Re: RFE: Use generic names in packages

Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:41PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>> On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> In the case of README files there is genuine advantages to have generic 
>>> names.  You have less changes to take care off when you branch off to 
>>> RHEL, EPEL or OLPC. Maybe other distributions can be encouraged to use 
>>> README.distribution too.
>> That would be unfortunate.  README.suse != README.fedora !=
>> README.ubuntu....
> 
> Exactly. If the contents are equal then by definition it would not be
> suited for README.<distro>.
> 
> Isn't EPEL Fedora anymore? Why the need to banish README.Fedora?

EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora. I did refer to the discussion. Think 
about this from the end user perspective rather than from the project 
perspective.

Rahul

--

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

Re: Inaccuracy of smolt i586 count - was 586 kernels.

On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:51:48PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> I guess I could look at it another way, what info can I grab so its 
> useful to the developers to make decisions about this stuff :)

Depends what DaveJ plans for FC8

For current rpm you want to check that

1.	All CPUs report family 6 or higher
2.	All CPUs have the cmov flag in their cpuid capability bits

--

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

Re: Inaccuracy of smolt i586 count - was 586 kernels.

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:14:20AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> I also wonder what the 2.1% i386 are. These can't be true i386, or if
> they are they can't be 30x as many as i586.

I'd been wondering if those are qemu/vmware/xen or something similar ?

> And even though ppc is not expected to be a frontline arch, only 378
> boxes? Makes me feel like having a big share of ppc boxes.

Most users won't be reporting anything

--

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

Re: RFE: Use generic names in packages

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:34:18AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:41PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >>On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>>In the case of README files there is genuine advantages to have generic 
> >>>names.  You have less changes to take care off when you branch off to 
> >>>RHEL, EPEL or OLPC. Maybe other distributions can be encouraged to use 
> >>>README.distribution too.
> >>That would be unfortunate.  README.suse != README.fedora !=
> >>README.ubuntu....
> >
> >Exactly. If the contents are equal then by definition it would not be
> >suited for README.<distro>.
> >
> >Isn't EPEL Fedora anymore? Why the need to banish README.Fedora?
> 
> EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora.

Not for, but from.

> I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user
> perspective rather than from the project perspective.

Yes, the end user should hopefully not wonder that EPEL is from
Fedora. If so, then he'll hopfully get up to speed, and README.Fedora
kicking him off to do so will have been a feature and not a bug.
--

-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Re: Sunbird in devel

Kelly wrote:
> On Friday, June 29, 2007 4:49 am Debarshi 'Rishi' Ray wrote:
>>> Oh, and if there's enough interest, I'll package Sunbird for Fedora.
>> What are you waiting for?
>>
>> Cheerio,
>> Debarshi
>> --
>> GPG key ID: 63D4A5A7
>> Key server: pgp.mit.edu
> 
> I've got the spec file written, but I can't get it to compile.  I keep getting 
> errors from ld about missing symbols.
> 
> I'm posting here to see if this is a known problem with the Mozilla builds in 
> general.

You got to post the build output then.

Rahul

--

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

Re: RFE: Use generic names in packages

Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:34:18AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>> Axel Thimm wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:41PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>>> In the case of README files there is genuine advantages to have generic 
>>>>> names.  You have less changes to take care off when you branch off to 
>>>>> RHEL, EPEL or OLPC. Maybe other distributions can be encouraged to use 
>>>>> README.distribution too.
>>>> That would be unfortunate.  README.suse != README.fedora !=
>>>> README.ubuntu....
>>> Exactly. If the contents are equal then by definition it would not be
>>> suited for README.<distro>.
>>>
>>> Isn't EPEL Fedora anymore? Why the need to banish README.Fedora?
>> EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora.
> 
> Not for, but from.
> 
>> I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user
>> perspective rather than from the project perspective.
> 
> Yes, the end user should hopefully not wonder that EPEL is from
> Fedora. If so, then he'll hopfully get up to speed, and README.Fedora
> kicking him off to do so will have been a feature and not a bug.

Seems the emphasis is incorrectly about where the repository is from 
rather than where it is going to be used in.

Rahul

Re: Inaccuracy of smolt i586 count - was 586 kernels.

On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:07:29PM -0400, Alan Cox wrote:
> > And even though ppc is not expected to be a frontline arch, only 378
> > boxes? Makes me feel like having a big share of ppc boxes.
> 
> Most users won't be reporting anything

Yes, that's the issue with these kind of statistics.

At least for ppc one can get some comparative statistics by checking
the ratio of ppc to i386/x86_64 iso downloads. The correcting factor
would show how different the black numbers behind the smolt stats are
from i386/x86_64 to ppc and use that as a weighing factor for getting
improved estimators for ppc.

But for the i586 vs i686 issue we can't find any other stats to
compare with smolt.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

--

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

Re: Inaccuracy of smolt i586 count - was 586 kernels.

On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 01:51:48PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:57:39AM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> >  
> >>>post F7 upgrade (meaning I didn't check beforehand) uname -m and arch
> >>>report i686. Smolt also sees this as an i686 - in fact the complete
> >>>profile is at
> >>>      
> >>Whats the right way to determine the arch of the box?
> >>    
> >
> >uname -m
> >
> >However for the "gcc 686" as opposed to "Intel/AMD 686" you must also check
> >that cmov is available. Basically smolt is right gcc is wrong 8)
> >  
> 
> I guess I could look at it another way, what info can I grab so its 
> useful to the developers to make decisions about this stuff :)

Isn't all of /proc/cpuinfo transmitted? Maybe a finer grained stats on
cpu family/model/flags under the "CPU" tag?
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

--

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

Re: RFE: Use generic names in packages

On So Juli 1 2007, Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora. I did refer to the discussion. Think
> about this from the end user perspective rather than from the project
> perspective.

Where does a user not see Fedora when he looks at EPEL? Bugs go to the "Fedora 
EPEL" Product on Bugzilla, all documentation is found at 
http://FEDORAproject.org/wiki/EPEL and repoview at 
http://redhat.download.FEDORAproject.org/pub/epel/5/i386/repoview/ has the 
title "Fedora EPEL". So are you sure, that a lot of end users are confused by 
README.Fedora files?

Regards,
Till

--

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

Re: RFE: Use generic names in packages

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:43:43AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 04:34:18AM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>Axel Thimm wrote:
> >>>On Thu, Jun 28, 2007 at 10:24:41PM -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> >>>>On Fri, 2007-06-29 at 10:30 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> >>>>>In the case of README files there is genuine advantages to have 
> >>>>>generic names.  You have less changes to take care off when you branch 
> >>>>>off to RHEL, EPEL or OLPC. Maybe other distributions can be encouraged 
> >>>>>to use README.distribution too.
> >>>>That would be unfortunate.  README.suse != README.fedora !=
> >>>>README.ubuntu....
> >>>Exactly. If the contents are equal then by definition it would not be
> >>>suited for README.<distro>.
> >>>
> >>>Isn't EPEL Fedora anymore? Why the need to banish README.Fedora?
> >>EPEL isn't targeted for Fedora.
> >
> >Not for, but from.
> >
> >>I did refer to the discussion. Think about this from the end user
> >>perspective rather than from the project perspective.
> >
> >Yes, the end user should hopefully not wonder that EPEL is from
> >Fedora. If so, then he'll hopfully get up to speed, and
> >README.Fedora kicking him off to do so will have been a feature and
> >not a bug.
> 
> Seems the emphasis is incorrectly about where the repository is from
> rather than where it is going to be used in.