since we finally got our Ruby 1.9.3 feature page  approved, we are starting rebuild for Ruby 1.9.3. Everyone who owns a package that depends on Ruby or Rubygems should rebuild it in the special Koji target "f17-ruby". This target will be merged into rawhide just before the branching, which will occur on 2012-02-07. After this deadline, you will need to go through the standard Bodhi update process. The detailed instructions on rebuilding the packages, including our suggested changes can be found in . Feel free to contact me or Vit Ondruch (vondruch at redhat dot com) or write to ruby-sig mailing lists, if you run into any kind of problems.
Bohuslav "Slavek" Kabrda.
Microsoft has changed the way of prerelease version naming
Alpha -> Developer Preview
Beta -> Consumer Preview
Release Candidate -> Enterprise (or Business) Preview
It seems to me that this is a very good change for reasons of PR. Such
change in Fedora prerelease naming might encourage more people to test
prereleases. IMHO "Consumer Preview" sounds a lot better than "Beta"
My name is Rudy Sicard. I submitted a review request 781624 (one week
ago but freshly updated) and I am seeking a sponsor.
I work for a company named MLstate (wwww.mlstate.com).
We have created a language to simplify web development, named Opa
(opalang.org) which is available with an AGPL license.
We are starting to provide packages for the package collection of main
We decided to start with Fedora , so I wrote my first spec file two
(we have .deb package but not included with Ubuntu or Debian)
I am working since more than 3 years in at MLstate on the compiler and I
have touch almost of part of it. So I guess I have some experience about
what goes around language, compilation (parsing, typing, AST rewriting,
CPS, Llvm backend, ...) and web site technologies (html, css,
Before I studied informatics at university and specialized in Machine
Learning (Bayesian statistical approaches).
Have a good day
> I think we have all missed the point, this is not about a rolling release for Fedora, it'a about FUDuntu using this list to gain attention for their project. If it is about Fedora it is then about reducing their workload.
> I'll pass on either, the original thread on this topic should be revived if there is need for more discussion, allowing this one to die. I wish the FUDuntu team good luck in their adventure.
> -- Bob
It was about helping you which also helps us downstream. If you weren't so dense you'd understand that is how the community is supposed to work. It had nothing to do with advertising our project, because we don't need to advertise on your development list.
The idea that I came here to advertise my project is about as asinine as your other replies to me thus far.
I'm extremely disappointed in the immaturity of some of the members of this list. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
If you don't want our help, you could have just said so, you didn't need to advertise your status as a douche bag.
I wanted to help upstream, but I can see it isn't wanted and I have better things to do with my time than argue with a couple of 12 year olds.
Mr. Garrett, I appreciated your reminder, but I have to ask why it wasn't directed at anyone else.
----- "Andrew Wyatt" <andrew(a)fuduntu.org> wrote:
> Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
Way to represent Fedora by being a jerk.
Next time try to "be excellent to each other." Two things I personally get tired of reading. A rhetorical question comes to mind "Would you rather he was excellent to you and lied saying it's a splendid idea when he feels differently just to spare hurting your feelings?" Kevin represents himself not Fedora. He is an individual and is free to his opinions.
The rolling release idea comes up annually and a lot of developers/contributors get tired of wasting time sending and reading emails about it. Another is a long term release, I can't count how many times that has come up in the last few years. I'll not apologize for Kevin's response because honestly, I agree with him.
gphpedit has been FTBFS for a while, due to the fact that its dependency
gtkhtml2 was also FTBFS and is now orphaned.
As a consequence (and due to limited resources) I'm planning to orphan
If anyone would like to do the necessary work to fix and take over
gtkhtml2, or remove the dependency from gphpedit (or research with
upstream on the best course of action), you would be very welcome to
So I saw a rpm update and a number of other builds today when dealing
with various packaging bits. Checking the update  and reading the
attached bug  I was a little shocked to find that "yum upgrade"
between releases would be explicitly broken due to this feature.
Yes, I know that it's not officially recommended as a means of
upgrading and never been QAed it has been generally supported and
expected to work  for as long as I can remember.
The thing that is annoying me is that this change has not been
explicitly mentioned in the "Feature" , it does no appear in the
FAQ on the feature and I don't remember it ever being bought up in the
discussions about the feature although I admit I probably have missed
some of the discussion. Has this side effect of the feature been
discussed at all? Can someone point me to a thread?
Personally I'm not bothered about the location of binaries and don't
wish to reopen that discussion, but yum upgrade is a feature I do use
regularly as I'm sure a lot of others do as well. I feel it's a little
disingenuous of the feature owners not to bring this component of the
feature up, advertise it properly and include a large mention of it in
the "Release Notes" section of the feature as it's surely something
that is a FAQ and should be in the release notes section.
I'm also very perplexed why this major change is landing so close to
the freeze and branch with less than two weeks to Freeze and Branch
and the feature isn't actually even in rawhide yet  as all the
packages are still being built on a separate tag. Why do core features
always have to land just before the branch to ensure we have mass
breakage and the guarantee of a slip? This sort of change should be
landing on rawhide just after the branch to ensure 9 months of
----- "Andrew Wyatt" <andrew(a)fuduntu.org> wrote:
> I didn't call him a jerk because he disagreed about the potential of
> Fedora as a rolling release. I called him a jerk for being a jerk. I
> offered nothing but praise for Fedora, and he started the response
> "just go away".
> There is a difference between disagreeing, and being an asshat.
> Back on topic. It wouldn't continue to come up if people didn't see
> value in it. Simply discarding the idea because "a lot of developers"
> feel that it's a "waste of time" is not valid criticism of the idea.
> If you "can't count" how many times it has come up, perhaps you should
> investigate it because there is obviously potential in the idea.
I should stay out of the technical dead horse/discussion and stick to offensive behavior that is my specialty but I feel I need to respond one more time.
Value to who? Some random $BRIGHTIDEAGENERATOR who has no idea of the amount of work involved for those that actually do the work? 1 for and 100 against because it is the 100 that will have to do the work to make the 1 happy? The $BRIGHTIDEAGENERATOR always says "Oh I can help do the work." Then after they look at the reality of the situation discover what is actually involved from an engineering standpoint... they turn in to vapor. There was just a 60 message thread on this topic, why start another flamefest thread of doom?
Sorry again, I disagree.