cogl 1.17 release?
by Adam Williamson
Is someone going to do an upstream release of cogl 1.17?
mutter 3.11.4 has a pkgconfig require on this version of cogl, but no
stable release has been cut; builds of mutter 3.11.4 fail because
there's no cogl to build them against...
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
10 years, 3 months
Workstation PRD approval
by Josh Boyer
Hi All,
We have just shy of 6 calendar weeks until the PRD for Workstation is
due (Jan 13). However, with the holidays likely eating up a good
chunk of that it's realistically closer to a month.
We've had 5 revisions of the PRD Christian has drafted so far, with
some good feedback along the way. I don't think we're going to be
able to specifically list everyone's personal favorite use case in the
PRD itself, but the use cases we have should cover a broad set of
people already. I suggested moving the multiple-monitor and many
terminal windows items under e.g. the Corporate developer user case
and that should at least meet much of the technical requirements for
Sysadmins too (at least to start).
Ideally, I'd like to get a final PRD draft sent and approved by the WG
before the holiday break. That would give FESCo plenty of time for
review, and would allow us to get started in January on the next item,
which is a list of changes the WG would need from existing Fedora to
accomplish the PRD goals. I suspect that is going to take a
significant amount of work to settle, and the more time we have the
better.
If there are critical changes you think are needed for the PRD, please
speak up now and list them. That is particularly true for any of the
WG members. We can evaluate them as they come in.
Thanks.
josh
10 years, 3 months
Updated Fedora Workstation PRD draft
by Christian Schaller
Hi everyone,
First of all apologize for this taking so long, I ended up traveling
non-stop for some time visiting some of Red Hats desktop customers.
While not directly tied to the work of this working group I do hope to
take some of the lessons learned from those meetings with me into the
future work of the working group.
Anyway I tried editing the PRD a bit based on the feedback we got on the
first draft. I tried to make a few items a bit clearer and also to
include spelling fixes contributed and so on.
We probably want to do another WG meeting soon to discuss next steps.
Feel free to let me know if I forgot to include some important feedback
or if further clarifications are needed.
Christian
10 years, 3 months
Fwd: Re: Flock 2014 Dates?
by Stephen Gallagher
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
FYI, in case anyone on the Desktop/Workstation groups wants to weigh
in, dates for Flock in Prague are being considered and they're looking
for input from GUADEC attendees.
- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Flock 2014 Dates?
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2014 10:43:03 +0800
From: Tom Callaway <tcallawa(a)redhat.com>
Reply-To: Planning discussion for Flock (Fedora Contributor
Conference) <flock-planning(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
To: Planning discussion for Flock (Fedora Contributor Conference)
<flock-planning(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
On 01/08/2014 09:14 AM, Ruth Suehle wrote:
> Here's good. The biggest things we've been considering:
>
> - date proximity to other conferences (in a good way: GUADEC, in a
> bad way, things not nearby)
>
> - Flock was always meant to be more tied to the release cycle,
> which has been proving challenging
Conflicts:
OSCON is July 20 - July 24
GUADEC is July 26 - Aug 1 (Strasbourg, France)
Kernel Summit is August 18 - 20 (Chicago, IL)
LinuxCon NA is August 20 - 22 (Chicago, IL)
These facts alone, combined with the limitations of our venue in Prague
(we need to leverage their summer vacation) mean that these are the best
available weekend dates:
July 11-14
August 1-4
August 8-11
Of those three, I think the latter two are better options. I lean
towards the August 8-11 option, but I'd like to know how the GNOME
people feel about that, since I think Flock would greatly benefit from
increased participation from that group. It also gives us a bit more
time to put it all together.
~tom
==
¸.·´¯`·.´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><(((º> OSAS @ Red Hat
University Outreach || Fedora Special Projects || Fedora Legal
_______________________________________________
flock-planning mailing list
flock-planning(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/flock-planning
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
iEYEARECAAYFAlLNQoEACgkQeiVVYja6o6NwsACgiR//4XdeqZYoPtClyNLyYZtQ
IlsAoJdSCGWi3c1ElNyEQK4DT79AnaB3
=O9Ln
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
10 years, 3 months
Unannounced soname bump: tracker
by Adam Williamson
Sigh. Yes, another of these.
On 2013-12-18, tracker was bumped to 0.7.0:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=485698
the sonames of libtracker-extract, libtracker-miner and
libtracker-sparql were bumped to 0.18.so.0 (from 0.16.so.0) without
announcement, and without all dependent packages being successfully
rebuilt. At least the following still depend on the old sparql library:
bijiben-0:3.11.1-1.fc21.x86_64
brasero-0:3.11.3-1.fc21.x86_64
grilo-plugins-0:0.2.9-2.fc21.x86_64
media-explorer-0:0.4.4-5.fc21.x86_64
rygel-tracker-0:0.21.1-1.fc21.x86_64
I'll see if I can get any of them rebuilt.
What does it take for people to handle soname bumps properly?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
10 years, 3 months
FESCo decision on 3rd party repositories
by Josh Boyer
Hi All,
At the FESCo meeting today, the following things were decided on 3rd
party repositories. Some of this is specific to COPRs because those
are an odd case of 3rd party repositories.
1) COPRs can provide RPMS with .repo files in them because Red Hat is
the provider and assumes liability, but those cannot be included in
the main Fedora repos per FESCo decree.
2) COPR repos may be searched for applications to install as long as
the user is explicitly asked to enable the copr before installing
packages from them.
3) General 3rd party repositories cannot be searched or enabled due to
liability concerns.
(NOTE: "searched" in 2 and 3 was intended to cover searching by
software. Clearly users can manually search for anything.)
4) FESCo is okay with pointing to specific free software repositories
in the same way as COPR repos if they are approved by FESCo and Fedora
Legal. They are not limited in the criteria that they can choose to
apply.
5) For non-free sofware repositories, FESCo is not changing exisiting
policy. Non-free software repositories are not allowed. Permission to
make these discoverable via searching software would require a change
in policy from the Fedora Board.
In short, this means products can request approval of specific 3rd
party free software repositories. If approved, they can include their
contents along with COPR repos in application searches a user does and
offer to install them with a warning that they come from a 3rd party,
non-Fedora repo. Repositories containing non-free software cannot be
enabled by default or made discoverable through software.
josh
10 years, 3 months