Matthew Miller | 1 Aug 01:56 2006

Re: PC speaker fixed (was: Re: FC6 and cdburning)

On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 03:37:48PM -0700, Steve G wrote:
> >Is the need here is for a feature request for system-config-soundcard
> >to have a turn on/off speaker in it... for the user who needs it
> >off/on?
> I'd say so. There are just to many yappy programs. Do you really need to hear a
> beep when doing tab completion?

Turn show-all-if-ambiguous on.

-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm <at> mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Ralf Corsepius | 1 Aug 02:29 2006
Picon

Re: Leaving? (cont'd)

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 19:32 +0530, Rahul wrote:
> Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Well, apparently some people seem prefer "max. freedom" combined with
> > "complex bureaucratic rules", instead of "restricted freedom" with
> > "simple rules. 
> 
> A combination of max freedom and complex bureaucratic rules seems rather 
> self contradictory.
It only appears so: When you try to write up "max. freedom" into
"rules", you end up in long series of precedences and exceptions, i.e.
in a complex "law" system.

>  From my experience, the former rule doesn't work in
> > community projects such as Fedora. Unfortunately, there seems to be
> > pretty large groups of people who don't share this opinion.
> 
> Well a community doesnt mean that people will obey whatever others tell 
> them. It just means that they will tend listen esp to people who do 
> similar work and very well might decide thats not the best way.
Yes. But ... "community" also implies to be able to "compromise".

Such is everyday life - Even if you'd prefer to run around naked,
conventions are not to do so in most parts of the world. In Fedora,
however, you can set up whatever %buildroot, CFLAGS and %release-tags,
causing arbitrary side-effects on user systems.

>  If 
> someone's choice doesnt match with the rest of the people doing the 
(Continue reading)

Rahul | 1 Aug 02:36 2006

Re: Leaving? (cont'd)

Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> Such is everyday life - Even if you'd prefer to run around naked,
> conventions are not to do so in most parts of the world. In Fedora,
> however, you can set up whatever %buildroot, CFLAGS and %release-tags,
> causing arbitrary side-effects on user systems.

Being in the packaging committee should help I suppose.

> 
>>  If 
>> someone's choice doesnt match with the rest of the people doing the 
>> work, we just have to get along.
> No, if something doesn't suffice, it's a bug. We would have to change
> the "guidelines"/"conventions", then.

You will have to manage to convince others that its a bug to get the 
guidelines fixed.

Rahul

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Jay Cliburn | 1 Aug 03:04 2006
Picon

Re: firefox.i386 in x86_64 repo

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 11:04:16AM -0400, Demond wrote:
>> Is there a reason the firefox.i386 and firefox-devel.i386 packages are 
>> in the x86_64 repo for rawhide?  They both got pulled into my system 
>> when  the firefox-devel package was introduced.  However, "yum remove 
>> firefox.i386" shows that there are no dependencies.  I was just 
>> wondering if this was deliberate and if they will be around for a while.
> 
> It's handy if you have to use the flash plugin....

Ditto for flash, and it's also handy for the Sun Java plugin.  I 
personally hope firefox.i386 is a permanent addition to the x86_64 repo 
for FC6.  Can someone confirm it is or isn't?

Jay

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Jesse Keating | 1 Aug 04:15 2006
Picon

Re: firefox.i386 in x86_64 repo

On Monday 31 July 2006 21:04, Jay Cliburn wrote:
> Ditto for flash, and it's also handy for the Sun Java plugin.  I
> personally hope firefox.i386 is a permanent addition to the x86_64 repo
> for FC6.  Can someone confirm it is or isn't?

It may be temporary, it may not be.  We've removed mozilla in favor of Firefox 
for building things against, so firefox grew a -devel sub package.  However 
this is a temporary measure until xulrunner is ready for prime time which 
will provide the basis of the browsing stuff and a -devel package to build 
against, so that firefox doesn't need a -devel anymore, and packages can use 
a much smaller xulrunner to develop against.  At that time, firefox may cease 
to be multilib automatically, however I would entertain requests to force it 
to be multilib...

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Matthew Miller | 1 Aug 04:34 2006

Re: firefox.i386 in x86_64 repo

On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 10:15:12PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> It may be temporary, it may not be.  We've removed mozilla in favor of Firefox 
> for building things against, so firefox grew a -devel sub package.  However 
> this is a temporary measure until xulrunner is ready for prime time which 
> will provide the basis of the browsing stuff and a -devel package to build 
> against, so that firefox doesn't need a -devel anymore, and packages can use 
> a much smaller xulrunner to develop against.  At that time, firefox may cease 
> to be multilib automatically, however I would entertain requests to force it 
> to be multilib...

The argument-which-I-hope-I-will-not-restart applies here too -- Macromedia
_ought_ to make an x86_64 version, and they have less incentive to if all
the distro vendors make it easier for them to just ship i386 everywhere.

-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm <at> mattdm.org          <http://mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>              <http://linux.bu.edu/>

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Jay Cliburn | 1 Aug 04:48 2006
Picon

Re: firefox.i386 in x86_64 repo

Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Monday 31 July 2006 21:04, Jay Cliburn wrote:
>> Ditto for flash, and it's also handy for the Sun Java plugin.  I
>> personally hope firefox.i386 is a permanent addition to the x86_64 repo
>> for FC6.  Can someone confirm it is or isn't?
> 
> It may be temporary, it may not be.  We've removed mozilla in favor of Firefox 
> for building things against, so firefox grew a -devel sub package.  However 
> this is a temporary measure until xulrunner is ready for prime time which 
> will provide the basis of the browsing stuff and a -devel package to build 
> against, so that firefox doesn't need a -devel anymore, and packages can use 
> a much smaller xulrunner to develop against.  At that time, firefox may cease 
> to be multilib automatically, however I would entertain requests to force it 
> to be multilib...

Thanks for that information.

I'm indifferent to browser make and model, myself; Firefox just seems to 
be in vogue and I'm accustomed to it now.  But the enduring headache for 
a number of FC x86_64 users is the absence of 64-bit Macromedia Flash 
and Sun Java plugins -- despite the availability gnash and blackdown and 
nspluginwrapper -- and fedoraforum is chock full of people trying to 
figure out how to add i386 repos and install and keep up to date a 
"foreign" arch package in x86_64.  For some AMD64 owners, the decision 
whether to use FCx.i386 or FCx.x86_64 is swayed to i386 by the simple 
desire to avoid the wrestling match with 32-bit Firefox and its plugins 
in a 64-bit Fedora.  (A cursory search of the AMD64 forum at fedoraforum 
will bear out this assertion.)

I wrote a howto at fedoraforum that lays out the steps to get 32-bit 
(Continue reading)

Matt Domsch | 1 Aug 04:54 2006
Picon

Re: firefox.i386 in x86_64 repo

On Mon, Jul 31, 2006 at 09:48:38PM -0500, Jay Cliburn wrote:
> I'm indifferent to browser make and model, myself; Firefox just seems to 
> be in vogue and I'm accustomed to it now.  But the enduring headache for 
> a number of FC x86_64 users is the absence of 64-bit Macromedia Flash 
> and Sun Java plugins -- despite the availability gnash and blackdown and 
> nspluginwrapper -- and fedoraforum is chock full of people trying to 
> figure out how to add i386 repos and install and keep up to date a 
> "foreign" arch package in x86_64.  For some AMD64 owners, the decision 
> whether to use FCx.i386 or FCx.x86_64 is swayed to i386 by the simple 
> desire to avoid the wrestling match with 32-bit Firefox and its plugins 
> in a 64-bit Fedora.  (A cursory search of the AMD64 forum at fedoraforum 
> will bear out this assertion.)
> 
> I wrote a howto at fedoraforum that lays out the steps to get 32-bit 
> Firefox installed with Flash and Sun Java in x86_64, but I'm 
> occasionally astonished at just how badly people can muck it up by not 
> following the instructions to the letter, and sometimes they run into 
> gnarly dependency problems that may or may not be of their own making. 
> Having 32-bit Firefox in the x86_64 repo significantly simplifies the 
> whole process, and would be cheered by many a new Fedora/AMD64 user.

Much as it is highly annoying, other distributions such as OpenSuSE
have started shipping only the 32-bit Firefox or equivalent on AMD64,
and not shipping a 64-bit Firefox at all, for exactly this reason.
Idea being work must happen in the background to get 64-bit Java and
other plugins to work, but until then, don't dork over your end
users.  You loose a lot of bully pulpit, but you make for happier users.

--

-- 
Matt Domsch
(Continue reading)

n0dalus | 1 Aug 05:16 2006
Picon

Re: PC speaker fixed (was: Re: FC6 and cdburning)

On 8/1/06, Steve G <linux_4ever <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'd say so. There are just to many yappy programs. Do you really need to hear a
> beep when doing tab completion?
>

I agree. Having a beep when something finishes is good, or for example
when you ask for screen to beep when something changes, but the rest
of the time it is very annoying and I usually disconnect the speaker
at the motherboard. It would be cool if there was a way to allow beeps
on a per-application level.

n0dalus.

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Callum Lerwick | 1 Aug 07:33 2006

Re: firefox.i386 in x86_64 repo

On Mon, 2006-07-31 at 17:22 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Anyone managed to build
> http://www.gibix.net/dokuwiki/en:projects:nspluginwrapper
> 
> yet?

I tried. The plugin host thingy just segfaults on startup. Somewhere in
library code as far as I could figure out.
--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

Gmane