55:15PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> >> > What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so
> >> > without the right.
> >> >
> >> > And you have no right!
> >>
> >> If I told you "you can do whatever you want with th
Jesse Keating writes:
These days distributing via tarball is bizarre. Distributed source
control is changing the way that projects work and release. Sure there are
plenty of projects out here that don't work this way but more and more are
headed in this direction.
Yes. If I get the desire
Mark McLoughlin writes:
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 07:14 -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> libguestfs is a case in point - the Debian maintainer builds it from
> git using some unknown version of autoconf, and I build it on RHEL and
This is a rare exception.
No, it's a rare exception for project to
(Since I see some people here doing it... *cough*Please do not quote my
e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.*cough* Thank you.)
Simo Sorce wrote:
People, why don't you all stop playing lawyer and wait that some lawyer
actually comment on the promise?
I guess some organization like th
Kevin Kofler writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Sure, why not. It just so happens that, not too long ago, I was in an
analogous position where I had some other package that also built against
zlib, for $dayjob$. At $dayjob$ we also package free software using a
scripted reproducible build. Not RPMs
Kevin Kofler writes:
Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Which, as I pointed out, is still the case if you were to patch
configure.ac instead.
But, go ahead and ignore this inconvenient fact, too.
As I explained (and you ignored), configure.ac tends to change a lot less
between upstream releases, especi
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 17:46 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:39 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > Also, please do remember that it is _not_ in itself illegal to
> > distribute software that embodies someone else's patent. It's only
> > illegal to do so without the owner's consent.
On 07/07/2009 04:24 AM, drago01 wrote:
> http://port25.technet.com/archive/2009/07/06/the-ecma-c-and-cli-standards.aspx
Were there any announcements about their libraries? This sounds like
clarification about which parts of .NET they *don't* plan to sue people
over. It would have been easy enou
On Fri July 3 2009, John Poelstra wrote:
> The logist...@lists.fedoraproject.org mailing list has been created to
> meet the requirements discussed here:
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-advisory-board/2009-July/msg0.htm
>l
Imho announcement mails should not require someone to read some
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:39 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 21:11 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Why was this update marked as security, but not bundled with the package
> that actually had the security issue that you were rebuilding for? When
> the entire list of packages is in one email then it makes sense. Such
> as https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2009-1095.html
On Tue July 7 2009, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Why was this update marked as security, but not bundled with the package
> that actually had the security issue that you were rebuilding for? When
It was bundled with the packagate that had the security issue:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F9/
Ville Skyttä wrote:
> Well, the copyright notice at the top of configure (included in my
> previous mail) pretty clearly tells me what I can do with the script, and
> who to contact in case I'd disagree or have any questions.
The FSF cannot claim copyright over the configure.ac code I or whoever e
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 23:06 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
>
> This may be disliked by upstream and others, because it creates bogus
> security
> update notification mails, that say that there are security updates for
> packages that are no security updates, e.g.:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fed
On Tue July 7 2009, Jesse Keating wrote:
> See above, should be how we do things now, group related updates into a
> single bodhi submission, and attach the bugs/CVEs to that single
> submission.
This may be disliked by upstream and others, because it creates bogus security
update notification m
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> >> > The promise makes quite sure to tel
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 21:11 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > >> > The promise makes quite sure to te
On 07/04/2009 03:11 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 23:19 -0400, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 15:00 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 10:43:34 +0100,
>>> Adam Williamson wrote:
but it's actually a lot less trouble to just do:
>>
On Fri, 2009-07-03 at 11:18 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-07-02 at 23:22 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>
> > It would be nice if someone who actually who's primary language is
> > English reviews and fixes potential ken lee entry's i've made.
>
> I did a copyedit on the pa
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 12:15:28PM +0200, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :
>
> > What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so without
> > the right.
> >
> > And you have no right!
>
> Just to try to understand your point.
>
> 1
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 04:06:02PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> >> > The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you
> >> > can
> >> > infringe that they
Hello guys.
How can we add gtk2-immodules and gtk2-immodule-xim by default in a
PT_BR Fedora installation ?
We need to correct this problem ASAP for Fedora 10 ,11 and rawhide
We are receiving a lot of claims about this problem in Brazilian lists
and forum.
Bugzilla entry: https://bugzilla.
2009/7/7 Ville Skyttä :
> On Tuesday 07 July 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Ville Skyttä wrote:
>> > The FSF seems to disagree with that.
>> >
>> > http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Distributing.html#D
>> >istributing
>>
>> That applies to the automatically copied shell code, but
On Tuesday 07 July 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Ville Skyttä wrote:
> > The FSF seems to disagree with that.
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Distributing.html#D
> >istributing
>
> That applies to the automatically copied shell code, but not necessarily to
> the code fro
stefan riemens wrote, at 07/08/2009 02:22 AM +9:00:
Hi all,
I need to escape a # character in a spec file, but I can't seem to
find how to do that (is it even possible?)
See also BZ #508847. There are a couple of .#pfd1.xml like files which
need to be rm -f 'd...
Thanks, Stefan
For me using
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 07:22:57PM +0200, stefan riemens wrote:
> I need to escape a # character in a spec file, but I can't seem to
> find how to do that (is it even possible?)
>
> See also BZ #508847. There are a couple of .#pfd1.xml like files which
> need to be rm -f 'd...
On RHEL5 (rpm 4.4.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 07.07.2009 09:58, schrieb Karsten Wade:
> The consensus of the Docs Team, with full Legal support, is to
> relicense wiki and documentation from the deprecated OPL 1.0 to the CC
> BY SA 3.0 license. This move brings Fedora on to the mainland of fre
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 15:47 +, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
>
> package: pypar-2.1.0_66-3.fc10.i386 from fedora-development-i386
> unresolved deps:
> libpython2.5.so.1.0
> python(abi) = 0:2.5
I haven't been abl
This is a policy and licensing change that affects anyone who edits
the wiki or otherwise contributes to Fedora documentation.
The consensus of the Docs Team, with full Legal support, is to
relicense wiki and documentation from the deprecated OPL 1.0 to the CC
BY SA 3.0 license. This move brings
Hi all,
I need to escape a # character in a spec file, but I can't seem to
find how to do that (is it even possible?)
See also BZ #508847. There are a couple of .#pfd1.xml like files which
need to be rm -f 'd...
Thanks, Stefan
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
http
On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:16:59PM +0530, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
>>
>> package: CodeAnalyst-gui-2.8.38-12.fc12.i586 from fedora-development-i386
>> unresolved
On 07/07/2009 09:45 AM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 01:17 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> Perhaps but it doesn't decrease the work that the maintainer has to do.
>
> It very well might if Fedora upgrades to a new autoconf, automake, or
> libtool that is not 100% backward compa
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 22:26 +0530, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> > This should have already included in daily rawhide report. I am not
> > sure why broken deps report is not getting included in daily rawhide
> > report.
>
> There is some problem with the script and Jesse is not around to fix it.
>
I'm w
Ville Skyttä wrote:
> The FSF seems to disagree with that.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/html_node/Distributing.html#Distributing
That applies to the automatically copied shell code, but not necessarily to
the code from the original configure.ac.
Kevin Kofler
--
fedo
Matthew Woehlke wrote:
> ...but they depend on a slew of *other* things, like a POSIX shell and
> many POSIX tools.
Right. Assuming POSIX in a tool which is supposed to be a portability tool
is completely nonsensical and anachronistic, considering the most popular
operating system is a proprieta
> This should have already included in daily rawhide report. I am not
> sure why broken deps report is not getting included in daily rawhide
> report.
There is some problem with the script and Jesse is not around to fix it.
Cheerio,
Debarshi
--
One reason that life is complex is that it has a re
Hi,
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:16 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> The following packages in the repository suffer from broken dependencies:
>
> package: CodeAnalyst-gui-2.8.38-12.fc12.i586 from fedora-development-i386
> unresolved deps:
> libbfd-2.19.51.0.2-20.fc12.so
>
> package: CodeAnalyst-gui
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 01:17 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On 07/06/2009 08:09 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 16:36 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >> On 07/06/2009 03:57 PM, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> >>> On 7/6/09 6:10 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> >>>
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:24 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> If you take into account that the proposal concerns security fixes only,
> then every update has to be labeled a security update (and preferably
> have some kind of CVE/bug# attached??). We would need to think about a
> policy for th
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 14:01 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Braden McDaniel wrote:
> > Breaking compatibility with previous versions of automake, autoconf, or
> > libtool has no impact on released tarballs made using those tools; they
> > continue to work as intended because they do not depend on the
Jeroen van Meeuwen (kana...@kanarip.com) said:
> For the Bugzilla gurus out there, to what extent is Bugzilla capable to
> Assign a bug to the owner of a package for a certain branch?
>
> Say I file a bug against foo in Fedora 8 now, and have ownership of the
> foo package in PackageDB... woul
On Monday 06 July 2009, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> > But that's what /you/ want to do, not me. Me, I'll just apply a patch to
> > the configure script, directly.
>
> And you'll be violating the GPL (unless you're talking about a
> BSD-style-licensed software or configure.ac is e
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
> "Fedora End-Of-Sales" or something (please avoid the Legacy or LTS names).
End-Of-Sales doesn't make a lot of sense for something which isn't sold…
Kevin Kofler
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/lis
Ding-Yi Chen wrote:
> Therefore, I would like to propose an alternative approach,
> namely, project Denture. See my blog post for further information:
> http://dingyichen.livejournal.com/14055.html
>
> Any comments?
As I've tried to explain to you last time you proposed that approach on your
blo
Summary of broken packages (by src.rpm name):
bmpx
clutter-cairo
clutter-cairomm
clutter-gst
clutter-gtkmm
cluttermm
CodeAnalyst-gui
gauche-gl
gauche-gtk
ginac
kdeedu
libchamplain
libprojectM
libvirt-qpid
octave-forge
orsa
pyclutt
Braden McDaniel wrote:
Breaking compatibility with previous versions of automake, autoconf, or
libtool has no impact on released tarballs made using those tools; they
continue to work as intended because they do not depend on the presence
of these tools.
...but they depend on a slew of *other*
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen :
>
> 於 二，2009-07-07 於 14:44 +0100，John5342 提到：
>> 2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen :
>> >
>> > Any comments?
>>
>> In theory your proposal sounds great but i see just one major flaw
>> that probably doesn't have a solution. Your idea of packages being
>> built based on dependencies shou
On 07/02/2009 05:31 PM, Xavier Toth wrote:
It's a one liner.
--- anaconda-11.5.0.12/yuminstall.py.orig 2009-06-30
09:05:19.0 -0500
+++ anaconda-11.5.0.12/yuminstall.py2009-06-30 09:06:03.0 -0500
@@ -575,8 +575,7 @@
YumSorter.getReposFromConfig(self)
# O
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 22:53 -0400, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> Just a reminder that we are kicking off our 'fit and finish' initiative
> with a test day on display configuration tomorrow, in
> #fedora-fit-and-finish. If you go to
>
> http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2009-07-07_Fit_and_Fini
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Colin Walters wrote:
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
I disagree. I think the discrete tarball snapshot of a release will continue
for quite some time and I've not seen anyone moving away from that in their
public software releases.
It's not so black a
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 07:14 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:15, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
> > Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :
> >> What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so
> >> without the right.
> >>
> >> And you have no right!
> >
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Frank Murphy wrote:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-July/msg00014.html
OK, so lets move on before this ends into a flamewar ;)
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-de
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> I disagree. I think the discrete tarball snapshot of a release will continue
> for quite some time and I've not seen anyone moving away from that in their
> public software releases.
It's not so black and white; for example, it often makes sen
Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said:
> > Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Milestone_Adjustment_Proposal what
> > used to be called "Beta" is now called "Alpha". This matches industry
> > nomenclature for what we were actually producing.
>
> Uh, I kinda recalled that the feedback on the
於 二，2009-07-07 於 14:44 +0100，John5342 提到：
> 2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen :
> >
> > Any comments?
>
> In theory your proposal sounds great but i see just one major flaw
> that probably doesn't have a solution. Your idea of packages being
> built based on dependencies should work great apart from the fact
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009, Jesse Keating wrote:
These days distributing via tarball is bizarre. Distributed source control is
changing the way that projects work and
release. Sure there are plenty of projects out here that don't work this way
but more and more are headed in this
direction.
I
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2009-July/msg00014.html
Regards,
Frank
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 16:06 +0200, Julian Aloofi wrote:
> Unfortunately the patent promise covers more things than just C# / CLI
> patents.
> And it seems like you're going to lose the whole promise when you just
> sue them over one specification in there, e.g. the XPS specification.
> Maybe that
On 07/07/2009 12:07 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2009-07-04 at 23:58 +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
I wanted to draw your attention to a feature I've proposed for Fedora
12, mysteriously called Extended Life Cycle.
You can find more details at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Exten
On 07/07/2009 01:06 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Mon, 06 Jul 2009 20:20:50 +0200
Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
Reading it on a question-mark per question-mark basis though, I think
the feature page answers half of the half-posed questions. Anyway:
- a bunch
fas names? Approximate number?
A bunch
On Jul 7, 2009, at 4:14, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Richard W.M. Jones writes:
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 11:09:51PM -0400, Braden McDaniel wrote:
2. improves the resiliency of the package build to changes to
Fedora's autotools chain.
Many projects come with public source repositories
On Jul 7, 2009, at 3:15, Dodji Seketeli wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Le 07/07/2009 12:02, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra a écrit :
What you're explicitly told s that you won't be sued if you do so
without the right.
And you have no right!
Just to try to understand you
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Julian
Aloofi wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 07.07.2009, 15:36 +0200 schrieb drago01:
>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan
>> Underwood wrote:
>> > 2009/7/7 Adam Jackson :
>> >> On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
>> >>> On Tue, Jul 07
Am Dienstag, den 07.07.2009, 15:36 +0200 schrieb drago01:
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 3:27 PM, Jonathan
> Underwood wrote:
> > 2009/7/7 Adam Jackson :
> >> On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 09:56 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 10:24:24AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> >>> > http://po
On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 11:07:52AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> > The promise makes quite sure to tell you you have no right[1], but you can
>> > infringe that they won't sue *you*[2].
>> >
>> > [1] => means you can't do it with GPL
>>
>
On Tue, 2009-07-07 at 14:27 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> Not answering Ajax's question specifically, but this looks a bit iffy:
>
> "If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a patent
> infringement lawsuit against a Microsoft implementation of any Covered
> Specification, then t
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 02:48:47PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>> > kdeedu-4.2.95-1.fc12
>>
>> kdeedu only uses readline in KAlgebra which is GPLv2+ (and only in the
>> command-line version ("calgebra") at that), so no problems there. (I also
>>
On 07/07/2009 12:29 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On 07/06/2009 03:07 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
Bugzilla spam. If we keep the release open for random bug filing, we
have no good way of telling bugzilla that only specific users should get
bugs for specific releases of Fedora. Ownership is at a pro
Hello All!
I plan to add arm-toolchain into Fedora and encountered a difficulty -
how to properly name the package? From what I found in the Internets,
the cross-toolchains *often* named with the following prefix:
For example:
i686-pc-linux-gnu-
powerpc-unknown-linux-gnu-
x86_64-unknown-li
2009/7/7 Ding-Yi Chen :
>
> 於 日，2009-07-05 於 12:32 +0200，Jeroen van Meeuwen 提到：
>> On 07/05/2009 12:12 PM, Jos Vos wrote:
>> > On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 12:03:05PM +0200, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>> >
>> >> The CentOS project, or it's upstream, has a release cycle of approximately
>> >> three years
1 - 100 of 128 matches
Mail list logo
