Robinson Tiemuqinke wrote:
Hi,
Glad that FC6 is out today for download/playing.
But FC5 and FC6 are released too closely -- only
three months apart. while FC4 had released over one
year before FC5 appeared. Consequently, a lot of
people and small organizations, as far as I know, have
in
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Axel Thimm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
The issue is also not the infrstructure IMO, it's simply lack of human
resources and either someone needs to assign them to it if that entity
(Red Hat/board/whatever) considers that a worthy goal, or the
resources need to come from m
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 26 October 2006 00:13, Tim Thome wrote:
"Cannot find a valid baseurl..."
For a temporary work around, replace the fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors
with fedoraproject.org/mirrors
Thx, worked like a champ... wonder if this should
Jesse and all at the Fedora Release Team...
Many congrats on releasing Zod, we all bow before you... Great Job!!!
And we understand the challenges met by Zod melting down the FC5
core/updates/extra's repos... as well as much of the fedora.redhat.com
infra... take that as a positive signal :)
At 03:32 PM 10/24/2006, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tuesday 24 October 2006 18:21, Mike McCarty wrote:
> These are interesting stats, and indicate that Linux may now be
> crossing the gap. I belive most offices are still firmly MS product
> houses, and a move to Linux would not even be considered. I
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 19 October 2006 11:44, Matthew Miller wrote:
I think this is really unfortunate, because it makes a big gap in the
Fedora ecosystem. This will be largely filled by migration to RHEL-rebuild
distros like CentOS, which is well and good (and particularly painless
Dennis wrote:
I am trying to update my x86_64 installation of Fedora core 4 and I am
getting the following
message from Yum and I need help to resolve this issue.
Dennis,
These items are related to xen and some other esoteric items that most
folks don't use (some do)
yum remove gnbd-kernel
David,
Sounds like a good thing entering it into Bugzilla, however, if there is
not a priority within Red Hat to fix it, the bug will sit there and rot...
Might be a good time to split the bugzilla between active devlopment and
legacy, and move the bugs over as needed, where they can be triage
John,
It affects FC3 and earlier as included with the distributions. FC4 is
currently including 4.1.20 on the updates-released directory.
Do note that FC3 can run the regular mysql rpm's as provided by
mysql... so an advisory should be posted (imho)...
Not sure about FC1/2 (I moved over t
Couple of questions... is this a SMP box? PCI Raid Controller?
Broadcomm ethernet?
More info on the HW config would be helpful. dmesg dump would also
be very helpful...
Tim
On Jul 14, 2006, at 1:41 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Sorry for the chatter, but I am running out of places to look/as
My last words on the subject...
The RH9 GA Release, as far as I can tell, was 03/31/03. Putting RH's
timeline for life-cycle, maintenance should be carried on for a
minimum of 5 years.
I think this is probably unreasonable, as the team's resources are
limited, which is why we're having th
Sorry for the late response, been busy with some other projects...
comments
seth vidal wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 21:24 -0700, Tim Thome wrote:
There needs to be an end for 7.3, along with Fedora Core Releases 1
and 2, but there are non-hobby people and organizations that
On Jun 9, 2006, at 9:11 PM, seth vidal wrote:
On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 23:53 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
As we approach FC6 Test2, we should make a decision wrt RHL7.3/9 and
FC1/2. We've been supporting these releases for a while now, and
they've grown pretty long in the tooth, even by Legacy sta
13 matches
Mail list logo
