openSUSE Factory February 2013

factory@lists.opensuse.org

110 participants
116 discussions

[opensuse-factory] no factory iso's listed after 28-Jan-2013

by doiggl＠velocitynet.com.au

Hello There are no factory iso's listed after 28-Jan-2013 Will their be newer iso's put up Cheers Glenn http://ftp5.gwdg.de/pub/opensuse/factory/iso/ openSUSE-GNOME-LiveCD-i686-Build0370-Media.iso 28-Jan-2013 17:11 670M openSUSE-GNOME-LiveCD-x86_64-Build0370-Media.iso 28-Jan-2013 18:18 677M openSUSE-KDE-LiveCD-i686-Build0370-Media.iso 28-Jan-2013 16:56 697M openSUSE-KDE-LiveCD-x86_64-Build0354-Media.iso 16-Jan-2013 19:06 645M openSUSE-NET-i586-Build0370-Media.iso 28-Jan-2013 15:11 224M openSUSE-NET-x86_64-Build0370-Media.iso 28-Jan-2013 15:12 249M -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org

8 years, 2 months

Re: [opensuse-factory] systemd offline updates - working for anyone?

by Cristian Rodríguez

El lun 18 feb 2013 13:54:55 CLST, Claudio Freire escribió: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Cristian Rodríguez > <crrodriguez(a)opensuse.org> wrote: >>> No, it's a step to windows like operation >> >> >> Well .. yeah.. feel free to propose other solution that also covers >> applications crashing or misbehaving because an update is running. > > > zypper ps If you propose zypper ps then you dont understand what I'm talking about, zypper ps will not prevent any of the problems I mentioned. please read http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/SystemUpdates again. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org

8 years, 2 months

[opensuse-factory] New Tumbleweed GPG key?

by richard -rw- weinberger

Hi! Tumbleweed seems to have a new GPG key. How can I verify it? ID: 03FCF140B367F5CD Name: openSUSE:Tumbleweed OBS Project <openSUSE:Tumbleweed@build.opensuse.org> Fingerprint: 56FE3F66EE9AD664DD8978DF03FCF140B367F5CD Valid from: Mo 18 Feb 2013 18:09:00 CET Valid to: Mi 29 Apr 2015 19:09:00 CEST -- Thanks, //richard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org

8 years, 2 months

[opensuse-factory] Re: Fontconfig fonts priority

by Lars Müller

On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 12:22:50PM +0100, Mariusz Fik wrote: > Dnia środa, 1 lutego 2012 01:03:13 Sven Burmeister pisze: > > Am Dienstag, 31. Januar 2012, 22:43:11 schrieb Mariusz Fik: > > > > > > current fontconfig configuration[1] sets the highest priority for > > > Microsoft font. If user install them (i.e. Times New Roman, Arial, > > > Consolas) they will be set as _default_ for respectively families > > > (sans-serif, sans, monospace). Why do we promote Microsoft fonts > > > instead support open fonts, shipped with system? > > > > > > I propose[2] to downgrade those fonts. Thanks to this, we keep our > > > default font settings but those MS fonts will be still available for > > > use. > > > > > > Whats Your point of view in this case? > > > > Are you sure that the free fonts have the same quality – even if > > anti-aliasing is disabled? I remember ugly characters with free fonts > > unless I would use bitmap fonts and that's a no-go IMHO. My suggestion is: > > Set the best quality fonts as default. Those that do not want to use MS > > fonts simply do not install them. There was a reason to prefer those fonts > > and AFAIR it was quality or lack thereof regarding the free fonts. > > The goal is: to not set those fonts as _default_ and not to get them rid off . > Why Joe when install i.e. Consolas font should get it set as default monospace > font? Maybe he want's only to use it in a single program? Please continue this thread at opensuse-factory as it was already suggested as part of this thread. Therefore the Reply-To got set. The begin of this thread was here: http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2012-01/msg02101.html Why? Cause it's more likely that you'll get the required attention. Thanks, Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany

8 years, 2 months

Re: [opensuse-factory] RC installation colors

by Felix Miata

On 2013-02-15 08:07 (GMT) Richard Brown composed: > Felix Miata wrote > http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/Tmp/yast-123installation-greenONgray-low-contrast-li… > This is significantly different from what I get on the RC1 DVD. Which build > from where are you using? I have no idea how to tell the "build". I don't use isos. http://download.opensuse.org/factory-snapshot/repo/oss/boot/x86_64/loader/ linux & initrd Right before making that screenshot I checked a mirror to see timestamps the same as saved locally, from early on the 12th, but now the timestamps there are from early yesterday. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org

8 years, 2 months

[opensuse-factory] [tumbleweed] kernel build failure

by Jiri Slaby

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Greg, to solve $SUBJ, we need a certificate to sign a kernel with now. It can be created by: osc signkey --create openSUSE:Tumbleweed This will change the key so that everybody has to approve the change in zypper/yast when installing. If anybody else knows a better way without changing the certificate, tell us. thanks, - -- js suse labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRIRJJAAoJEL0lsQQGtHBJw9IP/0cwyUVO1o2p3ul+LpwX/YHr s6Sji5XmiSMztATk1Gx+25oC7G8hnW76qGHWcwJud4Jmdqvg5zu6W5h0n4XYC0du 6kM706hlX2INSKPKHhQZovcyPiSyNfC9lduNhxo/6kbWKHx/lPc3rPihBDIcedT1 tHq1nN0cFZ1aleNajwVs3u1PR2qqnw7S5WgFNgYaNJeURBv0AjXz9YrKZdzqoi/c DmWECr65lDMIHqk1bI9o7wB7jB8EoGThmmoGQ0lG4aKdeOWlqfqtg+TBDAb0CPqP QA50ezFDYBKw9h6eUZfzqAY9v9Ox4sawLif/M4ZvfhxEUkfDevW1IsP44Boxj3jv VtvjWYr2VhaSIhZU4cmV+Aqp3Bc7Bt1tYTOt9tGzEooDM4ZdF/20wjMMpfpXBXMr w5g4xoanRnu5PWRqEfDNY8RVqrfqwI/i24iO07twtJzCoFjTMqd8r/KplrMENyUX xT2GMjzgtHvHta2XbDHvzmOe0L9ZvSbMGZ3l1H2WaFX3DmKkg57JD8+LZIGUDhyp OdpRLprAo8Ij0q5r6G4tLye1IJt15Msf1kgKm/nSIsz1zw0j+HQ/YaWXNxqVas7b GAFbYcmAQ8JGJ1N344Tkj9S+W6bgbUiYjfpoA31EgyaoUnaLmgqGF3YJojwMc/qq dtQlpJk3jbIECkxp10ON =ha+w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org

8 years, 2 months

[opensuse-factory] Update libcdio to 0.90 in openSUSE 12.3?

by Cristian Morales Vega

libcdio 0.83 had a licensing problem. So we packaged a GIT snapshot. On October version 0.90 was released, but nobody noticed. The problem is that between 0.83 and 0.90 the API was changed. Now you find software that uses things like #if LIBCDIO_VERSION_NUM >= 90 To use the old or the new API. But our GIT snapshot defines LIBCDIO_VERSION_NUM as 84. I am not in any way its maintainer and I have no more knowledge about it than anybody else. So I can't really give any good argument to upgrade or not upgrade. What should we do? - Don't touch anything Let Packman and users who compile its own software feel the pain of having to patch all the software that checks LIBCDIO_VERSION_NUM - Patch our current GIT snapshot to report version 90 Even if it's a GIT snapshot in theory it has been well tested during the development of 12.3. I don't know if there were more API changes between our snapshot and 0.90 - Update our package to 0.90 Less than one month to test it. $ osc whatdependson openSUSE:12.3 libcdio standard i586 libcdio : bundle-lang-gnome-extras cdio-utils clementine gstreamer-0_10-plugins-ugly gstreamer-plugins-ugly gvfs libcddb-utils libcdio-paranoia pragha qmmp vcdimager xine-lib xmms2 Opinions? Stanislav, you are set as maintainer and bugowner. Is that info up to date? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org

8 years, 2 months

[opensuse-factory] Devel project <-> factory links

by Archie Cobbs

I'm confused/have a dumb question: Suppose some package foobar is first created in a devel project. Life goes on, and then foobar gets submitted to factory and gets accepted. >From reading all the stuff on the wiki I would expect at this point that the devel foobar should remain as before, and the new factory foobar would just contain a _link to the devel foobar... quoting: "Development, however, does not happen directly in openSUSE:Factory but in so called devel projects." But it looks like what actually happens is that the link goes the opposite way: the devel foobar is copied wholesale into factory, and then the devel foobar gets a _link pointing to the factory foobar (example: utilities/csvprintf). That seems backwards. E.g. suppose someone then BURP's the devel foobar. Now the devel foobar is different from the factory foobar. When and how does the factory foobar get updated? And when this happens, does the devel foobar get copied on top of the old factory foobar, and the devel foobar thrown away and recreated with a new _link? Would someone ever want to modify sources directly in the factory foobar, instead of the devel foobar? It seems like we now have two independent places you can make changes to a package. Instead, why doesn't it work this way: - The factory foobar has a _link that points to the devel foobar (possibly with a fixed revision) - Sources are never changed in the factory foobar directly - To update factory foobar, you just update the revision in the _link file. Sorry for asking such basic questions. Just trying to understand how this all works. Thanks, -Archie -- Archie L. Cobbs -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org

8 years, 2 months

[opensuse-factory] found not found

by Felix Miata

Can someone explain the following zypper behavior? # zypper se -s basis | (grep xfce) Loading repository data... Reading installed packages... S | Name | Type | Version | Arch | Repository --+-----------------------------------+---------+------------+------+----------- | patterns-openSUSE-xfce_basis | package | 12.3-7.7.1 | i586 | OSS | xfce_basis | pattern | 12.3-7.7.1 | i586 | OSS # zypper in xfce_basis Loading repository data... Reading installed packages... 'xfce_basis' not found in package names. Trying capabilities. No provider of 'xfce_basis' found. Resolving package dependencies... Nothing to do. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org

8 years, 2 months

[opensuse-factory] List with goals for next release

by denisart benjamin2

Hello everybody, I think we need a webpage with objectives for next release and further implementations, like the python status page. One of those goals is to drop sysvinit and have a full and complete implmentation of systemd ( it's just an example ). But actually we have applications using sysvinit and applications using systemd on 12.3 and previous release. If we have a page with a list of applications who need a convertion, maintainers and OBS users can work of those without having to search what application use an init script. There is other examples, like implementation of dracut or Wicked, but users can't contribute to those implementations because there is no page status. Regards. Posophe -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org

8 years, 2 months

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
12
Older →

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

openSUSE Factory February 2013