On 12/23/2009 06:07 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> Right, but when I as a releng person need to bump something in an
>> emergency or when a maintainer is out, I expect origin/master to be
>> "live" for rawhide, ditto origin/F-12 for Fedora 12. I don't expect
>> that I'd have to go hunting down where
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On 12/23/2009 03:34 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > Once upon a time, Michael Cronenworth said:
> >> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> >>> (Yes, the irony of a talk on software patents being offered in MP3
> >>> format is not lost on me.)
> >>
>
On 12/23/2009 03:34 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Michael Cronenworth said:
>> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>>> (Yes, the irony of a talk on software patents being offered in MP3
>>> format is not lost on me.)
>>
>> Just think... one more year... one more year...
>
> It doesn't look li
On 12/24/2009 05:49 AM, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>
> Care to explain the term environment-modules for me please?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/EnvironmentModules
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedor
On 12/22/2009 06:36 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On Tuesday 22 December 2009, Jeroen van Meeuwen wrote:
>
>> - Use the alternatives system to point to one stack or the other for the
>> system default stack (think standalone applications).
>
> Not that I'm anywhere near an expert in ruby matters, but
> Right, but when I as a releng person need to bump something in an
> emergency or when a maintainer is out, I expect origin/master to be
> "live" for rawhide, ditto origin/F-12 for Fedora 12. I don't expect
> that I'd have to go hunting down where the commit hash for the previous
> build came fro
nly a version number
>> in a subpackage that needs building or somesuch, so hopefully it is
>> trivial to fix.
>
> Hmm, this is odd, I noticed that according to:
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-20091223/logs/repodiff
>
> abiword was successfully rebuilt:
A
t is
> trivial to fix.
Hmm, this is odd, I noticed that according to:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-20091223/logs/repodiff
abiword was successfully rebuilt:
abiword-2.8.1-3.fc13
* Mon Dec 21 2009 Peter Robinson - 1:2.8.1-3
- Rebuild against ne
> Rawhide Report writes:
So these huge slew of broken deps (seems like more than 10 packages) for
ghc have been in the rawhide reports for over a week now, is anybody
actively maintaining and/or planning to fix these packages? If not,
please let us know so a provenpackager can fix these, the
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 14:23 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I understand the use case, I'm still not super keen on having official
> > built packages come out of a branch. Makes discovery somewhat
> > difficult, and leads to problems if we have to bump+build something and
> > don't realize that t
> I understand the use case, I'm still not super keen on having official
> built packages come out of a branch. Makes discovery somewhat
> difficult, and leads to problems if we have to bump+build something and
> don't realize that the real live code is actually on a branch.
Surely all previous b
- "Jesse Keating" wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 15:46 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> > Okay, we've definitely got some slight misunderstanding here... :)
> >
> > I was objecting to Kevin's suggestion that we should be able to
> build
> > official packages from branches named ^private-*. But
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 15:46 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Okay, we've definitely got some slight misunderstanding here... :)
>
> I was objecting to Kevin's suggestion that we should be able to build
> official packages from branches named ^private-*. But building from a
> branch tagged something !^
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 3:00 PM, Alan Milnes wrote:
> 2009/12/23 Alex Hudson :
>
> > I realise a number of people don't care for Mono-related technologies,
> but
> > it would be sad to see Fedora left out in the cold for this stuff.
>
> Actually it makes me very *happy* to have a distro untainted
2009/12/23 Alex Hudson :
> I realise a number of people don't care for Mono-related technologies, but
> it would be sad to see Fedora left out in the cold for this stuff.
Actually it makes me very *happy* to have a distro untainted by this stuff.
Never forget their MO:- Embrace - Extend - Extin
2009/12/21 Bojan Smojver :
> On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 22:21 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
>> I didn't see any of the recent previous spec file comments indicate
>> back ported security fixes. So its unlikely the latest security fixes
>> are in any earlier version. If you want them now, grab the kernel
On 12/23/09 3:21 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 19:28 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>> The whole problem is that such branches do not exist at all in the new git
>> setup!
>>
>>> If you get eaten by raptors, you can't expect another maintainer to come
>>> in after you and have to
Once upon a time, Michael Cronenworth said:
> Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> >(Yes, the irony of a talk on software patents being offered in MP3
> >format is not lost on me.)
>
> Just think... one more year... one more year...
It doesn't look like that is the case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mp
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:56:26 -0500,
"Clyde E. Kunkel" wrote:
>
>
> does adding nomodeset to kernel parm line in grub.conf work?
It gets me back to the other problem. So yeah it does seem like we
are seeing the same thing. I update the bug to mention this.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing li
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 19:28 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> The whole problem is that such branches do not exist at all in the new git
> setup!
>
> > If you get eaten by raptors, you can't expect another maintainer to come
> > in after you and have to dig around for a private branch to update a
>
Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
(Yes, the irony of a talk on software patents being offered in MP3
format is not lost on me.)
Just think... one more year... one more year...
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 12/24/2009 12:52 AM, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>
> It grants no patent rights to Distributors, aside from those already
> granted to Novell in the previous covenant. What it practically means is
> that once you distribute, you stop being considered an "End User" by
> Microsoft, and are no lon
On 12/23/2009 02:10 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On 23/12/09 18:58, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> On 12/23/2009 01:56 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
>>
>>> Can I ask on what grounds? Is the patent license insufficient, or is
>>> there some other problem?
>>>
>>> It's difficult to fix things if we don't know
2009/12/23 Kevin Kofler :
> IMHO generated code does not belong into source tarballs at all.
gtkmm tarballs distribute generated C++ source code to avoid using
maintainer tools like mm-common or gmmproc by distro packagers.
and that is for a long long time. Are we going to build gtkmm from
templat
On 23/12/09 18:58, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On 12/23/2009 01:56 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
Can I ask on what grounds? Is the patent license insufficient, or is
there some other problem?
It's difficult to fix things if we don't know what's broken.
The most obvious issue is that it does
On 12/23/2009 01:56 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On 23/12/09 18:46, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> With that said, this new "covenant" does NOT change our stance on
>> Moonlight. It is still not permissible in Fedora.
>>
>
> Can I ask on what grounds? Is the patent license insufficient, or is
> the
On 23/12/09 18:46, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
With that said, this new "covenant" does NOT change our stance on
Moonlight. It is still not permissible in Fedora.
Can I ask on what grounds? Is the patent license insufficient, or is
there some other problem?
It's difficult to fix things if
Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
> That's to be expected, as "rpm -i" installs a package without removing
> the old one. Unless the package is specially designed (like the
> kernel) you'll get conflicts. Normally, you'd want to use "rpm -U"
> which will remove the old package before installing the new one.
On 12/23/2009 01:38 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> As the patent license is non-Free, Moonlight still has to be considered non-
> Free wherever software patents apply. So as far as I can tell, this is not
> acceptable for Fedora, sorry. (But of course spot and/or RH Legal will have
> the final word.)
Peter Robinson wrote:
> Some what different in that vala is source code that generates plainly
> readable C code. A .dll is a binary library. Its not exactly the same
> arguement.
So if I encode a Mono DLL as:
unsigned char dll_data[]={...};
and generate the .dll from that, is that source code???
Alex Hudson wrote:
> Correction: it's now published here -
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/newmoonlight.mspx
>
> To my untrained eye, it seems to cover Moonlight fully, the termination
> clause doesn't work retroactively, it includes coverage for the Mono
> portions and i
Jarod Wilson wrote:
> On 12/22/09 2:45 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> And as I wrote before, I don't like this at all, it's a regression from
>> our current workflow
>
> Define "our".
"Our current workflow" = what Fedora's current CVS setup allows.
> In my personal opinion, Jesse is spot-on, we sho
Le Sat, 19 Dec 2009 22:08:45 -0800,
Toshio Kuratomi a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:39:18PM +0100, Julian Aloofi wrote:
> > Am Freitag, den 18.12.2009, 18:12 +0100 schrieb Nicoleau Fabien:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'm packaging phatch that provides /usr/bin/phatch, a graphical
> > > applicat
Hey,
I just had the weirdest thing ever, on Fedora 12
I was working on my desktop, running F-12, KVM and like 10 VM's up and running.
I had clicked on the "update" button, but since I was using a voip (hardware)
phone had not yet clicked on "download updates". I iconified the window to get
rid
On Dec 23, 2009, at 7:38, Rahul Sundaram
wrote:
On 12/23/2009 09:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 08:50:11PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
On 12/22/2009 09:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
FWIW - I agree with both jesse and jarod. Official builds are
from main
branch. Anything
On Dec 23, 2009, at 7:20, Rahul Sundaram
wrote:
On 12/22/2009 09:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
FWIW - I agree with both jesse and jarod. Official builds are from
main
branch. Anything built anywhere else will never be official.
How about scratch builds?
Those can come from anywhere, e
On 12/23/2009 09:04 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 08:50:11PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 12/22/2009 09:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>> FWIW - I agree with both jesse and jarod. Official builds are from main
>>> branch. Anything built anywhere else will never be official.
>>
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 08:50:11PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>On 12/22/2009 09:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> FWIW - I agree with both jesse and jarod. Official builds are from main
>> branch. Anything built anywhere else will never be official.
>
>How about scratch builds?
What about them? Scr
On 12/22/2009 09:07 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
> FWIW - I agree with both jesse and jarod. Official builds are from main
> branch. Anything built anywhere else will never be official.
How about scratch builds?
Rahul
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.c
Hi all:
the new version of sextractor in rawhide (2.8.6) will have a CeCILL
license. Previously, sextractor was distributed under GPLv2
Regards
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
On 19/12/09 11:03, Alex Hudson wrote:
The covenant is published as far as I can see here:
No, that's the previous one which was not good enough.
The new one is not yet published.
Correction: it's now published here -
http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/newmoonlight.mspx
T
On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 05:03:21PM +0100, Christoph Höger wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 22.12.2009, 15:09 +0100 schrieb Jindrich Novy:
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:45:52AM +0100, Christoph Höger wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > after texlive 2009 crashed my latex compiling process one day before I
>
42 matches
Mail list logo
