Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 22:07:43 schreef Michael scherer:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 08:23:59PM +0200, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> > Jerome Quelin skrev 27.11.2010 19:11:
> > >On 10/11/27 17:59 +0100, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
> > >
> > >what are the rules to move a package from extra to core, and vi
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 08:23:59PM +0200, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> Jerome Quelin skrev 27.11.2010 19:11:
> >On 10/11/27 17:59 +0100, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
> >what are the rules to move a package from extra to core, and vice-versa?
> >who can do it? will it be done automatically? will this imply a
Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 19:23:59 schreef Thomas Backlund:
> Jerome Quelin skrev 27.11.2010 19:11:
> > On 10/11/27 17:59 +0100, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
> >> i agree, the less repositories the easier it'll be.
> >>
> >> however, core is for all the "maintained" packages, extra is for the
> >> un
Jerome Quelin skrev 27.11.2010 19:11:
On 10/11/27 17:59 +0100, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
i agree, the less repositories the easier it'll be.
however, core is for all the "maintained" packages, extra is for the
unmaintained packages that build ok.
what is a "maintained" package? no maintainer, no
Michael scherer skrev 27.11.2010 10:43:
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:29:14PM +0200, Thomas Backlund wrote:
[...]
Then we come to the "problematic" part:
This part look really too complex to me.
--
/x86_64/
/media/
/codecs/ (disabled by default)
so, ogg, webm, bein
Wolfgang Bornath skrev 27.11.2010 10:03:
2010/11/27 Ahmad Samir:
IMHO, the mirrorlist in its current status should be dropped
altogether... it's only good if the user has good mirrors near where
he lives, otherwise it just fails miserably. The whole point of using
a mirrorlist was that "urpmi w
2010/11/27 Maarten Vanraes :
>
> i mean, if a certain media is enabled,
Yes, that's exactly what I meant with "a mirror selection dialogue"
when the user wants to setup his media. Then, if one of media the user
selects is not on the nearest mirror the system has to choose the next
mirror and so fo
Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 18:11:36 schreef Jerome Quelin:
> On 10/11/27 17:59 +0100, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
> > i agree, the less repositories the easier it'll be.
> >
> > however, core is for all the "maintained" packages, extra is for the
> > unmaintained packages that build ok.
>
> what is
On 10/11/27 17:59 +0100, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
> i agree, the less repositories the easier it'll be.
>
> however, core is for all the "maintained" packages, extra is for the
> unmaintained packages that build ok.
what is a "maintained" package? no maintainer, no commits since x
months, not buil
Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 17:20:34 schreef Jerome Quelin:
> On 10/11/26 22:29 +0200, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> > The "core" should be only maintained free/libre stuff so it's easy
> > to build a free/libre iso
> >
> > "extra" is for those packages that no-one really maintain, but is
> > still us
Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 14:21:28 schreef Wolfgang Bornath:
> 2010/11/27 Maarten Vanraes :
> > if a mirror doesn't have some repositories, it should fetch the next one.
>
> In this case there has to be some kind of selection dialogue on the
> user side to determine which repositories the user
On 10/11/26 22:29 +0200, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> The "core" should be only maintained free/libre stuff so it's easy
> to build a free/libre iso
>
> "extra" is for those packages that no-one really maintain, but is
> still used by someone
i'm not sure "extra" is needed. either it compiles, and th
2010/11/27 Maarten Vanraes :
>
> if a mirror doesn't have some repositories, it should fetch the next one.
In this case there has to be some kind of selection dialogue on the
user side to determine which repositories the user wants to set up. No
need to let urpmi go to the next mirror if the user
Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 09:43:54 schreef Michael scherer:
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:29:14PM +0200, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> > Hi,
> > As we are getting closer to actually have something to mirror it's
> > time to get this decided.
> >
> > And the deadline for theese discussions is December
Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 10:03:53 schreef Michael scherer:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:51:59AM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 00:44, Maarten Vanraes
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 00:25:17 schreef Thomas Backlund:
> > > [...]
> > >
> > >> > A)
Ahmad Samir a écrit :
IMHO, the mirrorlist in its current status should be dropped
altogether... it's only good if the user has good mirrors near where
he lives, otherwise it just fails miserably. The whole point of using
a mirrorlist was that "urpmi will switch to another mirror if the
currently
On 27 November 2010 11:13, Michael scherer wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 09:00:50AM +0200, Ahmad Samir wrote:
>> On 27 November 2010 08:27, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Thomas Backlund wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The idea of this layout with some of the separate secti
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 09:00:50AM +0200, Ahmad Samir wrote:
> On 27 November 2010 08:27, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> >>
> >> The idea of this layout with some of the separate sections (codecs,
> >> firmware, games, non-free, debug_*) giv
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:51:59AM +0100, Romain d'Alverny wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 00:44, Maarten Vanraes
> wrote:
> > Op zaterdag 27 november 2010 00:25:17 schreef Thomas Backlund:
> > [...]
> >> > A) i see no reason for codecs and firmware to be separate. However, i do
> >> > understand
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 12:02:54AM +0100, Maarten Vanraes wrote:
>
> A) i see no reason for codecs and firmware to be separate. However, i do
> understand that some people would not want to install firmware, but i think
> we
> should do this in another way, (like installing a meta package that e
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 10:29:14PM +0200, Thomas Backlund wrote:
> Hi,
> As we are getting closer to actually have something to mirror it's
> time to get this decided.
>
> And the deadline for theese discussions is December 5th, 2010 in
> order to get a decision on the board meeting on December 6t
2010/11/27 Ahmad Samir :
>
> IMHO, the mirrorlist in its current status should be dropped
> altogether... it's only good if the user has good mirrors near where
> he lives, otherwise it just fails miserably. The whole point of using
> a mirrorlist was that "urpmi will switch to another mirror if th
22 matches
Mail list logo
