Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-06-11)
by Jon Ciesla
===================================
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2012-06-11)
===================================
Meeting started by limburgher at 17:01:31 UTC. The full logs are
available at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-06-11/fesco.2012-06-...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (limburgher, 17:01:31)
* #857 F18 Feature: Initial Experience -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/InitialExperience
(limburgher, 17:04:11)
* ACTION: postpone vote until firstboot plan is clarified
(limburgher, 17:19:16)
* #861 Cleanup of maintainers with bugzilla account issues (limburgher,
17:19:32)
* AGREED: nirik will re-contact users, and we will address this after
giving them one more week. (limburgher, 17:24:13)
* ACTION: nirik will re-contact users, and we will address this after
giving them one more week. (limburgher, 17:24:31)
* #862 Review F17 runtime linker location on armhf (limburgher,
17:24:56)
* LINK: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/862 (jwb, 17:38:33)
* LINK:
http://lists.linaro.org/pipermail/cross-distro/2012-April/000263.html
(bconoboy, 17:50:34)
* AGREED: Leave this issue in ARM team's hands, ARM team will comment
in ticket. (+:7,-:0,0:0) (limburgher, 17:56:42)
* Next week's chair (limburgher, 17:57:03)
* ACTION: nirik will chair 2012-06-18 (limburgher, 17:58:43)
* Open Floor (limburgher, 17:58:50)
Meeting ended at 18:05:04 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* postpone vote until firstboot plan is clarified
* nirik will re-contact users, and we will address this after giving
them one more week.
* nirik will chair 2012-06-18
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* nirik
* nirik will re-contact users, and we will address this after giving
them one more week.
* nirik will chair 2012-06-18
* **UNASSIGNED**
* postpone vote until firstboot plan is clarified
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* limburgher (67)
* jwb (52)
* jonmasters (39)
* nirik (31)
* pjones (26)
* t8m (15)
* notting (14)
* mmaslano (13)
* mclasen (11)
* bconoboy (11)
* zodbot (6)
* drago01 (5)
* tibbs|w (5)
* sgallagh (1)
* mjg59 (0)
* mitr (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-06-11/fesco.2012-06-...
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2012-06-11/fesco.2012-06-...
--
http://cecinestpasunefromage.wordpress.com/
------------------------------------------------
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
12 years
Is it impossible to use the same build override twice with bodhi?
by David Howells
I need to update my cross-gcc package, but that depends on my cross-binutils
package which is still in updates-testing (should the build process fail, even
though it is pushed to updates-testing?).
To do this I need to add a build override with bodhi for the cross-binutils
package - however, this doesn't work, presumably because I've added it before
and the override has now expired.
If I try adding the override, I see:
warthog>bodhi -r F16 -o cross-binutils-2.22.52.0.3-1.fc16 -N "Required to build cross-gcc"
Error: buildroot override for u'cross-binutils-2.22.52.0.3-1.fc16' already exists
If I list the overrides I have currently in operation, I see:
warthog>bodhi --my-overrides
0 Buildroot Overrides submitted by dhowells
===========================================
I can see the expired override:
warthog>bodhi --my-overrides --show-expired
4 Buildroot Overrides submitted by dhowells
===========================================
[ cross-binutils-2.22.52.0.3-1.fc16 ]
* Notes: Required to build cross-gcc
* Submitter: dhowells
* Submitted: 2012-05-31 16:02:34
* Expiration: 2012-06-03 00:00:00
* Expired: 2012-06-03 00:06:17
...
but I can't get rid of it. I've tried:
warthog>bodhi -r F16 -E cross-binutils-2.22.52.0.3-1.fc16
Override cross-binutils-2.22.52.0.3-1.fc16 already expired!
but that doesn't work (unsurprisingly).
Any suggestions? Do I have to either advance the version of the cross-binutils
package or commit it to fedora-updates?
Thanks,
David
12 years
Re: wine font changes system look and feel
by Kamil Paral
> I'd like to brought to wider attention the bug
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693180
>
> What's the matter?
>
> If you install wine, it brings as a dependency wine-tahoma font, that
> is
> then included in system wide fonts list. This causes the font to be
> used
> by applications like Firefox when pages require tahoma. As the font
> is
> badly looking, it makes many things to look terrible.
>
> Some of us think, this font should be made specific for the wine
> application and not used system wide as it breaks the look and feel
> of too
> many things.
>
> Please make your voice to be heard on that.
>
>
> Adam Pribyl
Adam, it might be better to cross-post this also to devel@ list, doing that now.
I believe there are a few good engineering practices that every software should keep. One of them is that installing one application should not have detrimental effects to another application. That is violated here. Installing wine brings broken fonts (Tahoma, maybe some others) into the system and then have detrimental effects on font rendering in web applications. We should do something about it.
It is unfortunate that wine package maintainer doesn't want to discuss this issue any further. To some extent, he is even right. Wine depends on a font and fonts are installed into system-wide directories. Web pages request that font. End of story. But the reality is not perfect and often we have to do compromises. This is another obstacle presented by Microsoft to the opensource world and we can't simply insist on that "one and only correct solution". Because we know Tahoma rendering looks better on Windows and furthermore the web pages don't use it at all, it's just a fallback for some other font present in Windows but not in Linux.
Our excuse is that there is a README in wine-tahoma-fonts package documenting how to blacklist it if you don't want it. Yes, but that doesn't help. We need Fedora to look good by default. I have heard several people saying "Fonts are ugly in Fedora, I'll rather use Ubuntu instead". And guess what, Ubuntu has made these broken wine fonts wine-specific, so that they are used in wine but not in other system applications. You might disagree with their other endeavors, but they care about their user-base. Putting some info in a README is good for hackers, but it is useless for end-users.
I believe the best solution here is to make Tahoma (and maybe some other fonts that are rendered horribly) a wine-specific font. Then add a README how to make those fonts available for all applications, if someone ever needs that. Or we can create a separate package for system-wide installation. This way we will have reasonable defaults and more happy users.
Anyone, if you have a better suggestion how to solve this problem, please be heard. The desirable outcome is:
1. Wine is installed
2. Web page rendering looks pretty (no bitmap fonts)
3. No manual steps are needed
Comments welcome.
12 years
another upgrade, another disaster
by Neal Becker
Basically the same kind of failure as the last several times I did updates.
This time f16->f17. Used preupgrade.
It seems to have all gone wrong when cpio failed, because a python package had
been installed using pip into the (default) system dirs. The conflict IIRC
happens because pip installs a dir where cpio expects a file (or vice-versa).
I've since learned to use pip install --user instead - but there was still a
leftover package.
I was happy (temporarily) to see that I could still reboot the machine. Remove
the offending package.
Then IIRC I restarted the upgrade. It seemed to complete OK. I was pleased to
see it appear to continue from where it left off.
On reboot, I found a huge mess. Duplicate packages (f16/f17) all over.
So,
1) Could I have actually recovered from this mess without a complete re-install?
2) Can't we make the install fail more gracefully?
3) Would it be possible to continue an failed install, and have it actually
work?
12 years
How to proceed with MiniDebugInfo
by Alexander Larsson
I'm at a loss to how to proceed with the MiniDebugInfo work. I have
patches to rpmbuild that creates the compressed minidebuginfo putting
them in the main binaries, and I have patches to gdb that reads the
compressed debuginfo on demand.
However, the whole thing is useless unless we agree that we want to
enable this by default. It seems some people like the idea, whereas
others disagree that its worth the increased binary size. It doesn't
look like either side is gonna be able to convince the other side, so
how do we get to a decision here?
12 years
Re: Review swap requests for Lars Wirzenius' new Obnam backup tool
by Michel Alexandre Salim
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 06/03/2012 01:45 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've just packaged Obnam, Lars Wirzenius' new B-tree-based backup
> tool (think btrfs for backup), whose 1.0 release was recently
> announced on Linux Weekly News on Friday, June 1st:
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/499845/
>
> It consists of 8 packages, and there are two more (seivot, for
> benchmarking, and summain, for generating diff-able file
> manifests) that I have not packaged yet, all eight are in Bugzilla,
> in descending order (packages at the bottom are depended on by the
> ones on top)
>
I've now also packaged the remaining two auxiliary packages:
seivot - Benchmarking tool for backup programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827818
summain - File manifest generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=827819
PS please reply to this rather than the original message; I
accidentally used the old fedora-devel email address.
> As usual, please reply to the list with which package you want to
> review and if you want to swap with any of your own review
> requests.
>
Thanks,
- --
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/
Email: salimma(a)fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: A36A937A
Jabber: hircus(a)jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus(a)irc.freenode.net
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPyxSbAAoJEEr1VKujapN6YZAH/izJNSfHS6SnJgAsMr5w9kMY
iBJiyh9PGxJgljaPOE4/3fPPzAHduD8crk3hhYJkHEKki0nzyza+yb7/jorFohKe
mpyTYaSrJ6E2zntBfa7zgm69nHT6TNTsEh1KlkRG4HhGoNSJZ3eUoOdqrc5szO3x
/a1uEIdzxQ+QC0jIQzAWZ4Uh9nC8UJVMBybZgPUa2YRJXkTtGW3+NUzGThX8K04M
9MQk9nnBKGq6spniBPs8w9idp1UNJEa430tB7NySuHPxsgkQY1hP4tMh1bT4/+EL
/4QCO5KAKaPrj9lsUYot7ui+YVQQyl6vn17+Ku9u6WizlcjBX70nX1bE5ClBfxM=
=lX3d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
12 years