rawhide report: 20040128 changes

[Build System]

New package libxklavier
    library providing high-level API for X Keyboard Extension

New package udev
    A userspace implementation of devfs

Removed package abiword

Updated Packages:

busybox-1.00.pre5-2
-------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Dan Walsh  1.00-pre5.2

- Fix is_selinux_enabled calls

control-center-2.5.2-1
----------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Alexander Larsson  1:2.5.2-1

- update to 2.5.2

eel2-2.5.5-1
------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Alexander Larsson  2.5.5-1

- update to 2.5.5

evolution-1.5.3-1
-----------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jeremy Katz  1.5.3-1

- 1.5.3

evolution-data-server-0.0.6-1
-----------------------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Jeremy Katz  - 0.0.6-1

- 0.0.6

exim-4.30-5
-----------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Thomas Woerner  4.30-5

- /usr/lib/sendmail is in alternatives, now
- /etc/alises is now in setup: new Requires for setup >= 2.5.31-1

fedora-release-1.90-5
---------------------

findutils-4.1.7-20
------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Dan Walsh  4.1.7-20

- fix call to is_selinux_enabled

* Thu Oct 30 2003 Dan Walsh  4.1.7-19

- Turn off SELinux

firstboot-1.3.3-3
-----------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Tim Powers  1.3.3-3

- fedora-logos -> redhat-logos since redhat-logos is a virtual
  provides (used so that we can switch out redhat-logos with
  fedora-logos easily). Will change to system-logos once the changes
  have been made.

fonts-arabic-1.5-1
------------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Owen Taylor  1.5-1

- Version 1.5

gail-1.5.3-1
------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Alexander Larsson  1.5.3-1

- update to 1.5.3

gcc-ssa-3.5ssa-0.20040120.110
-----------------------------
* Thu Jan 22 2004 Brian Booth  0.20040120.110

- Add c++ include files to the proper directory.

glibc-2.3.3-7
-------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jakub Jelinek  2.3.3-7

- update from CVS
  - dl_iterate_phdr extension to signal number of added/removed
    libraries
- fix PT_GNU_RELRO support on ppc* with prelinking

gnome-applets-2.5.4-1
---------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Alexander Larsson  1:2.5.4-1

- update to 2.5.4

gnome-games-2.5.5-1
-------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jonathan Blandford  1:2.5.5-1

- new version

gnome-panel-2.5.3.1-2
---------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Alexander Larsson  2.5.3.1-2

- Add evolution-data-server dependency and rebuild

gnome-system-monitor-2.5.2-1
----------------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Alexander Larsson  2.5.2-1

- update to 2.5.2

gnome-themes-2.5.3-1
--------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jonathan Blandford  2.5.3-1

- new version
- new version

gpdf-0.122-2
------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jonathan Blandford  0.122-1

- new version

gtkhtml2-2.5.2-1
----------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jonathan Blandford  2.5.2-1

- new version

gtkhtml3-3.1.7-1
----------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jeremy Katz  - 3.1.7-1

- 3.1.7

httpd-2.0.48-10
---------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Joe Orton  2.0.48-10

- update to ab from HEAD
- remove dbmmanage man page (part of #114080)
- mod_ssl: fix streaming nph- CGI scripts over SSL
- mod_autoindex: fixes from 2.0 branch (André Malo)
- add NameVirtualHost vs mod_ssl warning to httpd.conf (#114315)
- mod_proxy: HTTP/1.1-compliance fixes from HEAD

* Tue Jan 20 2004 Joe Orton  2.0.48-9

- use a large BSS in the test PIE executable to trigger bugs early
- tighten check on CPP output in MMN check (#113934)

* Mon Jan 19 2004 Joe Orton  2.0.48-8

- add man page fixes
- mod_include: use parser rewrite+fixes from 2.0 branch (André Malo et al)
- mod_ssl: add distcache support (Geoff Thorpe)
- mod_ssl: SSL variable handling fixes for non-SSL connections (various)
- allow linking modules against specific libraries found during configure

kernel-2.6.1-1.61
-----------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Dave Jones

- Update to 2.6.2-rc2-bk1
- Set default CPUFREQ governor to userspace instead of performance.

* Mon Jan 26 2004 Dave Jones

- Update to 2.6.2-rc2

* Sun Jan 25 2004 Dave Jones

- Update to 2.6.2-rc1-bk2
- Randomization of ld.so base for PIEs

koffice-1.3-2
-------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Tim Powers  4:1.3-2

- rebuild to pick up new ImageMagick deps

* Mon Jan 19 2004 Than Ngo  4:1.3-1

- 1.3 release

libIDL-0.8.3-1
--------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Alexander Larsson  0.8.3-1

- update to 0.8.3

libcap-1.10-17
--------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Karsten Hopp  1.10-17

- use _manpath

* Wed Jun 04 2003 Elliot Lee

- rebuilt

* Wed Jan 22 2003 Tim Powers

- rebuilt

libcroco-0.4.0-1
----------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jonathan Blandford  0.4.0-1

- new version

libgal2-2.1.4-1
---------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Jeremy Katz  2:2.1.4-1

- 2.1.4
- buildrequires intltool (for perl-XML-Parser)

librsvg2-2.5.0-1
----------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jonathan Blandford  2.4.0-3

- update version
- Buildrequire libcroco

libsoup-2.1.5-1
---------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Jeremy Katz  2.1.5-1

- 2.1.5

libuser-0.51.7-7
----------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Dan Walsh  0.51.7-7

- fix is_selinux_enabled call

libxfce4mcs-4.0.3-2
-------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Than Ngo  4.0.3-2

- fixed dependant libraries check on x86_64

libxfce4util-4.0.3-2
--------------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Than Ngo  4.0.3-2

- fixed dependant libraries check on x86_64

libxfcegui4-4.0.3-2
-------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Than Ngo  4.0.3-2

- fixed dependant libraries check on x86_64

logrotate-3.7-4
---------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Dan Walsh  3.6.10-4

- fix is_selinux_enabled call

* Fri Sep 05 2003 Dan Walsh  3.6.10-3

- Turn off selinux

nautilus-2.5.5-1
----------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Alexander Larsson  2.5.5-1

- update to 2.5.5

nautilus-cd-burner-0.6.3-2
--------------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jonathan Blandford  0.6.3-2

- update file list

* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jonathan Blandford  0.6.3-1

- new version

openssh-3.6.1p2-27
------------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Daniel Walsh  3.6.1p2-27

- turn off pie on ppc

* Mon Jan 26 2004 Daniel Walsh  3.6.1p2-26

- fix is_selinux_enabled

pam-0.77-26
-----------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Dan Walsh  0.77-26

- fix is_selinux_enabled call

passwd-0.68-7
-------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Dan Walsh  0.68-7

- fix is_selinux_enabled

* Fri Sep 05 2003 Dan Walsh  0.68-6

- turn off selinux

perl-XML-Parser-2.31-17
-----------------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Jeremy Katz  2.31-17

- more rebuilding

* Mon Jan 19 2004 Chip Turner  2.31-16

- rebuild for newer perl

* Mon Jan 27 2003 Chip Turner

- version bump and rebuild

policy-1.4.10-2
---------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jeremy Katz  - 1.4.10-2

- don't try to label /sys

* Mon Jan 26 2004 Dan Walsh  1.4.10-1

- New policy from Russell

prelink-0.3.0-19
----------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jakub Jelinek  0.3.0-19

- refuse to prelink objects whose dependencies as reported by
  ldd don't include all dependencies transitively (this can
  happen when using RPATH and a shared library with the same
  SONAME exists both in that RPATH and either another RPATH
  or standard library directories)
- add testcase for this
- rework .dynsym/.symtab STT_SECTION translation, so that it works
  with binutils which put only sections not generated by the linker
  into .dynsym for shared libraries
- fix make check, so that it is not confused by 2.6.x kernel
  VDSOs

psmisc-21.3-7
-------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Dan Walsh  21.3-7

- fix is_selinux_enabled call

* Fri Sep 05 2003 Dan Walsh  21.3-6.sel

- turn on selinux
- Hack to fix build problem on Fedora core

* Fri Sep 05 2003 Dan Walsh  21.3-6

- turn off selinux

quota-3.10-1
------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Florian La Roche

- add -pie support
- update to 3.10

* Sat Aug 16 2003 Steve Dickson

- upgraded to 3.0.9
- added quota-3.09-root_sbindir.patch

rpm-4.3-0.9.1
-------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Jeremy Katz  - 4.3-0.9.1

- add patch to setup selinux contexts from python

* Mon Jan 19 2004 Jeff Johnson  4.2-0.9

- python: return None for NEVRAO, [] for everything else.

* Mon Jan 12 2004 Jeff Johnson  4.3-0.7

- fix: handle files w/o contexts correctly.

rpmdb-fedora-1.90-0.20040128
----------------------------

sendmail-8.12.11-1.4
--------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Thomas Woerner  8.2.11-1.4

- disabled ppc and ppc64 build, for now

* Mon Jan 26 2004 Thomas Woerner  8.2.11-1.3

- removed /etc/aliases (now in setup)

sudo-1.6.7p5-15
---------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Karsten Hopp  1.6.7p5-15

- visudo requires vim-minimal or setting EDITOR to something useful (#68605)

system-config-soundcard-1.2.1-1
-------------------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Brent Fox  1.2.1-1

- patch from Spot to support 2.6 kernel for FC2

util-linux-2.12pre-3
--------------------
* Mon Jan 26 2004 Elliot Lee  2.12pre-3

- Provides: mount losetup

xfce-mcs-manager-4.0.3-2
------------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Than Ngo  4.0.3-2

- fixed dependant libraries check on x86_64

xfce-mcs-plugins-4.0.3-2
------------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Than Ngo  4.0.3-2

- fixed dependant libraries check on x86_64

xfce-utils-4.0.3-2
------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Than Ngo  4.0.3-2

- fixed dependant libraries check on x86_64

xfce4-panel-4.0.3-2
-------------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Than Ngo  4.0.3-2

- fixed dependant libraries check on x86_64

xfdesktop-4.0.3-2
-----------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Than Ngo  4.0.3-2

- fixed dependant libraries check on x86_64

xffm-4.0.3-2
------------
* Tue Jan 27 2004 Than Ngo  4.0.3-2

- fixed dependant libraries check on x86_64

* Wed Jan 14 2004 Than Ngo  4.0.3-1

- update 4.0.3

* Thu Dec 25 2003 Than Ngo  4.0.2-1

- 4.0.2 release

[Guy Streeter]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 11:32 -0500, Build System wrote:
...
> libcroco-0.4.0-1
> Tue Jan 27 2004 Jonathan Blandford  0.4.0-1
> new version

gdm and nautilus still want the old one.

--Guy

[Chris Ricker]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Build System wrote:
> exim-4.30-5
> Tue Jan 27 2004 Thomas Woerner  4.30-5
> /usr/lib/sendmail is in alternatives, now
> /etc/alises is now in setup: new Requires for setup >= 2.5.31-1

How is this moving of aliases to setup being handled for postfix, since 
postfix needs a different default aliases than sendmail / exim?

later,
chris

[Florian La Roche]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 11:49:52AM -0500, Chris Ricker wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Build System wrote:
> > exim-4.30-5
> > Tue Jan 27 2004 Thomas Woerner  4.30-5
> > /usr/lib/sendmail is in alternatives, now
> > /etc/alises is now in setup: new Requires for setup >= 2.5.31-1
>
> How is this moving of aliases to setup being handled for postfix, since 
> postfix needs a different default aliases than sendmail / exim?

Is it a requirement that postfix uses its own aliases file or
could that be changed?

greetings,

Florian La Roche

[Kaj J. Niemi]

> Is it a requirement that postfix uses its own aliases file or could
> that be changed?

Postfix accepts a sendmail style alias file and should be bugwards compatible
with sendmail :) The only thing it won't do is to deliver to the root user
so an alias for root to a human account needs to be setup.

// kaj

[Chris Ricker]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Florian La Roche wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 11:49:52AM -0500, Chris Ricker wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Build System wrote:
> > > exim-4.30-5
> > > Tue Jan 27 2004 Thomas Woerner  4.30-5
> > > /usr/lib/sendmail is in alternatives, now
> > > /etc/alises is now in setup: new Requires for setup >= 2.5.31-1
> >
> > How is this moving of aliases to setup being handled for postfix, since 
> > postfix needs a different default aliases than sendmail / exim?
>
> Is it a requirement that postfix uses its own aliases file or
> could that be changed?

The big functional difference is that postfix requires root be aliased (to
user postfix by default, since it's not know a priori what user accounts
will be created) since postfix LDA doesn't run as root and therefore can't
deliver to root

If you consolidate, you'll have to alias root for all MTAs (not that I think 
that's bad, but...)

later,
chris

[Karl DeBisschop]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 11:32, Build System wrote:
> Removed package abiword

Is this going away for good? I hope not. I find I much prefer
abiword/gnumeric to openoffice.

Just my $0.02 worth.

[Tyler Larson]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 09:52, Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 11:32, Build System wrote:
> > Removed package abiword
>
> Is this going away for good? I hope not. I find I much prefer
> abiword/gnumeric to openoffice.

Agreed. There's certainly something to be said for keeping around office
applications that actually use GTK and that don't require a mandatory
coffee break while you launch the app. I don't even install openoffice
anymore.

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 18:28, Tyler larson wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 09:52, Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 11:32, Build System wrote:
> > > Removed package abiword
> >
> > Is this going away for good? I hope not. I find I much prefer
> > abiword/gnumeric to openoffice.
>
> Agreed. There's certainly something to be said for keeping around office
> applications that actually use GTK and that don't require a mandatory
> coffee break while you launch the app. I don't even install openoffice
> anymore.

It's a real pity to see a main package from GNOME Office banned from
Core.

I hope this is only some temporary issue.

Rui

[Dan Williams]

You did know that 1.1 starts up in under 10 seconds on a moderately fast
machine, right?  There's also a "pagein" module that, after the first
launch, takes much less time.  That said, theres still work to do in
this area for OOo of course.

Dan

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 13:28, Tyler larson wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 09:52, Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 11:32, Build System wrote:
> > > Removed package abiword
> >
> > Is this going away for good? I hope not. I find I much prefer
> > abiword/gnumeric to openoffice.
>
> Agreed. There's certainly something to be said for keeping around office
> applications that actually use GTK and that don't require a mandatory
> coffee break while you launch the app. I don't even install openoffice
> anymore.

[Alan Cox]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 02:55:57PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> You did know that 1.1 starts up in under 10 seconds on a moderately fast
> machine, right?  There's also a "pagein" module that, after the first
> launch, takes much less time.  That said, theres still work to do in
> this area for OOo of course.

Can I edit two documents at the same time fast on a 40Mbyte pentium 133 ?

OOo is getting better, and its always going to be bigger than less featured
but more effective tools, but until it is snappy on a pentium 133 the
apps like gnumeric and abiword have a definite unique selling point 8)

[Stephen Smoogen]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 13:02, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 02:55:57PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> > You did know that 1.1 starts up in under 10 seconds on a moderately fast
> > machine, right?  There's also a "pagein" module that, after the first
> > launch, takes much less time.  That said, theres still work to do in
> > this area for OOo of course.
>
> Can I edit two documents at the same time fast on a 40Mbyte pentium 133 ?
>
> OOo is getting better, and its always going to be bigger than less featured
> but more effective tools, but until it is snappy on a pentium 133 the
> apps like gnumeric and abiword have a definite unique selling point 8)

I think by the time it is snappy on a PI-133, they will be in the same
closet as the Atari's and such are today. At the moment, you cant
directly install onto that machine (40MB PI-133) with Fedora so it is
sort of a moot point.

Now K12LTSP you can do.. and that is where it is important... but I dont
know if Fedora core is aimed there. Of course, I am not sure I know
where Fedora Core is aimed so.. I am moot.

[Julien Olivier]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:55, Dan Williams wrote:
> You did know that 1.1 starts up in under 10 seconds on a moderately fast
> machine, right?

On a Fujitsu/Siemens Amilo D laptop with 256 MB of RAM and a P4 2GHZ
processor running Fedora Core 1, OpenOffice 1.1 takes 67 seconds to
start on the first time and 33 seconds the second time (after having
closed it). If you want more information about my hardware, just ask.
> There's also a "pagein" module that, after the first
> launch, takes much less time.  That said, theres still work to do in
> this area for OOo of course.

I wouldn't like to sound like I'm just complaining. I'm not. But you
just can't say that OOO takes less than 10 seconds to start now. It's
just not right on some pretty recent hardware, for some unknown reason.

However, Abiword, on the same computer, takes less than 5 seconds to
start.

[Marc Deslauriers]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 18:11, Julien Olivier wrote:
> On a Fujitsu/Siemens Amilo D laptop with 256 MB of RAM and a P4 2GHZ
> processor running Fedora Core 1, OpenOffice 1.1 takes 67 seconds to
> start on the first time and 33 seconds the second time (after having
> closed it). If you want more information about my hardware, just ask.

Wow...that is _slow_...are you sure there's nothing wrong with your
laptop?

Here on my Compaq Celeron 1.4Ghz with 256 Mb of ram, it takes about 6
seconds to start the first time and about 3 seconds the second time.

Marc.

[Stephen Smoogen]

The usual reason I have seen slowdowns on Laptops is due to slow IDE
drives. My systems (all less than 1 GHZ, all less than 385 MB) see
similar numbers of 10-15 seconds on first and less on the second.

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 18:35, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 18:11, Julien Olivier wrote:
> > On a Fujitsu/Siemens Amilo D laptop with 256 MB of RAM and a P4 2GHZ
> > processor running Fedora Core 1, OpenOffice 1.1 takes 67 seconds to
> > start on the first time and 33 seconds the second time (after having
> > closed it). If you want more information about my hardware, just ask.
>
> Wow...that is _slow_...are you sure there's nothing wrong with your
> laptop?
>
> Here on my Compaq Celeron 1.4Ghz with 256 Mb of ram, it takes about 6
> seconds to start the first time and about 3 seconds the second time.
>
> Marc.

[Tim Daly]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 18:11, Julien Olivier wrote:
> On a Fujitsu/Siemens Amilo D laptop with 256 MB of RAM and a P4 2GHZ
> processor running Fedora Core 1, OpenOffice 1.1 takes 67 seconds to
> start on the first time and 33 seconds the second time (after having
> closed it). If you want more information about my hardware, just ask.

You might try running hdparms to see if you are getting a reasonable
transfer rate on your disk. I have a Dell Inspiron and it initially
had a slow disk tranfer rate. An hdparms investigate got me a factor
of 10 speedup on disk transfer rates.

Tim Daly
[e-mail]

[Lamont R. Peterson]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 16:11, Julien Olivier wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:55, Dan Williams wrote:
> > You did know that 1.1 starts up in under 10 seconds on a moderately fast
> > machine, right?
>
> On a Fujitsu/Siemens Amilo D laptop with 256 MB of RAM and a P4 2GHZ
> processor running Fedora Core 1, OpenOffice 1.1 takes 67 seconds to
> start on the first time and 33 seconds the second time (after having
> closed it). If you want more information about my hardware, just ask.

I just tried it on this laptop (HP 1.2GHz Athlon-XP w/256GB RAM).  It
took just under 15 seconds for the first load and less than 7 for the
second.

I have noticed that there are plenty of programs which run much more
slowly on P4 systems that I use then on other i686 class machines.  If I
were to guess as to a cause of this, I would pick the "out-of-order"
execution optimizations (among all the other "special" things) that have
not been done specifically for Pentium 4 CPUs for the the i386 packages
that are installed.

Anyway, just a concept.
[SNIP]

[Jeremy Katz]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 11:52 -0500, Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 11:32, Build System wrote:
> > Removed package abiword
>
> Is this going away for good? I hope not. I find I much prefer
> abiword/gnumeric to openoffice.

I'm not planning on it, but it was depending on the old libcroco and
doesn't rebuild against GTK+ 2.3 without some work first.  And fixing
some anaconda/SELinux stuff has a higher priority for me at the
moment :/

Cheers,

Jeremy

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 18:39, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 11:52 -0500, Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 11:32, Build System wrote:
> > > Removed package abiword
> >
> > Is this going away for good? I hope not. I find I much prefer
> > abiword/gnumeric to openoffice.
>
> I'm not planning on it, but it was depending on the old libcroco and
> doesn't rebuild against GTK+ 2.3 without some work first.  And fixing
> some anaconda/SELinux stuff has a higher priority for me at the
> moment :/

libcroco? What kind of drugs are you people sniffing? :)

[rms@roque rms]$ rpm -q abiword --requires | grep -i cro
[rms@roque rms]$

and it's a CVS build (although not very recent).

Rui

[seth vidal]

> libcroco? What kind of drugs are you people sniffing? :)
> [rms@roque rms]$ rpm -q abiword --requires | grep -i cro
> [rms@roque rms]$
>
> and it's a CVS build (although not very recent).

I think you're on  the special drugs.

downloading abiword from devel tree shows:

libcroco.so.1

try to do some research before posting, thanks.

-sv

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 18:49, seth vidal wrote:
> > libcroco? What kind of drugs are you people sniffing? :)
> > and it's a CVS build (although not very recent).
>
> I think you're on  the special drugs.
> downloading abiword from devel tree shows:
> libcroco.so.1

Ah, then remove whatever you added that creates a libcroco.so.1
dependency instead of AbiWord, please, since that is where the problem
is.

None of the RPMS I officially build (and I've been building them for a
while) ever depended on such a library.
> try to do some research before posting, thanks.

Sorry, but ditto. :)

Rui

[seth vidal]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 14:04, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 18:49, seth vidal wrote:
> > > libcroco? What kind of drugs are you people sniffing? :)
> > > and it's a CVS build (although not very recent).
> >
> > I think you're on  the special drugs.
> > downloading abiword from devel tree shows:
> > libcroco.so.1
>
> Ah, then remove whatever you added that creates a libcroco.so.1
> dependency instead of AbiWord, please, since that is where the problem
> is.

so just to be sure -rather than fix anaconda and get the entire system
installable jeremy should hold everything and sift through dependencies
on abiword?

riiiiiiiiiiiight.

-sv

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:09, seth vidal wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 14:04, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > Ah, then remove whatever you added that creates a libcroco.so.1
> > dependency instead of AbiWord, please, since that is where the problem
> > is.
>
> so just to be sure -rather than fix anaconda and get the entire system
> installable jeremy should hold everything and sift through dependencies
> on abiword?
>
> riiiiiiiiiiiight.

You're being excessively aggressive for someone who seems to know little
of AbiWord.

That's not a standard dependency AFAICT.

Rui

[seth vidal]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 14:15, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:09, seth vidal wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 14:04, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > > Ah, then remove whatever you added that creates a libcroco.so.1
> > > dependency instead of AbiWord, please, since that is where the problem
> > > is.
> >
> > so just to be sure -rather than fix anaconda and get the entire system
> > installable jeremy should hold everything and sift through dependencies
> > on abiword?
> >
> > riiiiiiiiiiiight.
>
> You're being excessively aggressive for someone who seems to know little
> of AbiWord.

I never claimed to know anything about abiword. I just claimed to check
the dependencies of the package in fedora devel tree and I claimed to
have some knowledge of priorities.

anaconda is higher on the priority list than abiword.
> That's not a standard dependency AFAICT.

and yet it IS a dependency in the build in the fedora devel tree.

-sv

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:21, seth vidal wrote:
> > That's not a standard dependency AFAICT.
>
> and yet it IS a dependency in the build in the fedora devel tree.

Well, it could be no more of a problem than the rest of GNOME, then.

Quote from Dom at abiword-dev:

<<
libcroco is a CSS/CSS2 parsing library. AbiWord does
not depend upon it. LibRSVG *optionally* depends upon
it. One of AbiWord's *optional* plugins depends on
RSVG. Theoretically this would affect *all* of the
Gnome platform and not just AbiWord, since all of
Gnome *requires* librsvg.
> >

Besides that, there was a reference to gtk+ 2.3 which, is his knowledge,
can be used with AbiWord.

I can understand if this removal was something temporary in order to fix
something more important like anaconda, but I hope this lasts only until
it is fixed.

I really can't look into it to find out why that is happening with FC's
package of AbiWord but that is NOT NORMAL, most definitely.

Rui

[Jeremy Katz]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 14:29, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> Besides that, there was a reference to gtk+ 2.3 which, is his knowledge,
> can be used with AbiWord.

Abiword sucked in gtk_combo_box from GAL without changing the name. 
GTK+ 2.3.x contains an actual gtk_combo_box with a different API.  This
is why arbitrary third party widgets should *NEVER* be in the gtk_
namespace.

I started working on fixing this last night and didn't have a chance to
finish it.
> I can understand if this removal was something temporary in order to fix
> something more important like anaconda, but I hope this lasts only until
> it is fixed.

That's the plan.  But with finite time and freezes, I have to have a
priority queue.  Which right now meant that the best solution for the
short-term was to drop the abiword package and keep working on it as I
have spare cycles.
> I really can't look into it to find out why that is happening with FC's
> package of AbiWord but that is NOT NORMAL, most definitely.

I wouldn't say "NOT NORMAL" since the configure check in abiword-plugins
finds librsvg2 and uses it when it can.

Cheers,

Jeremy

[John Thacker]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 05:54:33PM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> Abiword sucked in gtk_combo_box from GAL without changing the name. 
> GTK+ 2.3.x contains an actual gtk_combo_box with a different API.  This
> is why arbitrary third party widgets should *NEVER* be in the gtk_
> namespace.
>
> I started working on fixing this last night and didn't have a chance to
> finish it.

Fair enough.  Are you using the newly-released abiword-2.0.3 version?
The release notes specifically mention building with gtk-2.3.x there,
and replacing some deprecated gtk functions.

http://www.abisource.com/changelogs/2.0.3.phtml

Of course, if you do that, upgrading to libwpd 0.7.0 would also be
nice, with additional support for WordPerfect(tm) 4.2 and 5.x documents,
since 2.0.3 supports libwpd 0.7.0

http://libwpd.sourceforge.net/

While we're mentioning abiword and gnumeric together, it would be
nice to update gnumeric from 1.2.1 to 1.2.5 or thereabouts.  Especially
since those releases fix some xls and Oo import and export bugs.

John Thacker

[Mike A. Harris]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, seth vidal wrote:
> > You're being excessively aggressive for someone who seems to know little
> > of AbiWord.
>
> I never claimed to know anything about abiword. I just claimed to check
> the dependencies of the package in fedora devel tree and I claimed to
> have some knowledge of priorities.
>
> anaconda is higher on the priority list than abiword.

Indeed, and since this is a community list where volunteers are 
encouraged to contribute, people are always of course encouraged 
to vote with unified diffs attached to bugzilla reports also.

That can have a dramatic effect on a bug's priority.  ;o)

[Jeremy Katz]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 14:04, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 18:49, seth vidal wrote:
> > > libcroco? What kind of drugs are you people sniffing? :)
> > > and it's a CVS build (although not very recent).
> >
> > I think you're on  the special drugs.
> > downloading abiword from devel tree shows:
> > libcroco.so.1
>
> Ah, then remove whatever you added that creates a libcroco.so.1
> dependency instead of AbiWord, please, since that is where the problem
> is.
>
> None of the RPMS I officially build (and I've been building them for a
> while) ever depended on such a library.

Then your RPMS don't have svg support.  libcroco is depended on by
librsvg which is used by one of the plugins.

Cheers,

Jeremy

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 22:49, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> Then your RPMS don't have svg support.  libcroco is depended on by
> librsvg which is used by one of the plugins.

No, we separate plugin packages, impexp has the libcroco dependency
because of librsvg.

But as said, if that was a problem, then it should be a problem for the
rest of GNOME too.

Rui

[Jeremy Katz]

On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 09:39 +0000, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 22:49, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > Then your RPMS don't have svg support.  libcroco is depended on by
> > librsvg which is used by one of the plugins.
>
> No, we separate plugin packages, impexp has the libcroco dependency
> because of librsvg.

Which leads to an increase in package bloat.  But that's another
argument for another day.
> But as said, if that was a problem, then it should be a problem for the
> rest of GNOME too.

There aren't that many things that use librsvg to be perfectly honest,
and most of them have versions being targeted for GNOME 2.6 and so were
being rebuilt at the same time anyway.

Cheers,

Jeremy

[Karl DeBisschop]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 13:39, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 11:52 -0500, Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 11:32, Build System wrote:
> > > Removed package abiword
> >
> > Is this going away for good? I hope not. I find I much prefer
> > abiword/gnumeric to openoffice.
>
> I'm not planning on it, but it was depending on the old libcroco and
> doesn't rebuild against GTK+ 2.3 without some work first.  And fixing
> some anaconda/SELinux stuff has a higher priority for me at the
> moment :/

Thanks - that makes me feel better. I certainly understand
prioritization, but I also didn't want anybody to think it would not be
missed.

[Jeremy Katz]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 13:48, Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 13:39, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > I'm not planning on it, but it was depending on the old libcroco and
> > doesn't rebuild against GTK+ 2.3 without some work first.  And fixing
> > some anaconda/SELinux stuff has a higher priority for me at the
> > moment :/
>
> Thanks - that makes me feel better. I certainly understand
> prioritization, but I also didn't want anybody to think it would not be
> missed.

Trust me, I have no such misconception.  The hordes of people that jump
on my back on mailing lists and bugzilla every time compilation problems
make me have to temporarily deprecate it show otherwise (since this
isn't the first time I've had to do so).

Cheers,

Jeremy

[Warren Togami]

Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 11:32, Build System wrote:
> > Removed package abiword
>
> Is this going away for good? I hope not. I find I much prefer
> abiword/gnumeric to openoffice.
>
> Just my $0.02 worth.

IMHO, abiword really belongs in Extras.

Warren

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:26, Warren Togami wrote:
> IMHO, abiword really belongs in Extras.

Then IYHO, so does the rest of GNOME Office, KOffice et all, by
extension?

:)

[Julien Olivier]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:30, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:26, Warren Togami wrote:
> > IMHO, abiword really belongs in Extras.
>
> Then IYHO, so does the rest of GNOME Office, KOffice et all, by
> extension?
>
> :)

I think the smiley isn't necessary. Fedora Core should only contain 1
app for each task IMO (the one that is selected by default). All the
rest should be in extras. And that includes KDE for example.

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:43, Julien Olivier wrote:
> I think the smiley isn't necessary. Fedora Core should only contain 1
> app for each task IMO (the one that is selected by default). All the
> rest should be in extras. And that includes KDE for example.

Well, that kind of reasoning would drive a large part of the community
away from Fedora.

Rui

[Xose Vazquez Perez]

Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> Well, that kind of reasoning would drive a large part of the community
> away from Fedora.

_Extras and Alternatives_ also are FEDORA.

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:57, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > Well, that kind of reasoning would drive a large part of the community
> > away from Fedora.
>
> _Extras and Alternatives_ also are FEDORA.

But complete vaporware ATM, and likely not part of the iso images.

If you look at the cringing of people who have to download X package...

Rui

[Warren Togami]

Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:57, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
> > Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > > Well, that kind of reasoning would drive a large part of the community
> > > away from Fedora.
> >
> > _Extras and Alternatives_ also are FEDORA.
>
> But complete vaporware ATM, and likely not part of the iso images.
>
> If you look at the cringing of people who have to download X package...
>
> Rui

vaporware for those who choose to ignore it.

fedora.us IS EXTRAS, and it is already a given that those packages will 
be moved to Fedora Extras at fedora.redhat.com when the time comes.

Warren

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 20:18, Warren Togami wrote:
> Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > > _Extras and Alternatives_ also are FEDORA.
> >
> > But complete vaporware ATM, and likely not part of the iso images.
>
> vaporware for those who choose to ignore it.

It is not ignored, just not very clear, and each time less clearer.
Besides there's also the other half of the phrase...
> fedora.us IS EXTRAS, and it is already a given that those packages will 
> be moved to Fedora Extras at fedora.redhat.com when the time comes.

hmms... what mlist?

Rui

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jan 28, 2004, Warren Togami  wrote:
> fedora.us IS EXTRAS, and it is already a given that those packages
> will be moved to Fedora Extras at fedora.redhat.com when the time
> comes.

Won't this mean that (i) such packages will only show up weeks after
the ISOs of the main project are available, and (ii) you won't be able
to install them from CDs, without having to download the same packages
over and over for installation in a collection of machines, or for
CD burning in a network-connected location followed by installation in
a disconnected location?

Not everybody is on-line all the time.  I think if we're to move
important packages to Fedora Extras, Fedora Extras releases should be
coordinated with Fedora Core, and should be available as ISOs that,
ideally, anaconda and/or system-config-packages could use.

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 20:52, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> Not everybody is on-line all the time.  I think if we're to move
> important packages to Fedora Extras, Fedora Extras releases should be
> coordinated with Fedora Core, and should be available as ISOs that,
> ideally, anaconda and/or system-config-packages could use.

Something similar to Gnome's Fifth Toe would be nice.  Fedora Core has a
release schedule and Fedora Extras (Or some subset thereof) has a
separate release schedule that comes out shortly afterwards.

Releasing them on ISOs would be nice because they could be effectively
pushed out through BitTorrent....

-Toshio

[Tim Daly]

> Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> > fedora.us IS EXTRAS, and it is already a given that those packages
> > will be moved to Fedora Extras at fedora.redhat.com when the time
> > comes.
>
> Won't this mean that (i) such packages will only show up weeks after
> the ISOs of the main project are available, and (ii) you won't be able
> to install them from CDs, without having to download the same packages
> over and over for installation in a collection of machines, or for
> CD burning in a network-connected location followed by installation in
> a disconnected location?
>
> Not everybody is on-line all the time.  I think if we're to move
> important packages to Fedora Extras, Fedora Extras releases should be
> coordinated with Fedora Core, and should be available as ISOs that,
> ideally, anaconda and/or system-config-packages could use.

The KEY reason I use RedHat is that it is packaged as ISOs.  Almost
all of the distros assume you have net access.  I have a compile farm
with many distros installed and only RedHat is painless. I can't use
apt-get from the farm.  Plus I give RedHats to others easily which is
why everyone around me runs it as they get it from me.

[Mike A. Harris]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > I think the smiley isn't necessary. Fedora Core should only contain 1
> > app for each task IMO (the one that is selected by default). All the
> > rest should be in extras. And that includes KDE for example.
>
> Well, that kind of reasoning would drive a large part of the community
> away from Fedora.

If it were taken seriously in any way, I would agree with you 
100%, however since it is not remotely close to the Fedora 
Project's stated goals, it's not a realistic suggestion by far.

Don't be discouraged by radical thoughts, look through the 
project mission/goals, and if something sounds very radical or 
controversial, it probably is, and would not be considered 
seriously.

There are lots of rational good ideas floating around, don't be 
discouraged by the bad ones.  ;o)

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 06:37, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > Well, that kind of reasoning would drive a large part of the community
> > away from Fedora.
>
> If it were taken seriously in any way, I would agree with you 
> 100%, however since it is not remotely close to the Fedora 
> Project's stated goals, it's not a realistic suggestion by far.

I point out the "would" :)
> Don't be discouraged by radical thoughts, look through the 
> project mission/goals

I don't feel discouraged, I don't believe it is reasonable to do what he
proposed without clearly creating a community division (just look at
User Linux, for instance, definitely no KDE users over there, sadly),
and I mostly agree with Fedora's goals (except for a small thing here
and there).
> There are lots of rational good ideas floating around, don't be 
> discouraged by the bad ones.  ;o)

I'm not, I can separate wheat from grain :)
> Mike A. Harris     ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
> OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat

One thing I'm willing to test is 3D support for Radeon IGM cards (like
the one on my laptop). Since you're an XFree maintainer at RH, could you
help me test it without seriously breaking FC?

Hugs, Rui

[Mike A. Harris]

On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > Mike A. Harris     ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
> > OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
>
> One thing I'm willing to test is 3D support for Radeon IGM cards (like
> the one on my laptop). Since you're an XFree maintainer at RH, could you
> help me test it without seriously breaking FC?

Radeon IGP 3D support is not present in XFree86, including the 
upcoming 4.4.0 release.  It is present only in DRI-CVS as 
experimental support which is in a developmental state.

I do not have Radeon IGP hardware and do not generally use 
DRI-CVS except to cvs rdiff out bug fixes occasionally, and to 
occasionally check in bug fixes.

The DRI project website has a lot of both developer and end user 
documentation on using DRI-CVS as well as binary driver 
snapshots.  I can't help you directly to get it working, but if 
you follow the documentation and/or ask for help on the DRI 
mailing lists, someone might be able to help you to get it to 
work.

Also, since I often get asked - I have no plans of including this
into our XFree86 until it is considered stable and mainstream.  
With the current flux going on over at XFree86.org right now, it 
isn't even clear wether XFree86 will exist in a few months or 
not, so it could be a while before this is supported.

[Warren Togami]

Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > > Mike A. Harris     ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
> > > OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
> >
> > One thing I'm willing to test is 3D support for Radeon IGM cards (like
> > the one on my laptop). Since you're an XFree maintainer at RH, could you
> > help me test it without seriously breaking FC?
>
> Radeon IGP 3D support is not present in XFree86, including the 
> upcoming 4.4.0 release.  It is present only in DRI-CVS as 
> experimental support which is in a developmental state.
>
> I do not have Radeon IGP hardware and do not generally use 
> DRI-CVS except to cvs rdiff out bug fixes occasionally, and to 
> occasionally check in bug fixes.
>
> The DRI project website has a lot of both developer and end user 
> documentation on using DRI-CVS as well as binary driver 
> snapshots.  I can't help you directly to get it working, but if 
> you follow the documentation and/or ask for help on the DRI 
> mailing lists, someone might be able to help you to get it to 
> work.
>
> Also, since I often get asked - I have no plans of including this
> into our XFree86 until it is considered stable and mainstream.  
> With the current flux going on over at XFree86.org right now, it 
> isn't even clear wether XFree86 will exist in a few months or 
> not, so it could be a while before this is supported.

May I also point out that this kind of non-canon package is exactly what 
we intended to exist in "Fedora Alternatives".  I am thinking now that 
Alternatives will contain sub-projects like this, specifically packaged 
for Fedora Core by volunteers who actually use it, and either 
experimental in nature or conflicting in nature.  Alternatives would be 
available in many non-canon apt/yum/up2date channels that you can add to 
your configurations and aside from being distributed from 
download.fedora.redhat.com you must rely entirely on the community 
developers for support.

Warren

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Thank you for the indications, Mike.

On Sun, 2004-02-01 at 08:35, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> With the current flux going on over at XFree86.org right now, it 
> isn't even clear wether XFree86 will exist in a few months or 
> not, so it could be a while before this is supported.

Oh, it is not essential for me, since it would only be used for Celestia
or playing games in the laptop. But all this I can still do on the "old"
desktop anyway.

Thanks, Rui

[Warren Togami]

Julien Olivier wrote:
> On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:30, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:26, Warren Togami wrote:
> > > IMHO, abiword really belongs in Extras.
> >
> > Then IYHO, so does the rest of GNOME Office, KOffice et all, by
> > extension?
> >
> > :)
>
> I think the smiley isn't necessary. Fedora Core should only contain 1
> app for each task IMO (the one that is selected by default). All the
> rest should be in extras. And that includes KDE for example.

Hasn't "GNOME Office" been this nebulous bunch of applications that have 
little or nothing to do with each other, and this was made more 
complicated when OpenOffice.org became open source?

Warren

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:50, Warren Togami wrote:
> Hasn't "GNOME Office" been this nebulous bunch of applications that have 
> little or nothing to do with each other, and this was made more 
> complicated when OpenOffice.org became open source?

Not really, and cooperation has been increasing very much between the
main apps, with more code being shared.

IMO OO.o only gains feature-wise and in integration with itself, but
that's not really as important as some try to make it seem.

Rui

[Tyler Larson]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 12:50, Warren Togami wrote:
> Julien Olivier wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:30, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:26, Warren Togami wrote:
> > > > IMHO, abiword really belongs in Extras.
> > >
> > > Then IYHO, so does the rest of GNOME Office, KOffice et all, by
> > > extension?
> > >
> > > :)
> >
> > I think the smiley isn't necessary. Fedora Core should only contain 1
> > app for each task IMO (the one that is selected by default). All the
> > rest should be in extras. And that includes KDE for example.
>
> Hasn't "GNOME Office" been this nebulous bunch of applications that have 
> little or nothing to do with each other, and this was made more 
> complicated when OpenOffice.org became open source?
>
> Warren

While I agree that "GNOME Office" itself contains something of a
hodge-podge collection whatever they could find (What's Sodipodi doing
in there?), there's an increasingly substantial amount of connectivity
and integration building up within the major components.

OOo, while well-featured in some ways and definitely well integrated
with itself, integrates very poorly with the rest of the system. I mean,
it even uses its own font subsystem. Furthermore, from what I can tell,
the major GNOME Office apps are progressing faster than their OOo
counterparts. AbiWord has become quite impressive within the last few
releases, and IMO and with all things considered, has overtaken OOo's
word processor in usefulness and usability for many users (though
perhaps not for you).

OOo was a real selling point for RedHat a couple of years ago, but I
think it's becoming less so now. I'd think twice before throwing out
into extras some of our better software.

[Felipe Alfaro Solana]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 20:43, Julien Olivier wrote:
> I think the smiley isn't necessary. Fedora Core should only contain 1
> app for each task IMO (the one that is selected by default). All the
> rest should be in extras. And that includes KDE for example.

I disagree 10000000%... So, this takes us again to the same debate over
to include GNOME as the only DE (or KDE), or OpenOffice.org instead of
AbiWord/Gnumeric, etc. etc.

If Fedora stops offering freedom of choice, I will switch away to
another distro.

[Mike A. Harris]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> > I think the smiley isn't necessary. Fedora Core should only contain 1
> > app for each task IMO (the one that is selected by default). All the
> > rest should be in extras. And that includes KDE for example.
>
> I disagree 10000000%... So, this takes us again to the same debate over
> to include GNOME as the only DE (or KDE), or OpenOffice.org instead of
> AbiWord/Gnumeric, etc. etc.
>
> If Fedora stops offering freedom of choice, I will switch away to
> another distro.

Please don't make such a decision in haste over an irrational 
idea a mailing list poster suggests, which isn't remotely 
reasonable in any sense of the word.

Please continue to contribute ideas, etc.  Just try to ignore 
people who have their own personal interests at heart rather than 
the project's.  ;o)

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 07:41, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote:
> > > I think the smiley isn't necessary. Fedora Core should only contain 1
> > > app for each task IMO (the one that is selected by default). All the
> > > rest should be in extras. And that includes KDE for example.
> >
> > I disagree 10000000%... So, this takes us again to the same debate over
> > to include GNOME as the only DE (or KDE), or OpenOffice.org instead of
> > AbiWord/Gnumeric, etc. etc.
> >
> > If Fedora stops offering freedom of choice, I will switch away to
> > another distro.
>
> Please don't make such a decision in haste over an irrational 
> idea a mailing list poster suggests, which isn't remotely 
> reasonable in any sense of the word.

Well, Warren is not an arbitrary list poster ;)

Office/word-processor apps and other similar desktop apps are key
applications which play an essential role in people's decisions to
choose a distribution. Therefore, IMHO, having the freedom of choice on
them is vital.

I.e. I for one find Warren's proposal of dropping abiword from Core to
Extras to be close to be irrational and to be little helpful to the
Fedora Project.

Just my 0.02 Cents.

Ralf

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, 2004-01-29 at 06:04, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Office/word-processor apps and other similar desktop apps are key
> applications which play an essential role in people's decisions to
> choose a distribution. Therefore, IMHO, having the freedom of choice on
> them is vital.

I think I'd make a distinction between user-interfacing apps and system
apps when thinking about a "one piece of software for one purpose"
policy.  Knowledgable system administrators who know that their site
needs proftpd rather than vsftpd are probably also knowledgable enough
to go to Fedora Extras, install and configure the it.  Knowledgable
end-users who read reviews of both GNOME and KDE probably don't want to
be bothered to download one of them just to decide which they like more.

As Mike Harris has pointed out, there are other case-by-case rules as
well.  Which shows a flexibility I appreciate in the Fedora Core
developers.

-Toshio

[Tim Daly]

> Office/word-processor apps and other similar desktop apps are key
> applications which play an essential role in people's decisions to
> choose a distribution. Therefore, IMHO, having the freedom of choice on
> them is vital.

Hmmm, a rational approach might be to work out a classification system
for functions within the system. The kernel will allow you to choose
a particular filesystem format to satisfy the "filesystem" function
(e.g. ext3, reiserfs, jfs, etc).

Is it possible for us to think about generic classes of "functions
needed" (e.g. mail transport, X managers, and that religiously-
neutral class, editors)? That way we could push a lot of these
"core" packages into the "extras" class without defaulting to
any of them. That would allow a "profile" file to dictate 
defaults. Since anyone could create a profile file there could
be several different profiles (e.g. windows-ish (lindows?), 
suse-ish, etc).

Packages could contain the category (-ies) they supply.
Perhaps we could look at freshmeat, sourceforge, and
fsf to create the first cut of categories.

This is (slightly) more rational than arguing over which editor
will or will not be in "core" as opposed to "extras". There won't
be an editor, by default. There will be the editor chosen by your
profile. This causes "core" to be much smaller with a focus on
libraries, filesystem layouts, and a minimum toolset for 
building packages from scratch. The categories would help
structure pile of packages on the rest of the distribution.

If this appears reasonable I'd be willing to scan the various
package sites and work out a first-cut on categories.

Tim Daly
[e-mail]

[Mike A. Harris]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004, Julien Olivier wrote:
> > > IMHO, abiword really belongs in Extras.
> >
> > Then IYHO, so does the rest of GNOME Office, KOffice et all, by
> > extension?
> >
> > :)
>
> I think the smiley isn't necessary. Fedora Core should only contain 1
> app for each task IMO (the one that is selected by default). All the
> rest should be in extras. And that includes KDE for example.

It's *definitely* not that simple nor hard-line of a decision 
process, and probably never will be.  There are _many_ factors 
that go into deciding what will be in core and what will not be 
in core.  Different packages may have different factors that 
contribute to their inclusion or exclusion, and a rule that 
causes one package to be excluded might not weigh high enough 
for another package depending on that own package's merits and 
other factors.

Removal of pine for example, did not set a rule that we now will 
remove all text based email clients.  Each and every application 
is subject to a variety of generic baseline qualifications for 
wether it should be in Core or not, as well as individual 
considerations based on the app itself, and other similar apps in 
the distribution, security, technical matters and other 
considerations, and that also includes community input as well 
of course.

The important point I'm trying to make though, is that no single 
rule can be hardline applied across all software, except for 
certain specific situations such as "legal issues" and whatnot.

We obviously want wherever possible to reduce application 
duplication of functionatlity, but not in a way major way that 
totally changes the entire project upside down, or sends 99% of 
users running looking for a new OS.

More rational suggestions are definitely welcome, and more likely
to be considered seriously than radical enigmatic
change-the-world ones.

It's a good idea before making a suggestion, to also go to the
http://fedora.redhat.com website and review the stated project
goals/mission statement material and determine if a particular
suggestion is in line with the project's published goals, or way
off base.

There are lots of good suggestions passing by on the list, which 
is nice to see, but yours falls short.

[Julien Olivier]

> It's *definitely* not that simple nor hard-line of a decision 
> process, and probably never will be.  There are _many_ factors 
> that go into deciding what will be in core and what will not be 
> in core.  Different packages may have different factors that 
> contribute to their inclusion or exclusion, and a rule that 
> causes one package to be excluded might not weigh high enough 
> for another package depending on that own package's merits and 
> other factors.
>
> Removal of pine for example, did not set a rule that we now will 
> remove all text based email clients.  Each and every application 
> is subject to a variety of generic baseline qualifications for 
> wether it should be in Core or not, as well as individual 
> considerations based on the app itself, and other similar apps in 
> the distribution, security, technical matters and other 
> considerations, and that also includes community input as well 
> of course.
>
> The important point I'm trying to make though, is that no single 
> rule can be hardline applied across all software, except for 
> certain specific situations such as "legal issues" and whatnot.
>
> We obviously want wherever possible to reduce application 
> duplication of functionatlity, but not in a way major way that 
> totally changes the entire project upside down, or sends 99% of 
> users running looking for a new OS.
>
> More rational suggestions are definitely welcome, and more likely
> to be considered seriously than radical enigmatic
> change-the-world ones.
>
> It's a good idea before making a suggestion, to also go to the
> http://fedora.redhat.com website and review the stated project
> goals/mission statement material and determine if a particular
> suggestion is in line with the project's published goals, or way
> off base.
>
> There are lots of good suggestions passing by on the list, which 
> is nice to see, but yours falls short.

Well, I'm really sorry. I didn't think I would be taken that seriously.
I was just stating what I felt would suit me, maybe not what would suit
the majority of Fedora users.

[Karl DeBisschop]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 14:26, Warren Togami wrote:
> Karl DeBisschop wrote:
> > On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 11:32, Build System wrote:
> > > Removed package abiword
> >
> > Is this going away for good? I hope not. I find I much prefer
> > abiword/gnumeric to openoffice.
> >
> > Just my $0.02 worth.
>
> IMHO, abiword really belongs in Extras.

When extras is fully integrated with core, I might look on that more
favorably. But it is not. Nor did I see abiword on any of the fedora.us
mirrors (I did look before posting, but I'll allow that I could have
missed it).

But based on the way things stand today, I think it's reasonable to keep
it in FC2, and consider a move to Extras with FC3, assuming Extras is up
and well integrated at that time.

Again, just my opinion.

[Alan Cox]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:26:51AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> > Is this going away for good? I hope not. I find I much prefer
> > abiword/gnumeric to openoffice.
>
> IMHO, abiword really belongs in Extras.

It depends on the target. Now xfce is in abiword definitely belongs with 
it because its finally a set of stuff useful on machines without 1.5GHz
processors and 512Mb of RAM.

Its less of an issue than gnumeric imho because abiword isnt vastly
superior in other ways, while openoffice spreadsheet is a toy compared
with gnumeric

[lupus]

To me it doesn't matter how many programme's there are for the same task
as long fedora only installs one by default and as long the programma's
can read each others formats.

I was wondering how good .doc and .xls support is in abiword and
gnumeric. It's the primary reason I'm using openoffice. I must be able
to exchange data with MS office users.

On wo, 2004-01-28 at 14:58 -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 09:26:51AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
> > > Is this going away for good? I hope not. I find I much prefer
> > > abiword/gnumeric to openoffice.
> >
> > IMHO, abiword really belongs in Extras.
>
> It depends on the target. Now xfce is in abiword definitely belongs with 
> it because its finally a set of stuff useful on machines without 1.5GHz
> processors and 512Mb of RAM.
>
> Its less of an issue than gnumeric imho because abiword isnt vastly
> superior in other ways, while openoffice spreadsheet is a toy compared
> with gnumeric
>
> -- 
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

abiword/gnumeric MS compatibilty (was Re: rawhide report: 20040128 changes)

[Karl DeBisschop]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 16:26, Kristof vansant wrote:
> To me it doesn't matter how many programme's there are for the same task
> as long fedora only installs one by default and as long the programma's
> can read each others formats.
>
> I was wondering how good .doc and .xls support is in abiword and
> gnumeric. It's the primary reason I'm using openoffice. I must be able
> to exchange data with MS office users.

.xls in gnumeric has been good for a long time.

Since abiword 2, columns have been supported, and I have not had any
problems in abiword.

But in both instances, I mostly read. I cannot remember when I last
wrote in a non-free format. So YMMV.

[Alan Cox]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 10:26:38PM +0100, Kristof vansant wrote:
> I was wondering how good .doc and .xls support is in abiword and
> gnumeric. It's the primary reason I'm using openoffice. I must be able
> to exchange data with MS office users.

gnumeric is very good with .xls. You can hit problems occasionally because
.xls and gnumeric support things that MS office simply isnt capable of. You
can also get nasties with statistics especially where reloading it into an
MS product gets you wrong answers because gnumeric does things right

I've been using gnumeric for MBA stats coursework happily, and its close
to pixel perfect for spreadsheets. It has no VB scripting and lacks some of
the ui prompts and helps, also some graphing stuff but overall its very good.

Alan

up2date (danish Translation)

[Alex Thomsen Leth]

im using the danish up2date, and the window cant fit the screen. is
there anybody working on that bug??
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=106693

Alex Thomsen Leth

[Alex Kiernan]

Build System  writes:
> sendmail-8.12.11-1.4
> Tue Jan 27 2004 Thomas Woerner  8.2.11-1.4
> disabled ppc and ppc64 build, for now

Any particular reason? Is there a bugzilla ticket I can watch for
resolution, or help out with (as I'm running on ppc).

[Jim Cornette]

When using up2date to retrieve the packages listed below, the following 
problems occurred:
> New package libxklavier
>    library providing high-level API for X Keyboard Extension
> libcroco-0.4.0-1
> Tue Jan 27 2004 Jonathan Blandford  0.4.0-1
> new version

error: Failed dependencies:
         libcrseleng.so.1 is needed by (installed) gdm-2.4.4.5-3
         libcrseleng.so.1 is needed by (installed) nautilus-2.5.5-1
         libcrseleng.so.1 is needed by (installed) librsvg2-2.4.0-3
> librsvg2-2.5.0-1
> Tue Jan 27 2004 Jonathan Blandford  2.4.0-3
> update version
> Buildrequire libcroco

error: Failed dependencies:
         libcrseleng.so.2 is needed by librsvg2-2.5.0-1

Also to note: I have functionality back to the start-here: ICON and the 
*.desktop ICONS open up and show preferences, applications (empty but 
opens) I like the new computer ICON which shows mounts and network mounts.

When I nodep installed the above packages, gdm would stay at an 
hourglass. I had to change to runlevel 3 or just ctl-alt-backspace and 
gdm did not re spawn.

[Jeremy Katz]

On Wed, 2004-01-28 at 19:27 -0500, Jim Cornette wrote:
> When using up2date to retrieve the packages listed below, the following 
> problems occurred:

It's rawhide, these things happen.  And in some ways are more likely to
when trees are starting to freeze because not everyone can build and get
things moved (and thus, can't build everything that depends on the new
library).

Cheers,

Jeremy