fedora 8 could be first
by Andy Shevchenko
Hi!
In the koji/bodhi web interface the Fedora 7 is default parameter for 'New
update' form. Please, set it to Fedora 8. Thanks.
--
With best regards,
Andy Shevchenko. mailto: andy(a)smile.org.ua
16 years, 5 months
fedora 8 torrents
by Valent Turkovic
I have already seeded 5GB of Fedora 8 DVD, my download is only 20% complete.
My upload is limited at 8Mbits/s but only 2-3 are currently used...
come on people, what are you waiting for :)
ps. when will be fedora 8 gnome live cd available? And the home page
is still showing 1 day till fedora 8, isn't today the date?
ps. I'm in Europe and here is 3PM allready. I hoped that by 10AM
fedora will be officially out - but I guess that was the case with
openSUSE so I mixed the time zones...
Valent.
--
http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/
linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless
registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org.
ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic
16 years, 5 months
F9 Feature Process
by John Poelstra
After FESCo discusses and votes on the new development process proposed by Jesse Keating at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/DevelopmentChangesProposal tomorrow I would start a new discussion culminating in a vote by FESCo one week from now (November 8) as to how we want the Feature process to work for Fedora 9.
I gave some initial thoughts are here: http://poelcat.wordpress.com/2007/10/16/fedora-8-feature-retrospective/
Overall I believe we can roll most of the process forward for F9, however a few tweaks and clarifications to the process will help things run smoother and make my job easier because then I can help guide the process in a way that is consistent with what everyone wants and agrees to.
The current policy is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy
To start the discussion, I have listed the specific issues I think need to be addressed. Other input and opinions are welcome too! I think this threads the conversation better and keeps all the information in one place.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/F9PolicyReview.
Thanks,
John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Quick Overview if you don't want to visit the wiki ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are some of the big issues from my perspectiveones:
1) What is a FEATURE and how should the policy be clarified http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy#definition
-considering that anyone can commit new code and packages to Fedora what is unique about a feature?
-it is waste of everyone's time to have someone create a feature page and then for FESCo to say "denied--that isn't a feature"
2) Do we have common agreement on the purpose of creating a feature page?
-marketing?
-testing?
-release notes?
-other?
-all of the above?
3) What if someone creates a nice enhancement to Fedora that is new in the upcoming release but no feature page is created for it? For example, system-config-firewall in F8.
To someone not familiar with Fedora wouldn't they expect http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/FeatureList and http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/8/ReleaseSummary to contain the same information or for there to only be one page? The ReleaseSummary page is really good by the way!
4) How do we (realistically) encourage people to keep their feature pages up to date? It was a pain to keep hounding people to keep the status of their pages up to date--very few people kept them updated every 2 weeks. Considering how short our release cycle is I don't think we can go much longer than that.
5) What does "Feature Freeze" really mean?
--Do we want to be more disciplined? If we aren't feature frozen are we willing to move the end of the schedule to allow adequate testing time?
--What is the point of having a milestone that we don't really follow?
6) What if a feature is not ''complete'' at Feature Freeze?
-How do we decide to drop it versus give it more time?
7) How do we define a feature as ''complete''?
16 years, 5 months
Ownership gnome-themes-extras
by Marc Wiriadisastra
I would like to claim ownership of gnome-themes-extras it has been
updated to version 2.20.
Does anyone have any objections?
Also is the recommendation to break down the packages into smaller
packages or would the gnome-themes-extras be able to be included as one
big package?
Cheers,
Marc
16 years, 5 months
smolt server problem?
by Mike C
Does anyone know if there is a current server problem for smolt?
I posted some experiences in Fedora list, finally resulting in
"I wonder if this is related to the issue I am seeing:
On trying to simply view my profile I get in the browser:
Proxy Error
The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server.
The proxy server could not handle the request GET /show.
Reason: Error reading from remote server
This comes from the server listed at the bottom of the web page
Apache/2.2.3 (Red Hat) Server at smolt.fedoraproject.org Port 80
So it seems that the problems appear to be within the smolt server."
I have copied this from:
http://marc.info/?l=fedora-list&m=119443732001288&w=2
and see related thread.
16 years, 5 months
Special Thanks
by Andy Lawrence
To all of you that go above and beyond. I read countless emails
supporting and helping the development cycle at all hours. The team
from RedHat that is constantly helping, including weekend nights, you
guys know who you are! A special thanks to all of you.
F8 is better than ever, something to be proud of, I can't wait too see
what F9 brings!
Andy
--
16 years, 5 months
rawhide report: 20071108 changes
by Build System
Updated Packages:
(none)
Broken deps for i386
----------------------------------------------------------
kmod-sysprof - 1.0.8-1.2.6.23_0.142.rc3.git10.fc8.i686 requires kernel-i686 = 0:2.6.23-0.142.rc3.git10.fc8
kmod-sysprof-PAE - 1.0.8-1.2.6.23_0.142.rc3.git10.fc8.i686 requires kernel-i686 = 0:2.6.23-0.142.rc3.git10.fc8PAE
Broken deps for x86_64
----------------------------------------------------------
kmod-sysprof - 1.0.8-1.2.6.23_0.142.rc3.git10.fc8.x86_64 requires kernel-x86_64 = 0:2.6.23-0.142.rc3.git10.fc8
16 years, 5 months
