On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 21:26 +0200, cornel panceac wrote:
>
> i'll try disabling the plymouthd service (if there is such thing) and
> report back.
Just drop 'rhgb quiet' from the boot parameters and you should get a lot
more detail =)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | F
The following Fedora 13 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bugzilla-3.4.10-1.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dbus-1.2.24-2.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/subversion-1.6.15-1.fc13
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/
The following Fedora 14 Security updates need testing:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bugzilla-3.6.4-1.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/feh-1.10.1-1.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/socat-1.7.1.3-1.fc14
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_au
2011/1/25 cornel panceac
>
>
> 2011/1/25 Adam Williamson
>
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 20:21 +0200, cornel panceac wrote:
>> > maybe it's been reported already, but here both f15 kernels crash at
>> > boot. f14 works fine.
>>
>> This is obviously highly hardware dependent, so your report isn't much
#159: Network Device Naming Test Day
+---
Reporter: shyamiyerdell | Owner: narendr...@dell.com
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 15
#159: Network Device Naming Test Day
+---
Reporter: shyamiyerdell | Owner: narendr...@dell.com
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone: Fedora 15
2011/1/25 Adam Williamson
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 20:21 +0200, cornel panceac wrote:
> > maybe it's been reported already, but here both f15 kernels crash at
> > boot. f14 works fine.
>
> This is obviously highly hardware dependent, so your report isn't much
> use as is. =) The kernel boots on ot
Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 14:34 +0100, drago01 wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> > On 01/25/2011 12:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 09:11 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I'v
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 20:21 +0200, cornel panceac wrote:
> maybe it's been reported already, but here both f15 kernels crash at
> boot. f14 works fine.
This is obviously highly hardware dependent, so your report isn't much
use as is. =) The kernel boots on other hardware (like mine). So it'd be
go
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 12:00 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > How about this for a proposal:
> > Have gnome shell obsolete gnome-panel < 2.90 and require gnome-panel,
> > metacity (since it needs these for fall back). I think that will do what
> > you want. (Note there isn't a 2.9x version of meta
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 15:15 +0100, peter_someone wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> just popping in to ask if anyone has been able to boot any of the last
> 3-5 nightly isos?
> Before that you had to drop out of gdm and X startx manually, install
> hal so liveinst would work etc but at least it booted.
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 14:34 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > On 01/25/2011 12:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 09:11 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> >>
> >>> I've added the dependency to gnome-panel. That should achieve the
Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
> I mostly agree but the difference in this case there is essentially a
> fork as the newer interface won't work on all devices that the old one
> previously did so you have circumstances where it just won't work or
> will crash horribly even on devices
Matthias Clasen (mcla...@redhat.com) said:
> > How about this for a proposal:
> > Have gnome shell obsolete gnome-panel < 2.90 and require gnome-panel,
> > metacity (since it needs these for fall back). I think that will do what
> > you want. (Note there isn't a 2.9x version of metacity, so you ob
maybe it's been reported already, but here both f15 kernels crash at boot.
f14 works fine.
# rpm -q kernel
kernel-2.6.35.6-45.fc14.i686
kernel-2.6.38-0.rc2.git0.1.fc15.i686
kernel-2.6.38-0.rc2.git1.3.fc15.i686
processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 5600+
ram: 2gb
motherboard: Gigabyt
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 25.1.2011 11:41, Peter Robinson napsal(a):
>> In terms of dependencies for gnome 3 you may be right but for every
>> other part of the distribution you are completely wrong, at least on
>> this space time continuum. There are quite a number
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 6:31 PM, mike cloaked wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said:
>>> > But it doesn't make any sense. gnome-panel does *not* require
>>> > gnome-shell. We really shouldn't just go around abusing dependencie
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said:
>> > But it doesn't make any sense. gnome-panel does *not* require
>> > gnome-shell. We really shouldn't just go around abusing dependencies to
>> > make upgrades 'work', even if it is convenient.
>
The 389 team is pleased to announce the availability for testing of
Alpha 1 of version 1.2.8. This release contains many bug fixes. On
those platforms which have OpenLDAP built with Mozilla NSS crypto
support (Fedora 14 and later), the packages are built with OpenLDAP
instead of the Mozilla L
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said:
>> > But it doesn't make any sense. gnome-panel does *not* require
>> > gnome-shell. We really shouldn't just go around abusing dependencies to
>> > make upgrades 'work', even if it is convenient.
>
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 10:02 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 09:35:27 -0500,
> Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 22:59 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 09:11 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > >
> > > > I've added the dependency to g
Dne 25.1.2011 15:44, Rahul Sundaram napsal(a):
> I think you are missing context there. I read it as frustration from
> someone who works as a full time bug triager for that team rather than a
> serious suggestion. Let's stick to the technical discussions.
Yes, sorry for my sarcasm not being ob
Dne 25.1.2011 11:41, Peter Robinson napsal(a):
> In terms of dependencies for gnome 3 you may be right but for every
> other part of the distribution you are completely wrong, at least on
> this space time continuum. There are quite a number of people fixing
> dependency problems and its attitudes
Does not this discussion belong on [1] were the Red Hat Desktop Team
resides
JBG
1. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
Dne 25.1.2011 11:41, Peter Robinson napsal(a):
> Actually if your speaking for the Red Hat desktop team I agree with
No, I am speaking (as always) just for myself.
Matěj
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
On 01/25/2011 09:31 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
> How so? When we included KDE 4, we didn't leave users on KDE 3 on
> upgrade.
KDE 4 components obsoleted the KDE 3 equivalents. GNOME wants to
provide both GNOME Shell and GNOME Panel for Fedora 15 users. So not
quite the same situation.
> Simil
At this point I would appreciate if people would focus on generating potential
solutions that work well for everyone. Until we find there is no such solution
it's premature to be arguing which compromise we should make. And the
discussion is getting a bit heated worrying about decisions that may no
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:01, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said:
> > > But it doesn't make any sense. gnome-panel does *not* require
> > > gnome-shell. We really shouldn't just go around abusing dependencies to
> > > make upgrades 'work', even if it is convenient.
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 09:35:27 -0500,
Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 22:59 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 09:11 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> >
> > > I've added the dependency to gnome-panel. That should achieve the same
> > > for gnome users on upgr
Ian Pilcher (arequip...@gmail.com) said:
> On 01/25/2011 08:35 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> > Make a better proposal then. Just doing nothing is not an option.
>
> Why not? Please point to the Fedora policy that says this.
What? We need a written policy that states 'a user that has version X
of
Rahul Sundaram (methe...@gmail.com) said:
> > But it doesn't make any sense. gnome-panel does *not* require
> > gnome-shell. We really shouldn't just go around abusing dependencies to
> > make upgrades 'work', even if it is convenient.
>
> I think users upgrading from a previous release can conti
On 01/25/2011 08:35 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> Make a better proposal then. Just doing nothing is not an option.
Why not? Please point to the Fedora policy that says this.
--
Ian Pilcher
On 01/25/2011 08:27 PM, drago01 wrote:
> I though it was obvious that requiring the user to go read the release
> notes to get the expected user experience is just wrong.
I thought It was obvious that adding a dependency from GNOME Panel to
GNOME Shell is just wrong too. It is natural that GNOME
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 08:17 PM, drago01 wrote:
>> It is not indented as alternative to in the way you might think it is
>> just a fallback for older hardware and/or crappy drivers.
>> Hence the name "fallback".
>
> Call it whatever you want. It is
On 01/25/2011 08:17 PM, drago01 wrote:
> It is not indented as alternative to in the way you might think it is
> just a fallback for older hardware and/or crappy drivers.
> Hence the name "fallback".
Call it whatever you want. It is a alternative in the sense that you
cannot run both at the same
On 01/25/2011 08:12 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> I wasn't accusing the desktop team of bringing back perl, I'm well
> aware where the dependency lies (plus net-snmp and others). It was the
> point above the one you cut out where one of the desktop team said "I
> would suggest just to give up. Depend
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 3:37 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 08:03 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote
>> No, it is really required that an upgrade gives you the intended
>> experience of the release you are upgrading to. We are working very hard
>> to make GNOME 3 good, and would like people to a
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 22:59 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 09:11 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>>
>> > I've added the dependency to gnome-panel. That should achieve the same
>> > for gnome users on upgrade, without a
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 10:41 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
>> Actually if your speaking for the Red Hat desktop team I agree with
>> your point because its clear they have an "I'm right Jack, everything
>> for gnome shell attitude so screw
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 13:39 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> I've not ever asked for a "degraded user experience" what I'm asking
> for it not to put dependency hacks to fix a problem that should be
> fixed in some other way. Please don't put this out of context.
I've yet to see a proposal for w
On 01/25/2011 08:03 PM, Matthias Clasen wrote
> No, it is really required that an upgrade gives you the intended
> experience of the release you are upgrading to. We are working very hard
> to make GNOME 3 good, and would like people to actually get whats on the
> label when the upgrade to F15. I d
On 01/25/2011 07:54 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 19:31:51 +0530,
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> That is a gross mischaracterization of people are expecting in this
>> discussion. For one, the fallback mode provides pretty much the same
>> experience as before the upgrade and
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 15:15:55 +0100,
peter_someone wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> just popping in to ask if anyone has been able to boot any of the last
> 3-5 nightly isos?
> Before that you had to drop out of gdm and X startx manually, install
> hal so liveinst would work etc but at least it
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 22:59 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 09:11 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
> > I've added the dependency to gnome-panel. That should achieve the same
> > for gnome users on upgrade, without affecting other spins.
>
> But it doesn't make any sense. gnom
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 16:54 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 12:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 09:11 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> >
> >> I've added the dependency to gnome-panel. That should achieve the same
> >> for gnome users on upgrade, without affecting
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 19:31:51 +0530,
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
> That is a gross mischaracterization of people are expecting in this
> discussion. For one, the fallback mode provides pretty much the same
> experience as before the upgrade and doesn't degrade it. I don't care
I think you wan
On Tue, 2011-01-25 at 10:41 +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Actually if your speaking for the Red Hat desktop team I agree with
> your point because its clear they have an "I'm right Jack, everything
> for gnome shell attitude so screw everyone else" and it seems from my
> point of view that they c
Hey everyone,
just popping in to ask if anyone has been able to boot any of the last
3-5 nightly isos?
Before that you had to drop out of gdm and X startx manually, install
hal so liveinst would work etc but at least it booted. Now I only get
unreadable signs after plymouth nad no reaction what
On 01/25/2011 07:04 PM, drago01 wrote
> No users upgrading should not get a degraded user experience (that is
> what the fallback supposed to be),
> to save a few MB of disk space for some users that care about every
> single MB on their hard drive.
That is a gross mischaracterization of people ar
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM, drago01 wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> On 01/25/2011 12:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 09:11 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
> I've ad
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 1:34 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> On 01/25/2011 12:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 09:11 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>>>
I've added the dependency to gnome-panel. That should achieve the same
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 12:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 09:11 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>>
>>> I've added the dependency to gnome-panel. That should achieve the same
>>> for gnome users on upgrade, without affecting othe
2011/1/25 Rahul Sundaram
> On 01/25/2011 05:51 PM, cornel panceac wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > another thing that can be done is somehow encouraging the creation of
> > delta rpms, especially for big packages (like ooo).
>
> We already do generate deltarpm. There was a bug in the process which
> has b
On 01/25/11 06:59, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 05:04 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> The number of updates in a stable release has been discussed, at
>> length. There was even discussion of implementing a policy for it but
>> it clearly was never done
>
> A policy does exist but says nothin
On 01/25/2011 05:51 PM, cornel panceac wrote:
>
>
>
> another thing that can be done is somehow encouraging the creation of
> delta rpms, especially for big packages (like ooo).
We already do generate deltarpm. There was a bug in the process which
has been fixed.
Rahul
--
test mailing list
2011/1/25 Peter Robinson
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Rahul Sundaram
> wrote:
> > On 01/25/2011 04:11 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >>
> >> this exact reason. Another classic example of this is updates to
> >> openoffice. There have been 10 updates @ 200Mb odd MB each for oo.o
> >> since th
On 01/25/2011 05:04 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> The number of updates in a stable release has been discussed, at
> length. There was even discussion of implementing a policy for it but
> it clearly was never done
A policy does exist but says nothing about bundling bug fixes
http://fedoraproject.o
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 04:11 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>
>> this exact reason. Another classic example of this is updates to
>> openoffice. There have been 10 updates @ 200Mb odd MB each for oo.o
>> since the release of F-14 for such critical bugs
On 01/25/2011 12:29 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 09:11 -0500, Matthias Clasen wrote:
>
>> I've added the dependency to gnome-panel. That should achieve the same
>> for gnome users on upgrade, without affecting other spins.
> But it doesn't make any sense. gnome-panel does *not
On 01/25/2011 04:11 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> this exact reason. Another classic example of this is updates to
> openoffice. There have been 10 updates @ 200Mb odd MB each for oo.o
> since the release of F-14 for such critical bugs as "background isn't
> transparent" [1] surely these could be b
On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 8:34 AM, Matej Cepl wrote:
> Dne 25.1.2011 07:59, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
>> But it doesn't make any sense. gnome-panel does *not* require
>> gnome-shell. We really shouldn't just go around abusing dependencies to
>> make upgrades 'work', even if it is convenient.
>
> I
Dne 25.1.2011 07:59, Adam Williamson napsal(a):
> But it doesn't make any sense. gnome-panel does *not* require
> gnome-shell. We really shouldn't just go around abusing dependencies to
> make upgrades 'work', even if it is convenient.
I would suggest just to give up. Dependencies in RPM packages
On Mon, 2011-01-24 at 23:05 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-01-21 at 19:02 +, Samuel Greenfeld wrote:
>
> > > I do like litmus! It's a nice evolution from testopia for
> > upstream
> > > mozilla. We don't currently have an 'unclear' test result.
> >
63 matches
Mail list logo
