On 07.03.2009 21:39, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I don't particularly care about officialness. It doesn't make any real
difference to me but if you want to host a remix, Omega serves that
purpose and more mirrors would be good for users using Omega. If we want
to introduce
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Sure it sounds unrealistic(¹); but that afaics doesn't matter at all
afaics (see below).
(¹) and I don't think it's that unrealistic; just for a moment think
what could happen if evil company buys Red Hat tomorrow
They don't control the dozens and dozens of
On 03.03.2009 08:27, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
- ideally a KDE spin as well, as I would like to prevent RPM Fusion
ignores KDE fame; related: the name discussion, as the basic name of
our first spin should leave room for other spins, hence your spins
would need to be
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
We nevertheless IMHO once again should ask in public (blog and
spins-list maybe?) if somebody want to do a KDE spin with RPM Fusion
before we do one with Gnome -- then we can point users that complain
why don't you hvae a KDE spin there and tell them nobody
On 07.03.2009 15:48, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
We nevertheless IMHO once again should ask in public (blog and
spins-list maybe?) if somebody want to do a KDE spin with RPM Fusion
before we do one with Gnome -- then we can point users that complain
why don't you hvae a KDE
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
What do you mean?
ftp://ftp.infradead.org/pub/spins/README.Omega-10-Release-Notes
doesn#t contain the word KDE afaics. Or do you mean the Do you plan
on do other variants? part?
Latter. It clearly informs everyone that they are free to do additional
variants and are
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
- ideally a KDE spin as well, as I would like to prevent RPM Fusion
ignores KDE fame; related: the name discussion, as the basic name of
our first spin should leave room for other spins, hence your spins
would need to be something like Omega
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
- Fedora and RPM Fusion packages only
Not including libdvdcss kinda defeats the point of Omega.
Kevin Kofler
Kevin Kofler wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
- Fedora and RPM Fusion packages only
Not including libdvdcss kinda defeats the point of Omega.
Shrug, it's one less thing there's still all the driver and codec
support.
-- Rex
On 01.03.2009 00:05, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
[Catching up on this after a long time so excuse the delay]
- no RPM Fusion Fedora remix maintained within the project; do we
want one? Or even proper install DVDs that already contain packages
from RPM Fusion?
I was very
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
(a) you tried to do many things own your own
Isn't that what you are doing too? E.g. when you single-handedly decided to
ban libdvdcss and flame everybody who objecs to it? Which incidentally is
also causing this issue:
But right now there isn't much to decide afaik,
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Maybe putting everything aside and starting fresh might help; e.g.
discuss what we want: name(s), target audience, gnome vs. kde (we
should do both), free and nonfree, Live-Spin vs. regular install
media, ...; that might help to get things rolling again (but maybe
Kevin Kofler wrote:
gnome vs. kde (we should do both)
+1
The current Omega isn't of much use to KDE users.
Then build a KDE variant. What is stopping you?
Rahul
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
But right now there isn't much to decide afaik, as omega includes
packages that are not part of Fedora and RPM Fusion. That IMHO makes
it just as unacceptable for RPM Fusion as an official Fedora spin with
a RPM Fusion package in it.
I will just add this: In my
On Monday 02 March 2009 03:56:45 pm Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Kevin Kofler wrote:
gnome vs. kde (we should do both)
+1
The current Omega isn't of much use to KDE users.
Then build a KDE variant. What is stopping you?
Rahul
Lack of interest.
--
Conrad Meyer kon...@tylerc.org
On 02.03.2009 20:57, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
(a) you tried to do many things own your own
Isn't that what you are doing too?
I'm well aware that I sometimes might have done that now and then --
especially in the phase to get RPM Fusion started, as I got the
impression
On 03.03.2009 06:44, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 02.03.2009 20:57, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
(a) you tried to do many things own your own
Isn't that what you are doing too?
I'm well aware that I sometimes might have done that now and then --
especially in the phase to get
On 03.03.2009 00:55, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
[...]
I will ask again, are you or the steering committee
or whoever it is that is making the decision now willing to host Omega?
I for one would like to see this (from the top of my head; maybe I
forget something) before
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
- ideally a KDE spin as well, as I would like to prevent RPM Fusion
ignores KDE fame; related: the name discussion, as the basic name of
our first spin should leave room for other spins, hence your spins
would need to be something like Omega Desktop or Omega Gnome
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
[Catching up on this after a long time so excuse the delay]
- no RPM Fusion Fedora remix maintained within the project; do we
want one? Or even proper install DVDs that already contain packages
from RPM Fusion?
I was very happy to see Rahul do some work here, way to
Thorsten Leemhuis píše v Po 09. 02. 2009 v 19:58 +0100:
On 09.02.2009 14:28, Dan Horák wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis píše v Ne 08. 02. 2009 v 10:06 +0100:
On 04.02.2009 14:24, Rex Dieter wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 04.02.2009 14:00, Rex Dieter wrote:
Andrea Musuruane wrote:
[...]
On 10.02.2009 09:57, Dan Horák wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis píše v Po 09. 02. 2009 v 19:58 +0100:
On 09.02.2009 14:28, Dan Horák wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis píše v Ne 08. 02. 2009 v 10:06 +0100:
On 04.02.2009 14:24, Rex Dieter wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 04.02.2009 14:00, Rex Dieter wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis píše v Út 10. 02. 2009 v 10:14 +0100:
On 10.02.2009 09:57, Dan Horák wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis píše v Po 09. 02. 2009 v 19:58 +0100:
On 09.02.2009 14:28, Dan Horák wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis píše v Ne 08. 02. 2009 v 10:06 +0100:
On 04.02.2009 14:24, Rex Dieter wrote:
On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 10:06:29AM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 04.02.2009 14:24, Rex Dieter wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 04.02.2009 14:00, Rex Dieter wrote:
Andrea Musuruane wrote:
[...]
In the meantime, I'll go adjust the wiki to move kde-redhat to the
compatible section. :)
Andrea Musuruane wrote:
I have placed known testing/staging repositories in a different section in :
http://rpmfusion.org/FedoraThirdPartyRepos
I have tracked most 3rd party maintainers/packagers too.
We should have an agreed invite mail mail here:
http://rpmfusion.org/InviteThirdPartyRepo
Andrea Musuruane wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Hans de Goede j.w.r.dego...@hhs.nl wrote:
If all of us contribute a little to track down the maintainers, we
could at least try to contact them, ask them to join, listen to their
complains, guide them in the project.
Strong +1
Here
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
Many thx for that. Three small details:
You are welcome.
- users in the past could easily see which repos were compatible with RPM
fusion and which not; now that easily lost in the noise; I'm wondering if it
would
Andrea Musuruane wrote:
invite 3rd party maintainers again and ask them to join. If they don't
want to join, we should politely ask why. We should stress about our
strengths and the benefits of joining (only one repo, very visible,
peer review to improve quality, build system, cvs, etc).
- Are
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Hans de Goede j.w.r.dego...@hhs.nl wrote:
We already have a page in the wiki to track third party repositories.
http://rpmfusion.org/FedoraThirdPartyRepos
If all of us contribute a little to track down the maintainers, we
could at least try to contact them,
On 27.01.2009 18:48, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Hans de Goede j.w.r.dego...@hhs.nl wrote:
We already have a page in the wiki to track third party repositories.
http://rpmfusion.org/FedoraThirdPartyRepos
If all of us contribute a little to track down the
Stewart Adam wrote:
On 1/25/09 1:33 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi!
snip
- some of our processes are afaics not documented at all or not properly
documented
I've been wanting to bring this up - I think our /Contributors page
needs some parts rewritten, and a bit more added in certain
On 26.01.2009 01:05, David Timms wrote:
Hans de Goede wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
...
- we started a few months ago and it worked out quite well afaics;
right now the repos and the packages in it might not be perfect,
but the repos overall were and still are in acceptable good
condition
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:53:46 +0100, Thorsten wrote:
- still lots of other 3rd party repos out there; users still run
into problems as they try to mix incompatible repos; should we
actively try to get more repos merged into RPM Fusion?
Yes!
I haven't been on lists etc
thx for your comments (same to Hans and David btw)
On 25.01.2009 23:10, Stewart Adam wrote:
On 1/25/09 1:33 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
[...]
- we started a few months ago and it worked out quite well afaics; right
now the repos and the packages in it might not be perfect, but the repos
Andrea Musuruane wrote:
IMHO this is not the main problem with other repositories not joining
RPM Fusion. Some packagers don't want to learn/use Fedora guidelines.
Some others use Fedora guidelines but do not want to cooperate with a
(much bigger) project because they just want to mind their
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:59:43 +0100, Thorsten wrote:
On 26.01.2009 13:29, David Timms wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:53:46 +0100, Thorsten wrote:
- still lots of other 3rd party repos out there; users still run
into problems as they try to mix incompatible repos;
On 26.01.2009 19:04, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:59:43 +0100, Thorsten wrote:
On 26.01.2009 13:29, David Timms wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:53:46 +0100, Thorsten wrote:
- still lots of other 3rd party repos out there; users still run
into problems
On 26.01.2009 17:49, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
But how to we get people to merge their repos into RPM Fusion? Especially
the popular ones like Planet CCRMA?
IIRC Planet CCRMA is/was merging with Fedora.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AudioCreation
I know, but I thought there were some packages
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote:
And some others know the guidelines very well, know just as well that their
packages need fixing to be compliant, but still want them to be available
somewhere until they get around to fixing them. (That's the case of
Andrea Musuruane wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis fed...@leemhuis.info wrote:
IIRC Planet CCRMA is/was merging with Fedora.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/AudioCreation
I know, but I thought there were some packages in Planet CCRMA that might
not be acceptable for
One addition:
On 26.01.2009 16:25, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
[...]
= Where we want to go =
The where we are part already had some areas and suggestion where
things need to be improved; here are some more:
- it would be really nice to have a small helper app that is used for
enabling RPM
Hi!
It afaics can help a lot to now and then step back for a moment and try
to look with at where we are some distance; after that it's often the
time to think about where we want to be in one, two or five years from
now. I tried to do that over the last few days; find my thoughts below.
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi!
It afaics can help a lot to now and then step back for a moment and try
to look with at where we are some distance; after that it's often the
time to think about where we want to be in one, two or five years from
now. I tried to do that over the last few days;
On 1/25/09 1:33 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Hi!
= Where we are =
Where we are now is a good start and if we continue on the same track, I
think things are only going to get better...
- we started a few months ago and it worked out quite well afaics; right
now the repos and the packages in
Hans de Goede wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
...
= Where we are =
- we started a few months ago and it worked out quite well afaics;
right now the repos and the packages in it might not be perfect,
but the repos overall were and still are in acceptable good
condition
Yes I'm quite happy
On 25.01.2009 20:07, Hans de Goede wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
[...]
- since we started we got some new packages and a few new contributors;
that's good, but in fact I had hopped the numbers of new contributors
would be a little bit higher
Your to critical I'm quite happy with the steady
46 matches
Mail list logo
