On Mon, Jan 15, 2024, at 8:57 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been made aware that there has been a cascade of packages that
> dropped i686 support in Rawhide, most of them referencing my
> EncourageI686LeafRemoval Change Proposal, but none of which *actually
> are* leaf packages:
On Mon, Jan 15, 2024, at 8:57 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been made aware that there has been a cascade of packages that
> dropped i686 support in Rawhide, most of them referencing my
> EncourageI686LeafRemoval Change Proposal, but none of which *actually
> are* leaf packages:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2023, at 12:31 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> We're currently not allowed to use /usr/etc (not that I like that path
> anyway) because it breaks RPM-OSTree. My understanding is that this
> directory is reserved by RPM-OSTree for storing pristine copies of
> /etc content for each
On Mon, Sep 18, 2023, at 3:57 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 01:27:23PM -0400, Colin Walters napsal(a):
>> To state the blindingly obvious thing, RHEL made a decision to centralize on
>> Gitlab. Having Fedora be on pagure creates IMO unnecessary friction for
On Fri, Sep 15, 2023, at 4:12 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 1:28 PM Colin Walters wrote:
>>
>>
>> My point is only partly about the HTML, but about the ecosystem surrounding
>> it (CI is a really big one) but really the total user experience
One thing I find amusing about this list (which like some others is kind of a
long-running soap opera that happens to sometimes produce software as a side
effect) is that many times, I can see just two bits of information:
- The subject of the email
- The name of the person responding
And I
On Wed, Sep 13, 2023, at 1:44 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 09:20:09AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> IIRC it was a condition of that proposal that we wind up on a hosted
>> version of the *open source* release of gitlab, which is something we
>> managed to talk gitlab
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023, at 7:42 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I was thinking of adding Passim as a default-installed and
> default-enabled dep of fwupd in the Fedora 40 release. Before I create
> lots of unnecessary drama, is there any early feedback on what's
> described in
On Thu, Jun 29, 2023, at 3:55 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>> last time I looked auditd is started later than
>> systemd-sysusers. Hence not sure if sysusers would actually generate
>> audit messages that auditd could pick them up.
>
> For the rpm integration, "started later" is irrelevant as the
On Tue, Mar 21, 2023, at 8:16 AM, Karel Zak wrote:
> Hey all,
>
>
> util-linux v2.39-rc1 coming to rawhide, Release Notes:
> https://kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/util-linux/v2.39/v2.39-ReleaseNotes
>
> I usually don't report util-linux Fedora updates, but this one is
> special. This new
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023, at 6:08 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> I don't really want to throw money out the window just because DNF
> eats up all the memory it can :(
Everyone needs to internalize: This has nothing to do with DNF, really.
It's about the *size of the repository metadata*.
Every
On Thu, Dec 8, 2022, at 9:51 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> I think the "Upgrade/compatibility impact" section ought to call out the
> possible risk with config mgmt tools like puppet/ansible, that might be
> managing SSH host keys and their permissions/ownership
So that was done with:
>
b would be to scan if iscsi volumes are configured. If it
>> finds configured ones, it would then issue "systemctl start --no-block
>> iscsi.service" to enqueue a start job for the real thing.
>
>
> Something like that was suggested last year, and Colin Walters objected,
On Thu, Dec 22, 2022, at 12:35 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Shorter_Shutdown_Timer
>
> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
> community feedback. This proposal will
On Fri, Dec 9, 2022, at 10:59 AM, Timothée Ravier wrote:
> Using layering will also conflict / not interact well with the move to
> container based ostree image in F38:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OstreeNativeContainerStable
(I'm only kind of following this thread and I agree we
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022, at 8:11 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> BTW I wanted to give an update here specifically regarding the "dnf
> image" bit - as of late, I've been working on a fresh new "bootc" CLI,
> see https://github.com/ostreedev/ostree-rs-ext/pull/412 and
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022, at 10:20 AM, Jonathan Lebon wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 12:43 PM Colin Walters wrote:
>> - This proposal is explicitly trying to tie everything together. I think
>> without the "bigger picture", it's actually *more* confusing. For
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022, at 3:24 AM, Bob Hepple wrote:
> Here's a question from one of my upstream devels. Not sure I understand
> exactly what he's asking but I thought I'd post here in the hope that
> someone can enlighten him (and me!).
>
> "... Arch supports signed git tags. I'm hoping Fedora
On Mon, Nov 21, 2022, at 3:52 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> In particular, two reasons why an upgrade might be interrupted were raised:
> power being cut and the system crashing. Bootupd (or any other daemon) cannot
> do much about crashes so this isn't a good motivation. For power,
On Fri, Nov 18, 2022, at 12:35 PM, Timothée Ravier wrote:
>> No, the install script install script in an RPM trigger, so the write is
>> still carried out by RPM.
>>
>> I don't agree. Just because a user can mess with files on the system
>> doesn't mean the rpmdb is a lie, nor is it reasonable
On Tue, Nov 15, 2022, at 12:00 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
> If your model doesn't permit the system to cease execution during
> bootloader updates, then I'm not sure why you need bootupd at all -
> traditional RPM updating will work just fine (assuming the A/B change
> we've been talking about).
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022, at 11:41 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2022, at 6:08 PM, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>> Ben Cotton writes:
>>
>>> By design, ostree does not manage bootloader updates as they can not
>>> (yet) happen in a transactional, atomic and safe fashion.
>>
>> As we've talked
On Fri, Nov 11, 2022, at 5:53 AM, Petr Pisar wrote:
>
> Wouldn't be easier to admit that timesamps are nonsense and simply eradicate
> all of them stamps from various data formats rather than trying to fake them?
> Simply changing rpmbuild to set timestamp to 0 for all contained files, or
>
On Mon, Oct 31, 2022, at 5:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 09:00:40AM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
>> Two things:
>>
>> - This proposal is explicitly trying to tie everything together. I think
>> without the "bigger picture", it's ac
On Mon, Oct 24, 2022, at 11:45 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> There are a lot of things going on in this proposal:
>
> - shipping editions as container images in quay
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/11047
> - migrating existing users to the new container image based updates
(No tracker yet)
> -
On Tue, Oct 18, 2022, at 4:35 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ModernizeLiveMedia
Just for reference, today Fedora CoreOS uses a different implementation of this:
On Thu, Oct 13, 2022, at 3:08 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OstreeNativeContainerStable
I know there's a lot going on here, so I put together
https://github.com/cgwalters/dnfimage-config
as a demonstration system to show this all works today. (Though there's a
On Tue, Oct 11, 2022, at 4:22 PM, Micah Abbott wrote:
> So I took a few hours here and there over the last few days to build a
> small project using the ostree native container functionality. I wanted
> to create a variant of Fedora CoreOS (FCOS) that has the Image Builder
>
On Mon, Oct 10, 2022, at 7:41 AM, Antonio Murdaca wrote:
> Hi folks, in rpm-ostree based systems like fedora iot I would love to
> handle the migration process similar to what happens today in
> silverblue et all wrt sysroot.readonly
>
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022, at 6:08 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> We shipped https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OstreeNativeContainer
> in Fedora 36 and a lot has happened since then.
Also, I should mention that we're planning to use this in OpenShift, see
https://github.com/openshift/enhanc
On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, at 9:47 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> FYI, the command in that page doesn't appear to be working because
> "latest" is the default tag if you don't specify one for docker and it
> doesn't exist, so you have to append ":stable" or something like that.
We shipped https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OstreeNativeContainer in
Fedora 36 and a lot has happened since then.
One of the biggest things is that rpm-ostree now knows how to intelligently
generate reproducible "chunked" container images.
I'll describe this by also highlighting
On Wed, Sep 7, 2022, at 5:35 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> It was pointed out on the bug that librsvg2 is in a similar situation.
> The answer there was to bundle ("vendor") all the Rust dependencies
> into the tarball. The command "cargo vendor" does this.
>
> For librsvg2 that's 278MB of
On Mon, Aug 29, 2022, at 3:52 AM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote:
> I use Fedora IoT on GCPs free tier offering and it is fine. I a,
> assuming `rpm-ostree install` doesn’t have this issue.
It does have the issue.
rpm-ostree links to libdnf which is doing all the same things.
As I commented
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, at 1:04 PM, Fabio Alessandro Locati wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Sway SIG is looking for ideas and opinions on the name for the Sway
> OSTree spin.
> You can read more at
> https://fale.io/blog/2022/08/12/fedora-sway-ostree-spin-name
Just my 2 cents: I still don't think the
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022, at 12:24 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fr, 15.07.22 10:03, Colin Walters (walt...@verbum.org) wrote:
>
>> We recently did
>> https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/1840 for Fedora
>> CoreOS (more background:
>> https://g
On Wed, Jul 20, 2022, at 4:44 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Where does that build happen? Must be outside the kernel
> rpm build process, so probably when generating the ostree?
Exactly. We also run all %post scripts server side too for example.
You can see the logs for this at e.g.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022, at 12:24 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
>
> by something like this:
>
>
> ExecStart=/usr/bin/systemd-tmpfiles --create -
> StandardInputText=f /run/sysctl.d/01-coreos-printk.conf - - - - kernel.printk
> 4
>
>
> Benefits: no shell, single process forked, no explicit
On Tue, Jul 19, 2022, at 10:15 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
>
> That is the big if. If you have the initrds.
>
> I've hacked up the kernel rpm to also build a initrd (targeting virtual
> machines for starters) and shipping that as (optional) sub-rpm ...
FWIW, every rpm-ostree based system defaults
We recently did https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/1840 for
Fedora CoreOS (more background:
https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/1244 ) and I'd like to
consider applying this to all Fedora editions.
There'd be no impact on desktop systems (commonly installed
On Thu, Jun 30, 2022, at 10:23 AM, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> Regardless, Fedora will still be RPM-based no matter what. ;) Even if
> our future is OS images composed of RPMs plus Flatpaks composed by
> RPMs, it's still based on RPMs.
I don't think so. I think RPM is a tool, a technique
On Sun, May 29, 2022, at 6:55 AM, Peter Boy wrote:
>
> Fedora Server WG discussed the proposal and insists that the proposal
> be deferred until Anaconda can install software raid on biosboot
> systems with GPT (see
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2088113 and
>
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022, at 7:19 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> - dnf-daemon would be dbus-activated and exit-on-idle after a suitable
> timeout
This is how rpm-ostree has worked for about 5 years now:
https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree/pull/606
(Lots of useful references in that
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022, at 10:11 AM, Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> That list hasn't been edited in 5 years, but 256 bit inodes have been
> the ext default for a very long time unless you specifically request
> small.
In current Fedora CoreOS we have 128 bit inodes for /boot, and this appears to
be
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022, at 3:51 PM, Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:47 AM Colin Walters wrote:
>>
>> Hi, creating a thread on this from:
>> https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/1650
>>
>> Basically I'd propose that not just our def
Hi, creating a thread on this from:
https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/1650
Basically I'd propose that not just our default images have y2038-compatible
filesystem setups, we ensure that if e.g. XFS is explicitly chosen for a
Workstation installation then it is set up with
On Mon, Mar 7, 2022, at 12:44 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> Hi Fedora, CentOS, and EPEL Communities!
>
> As part of our continued 3 year major Red Hat Enterprise Linux release
> cadence, RHEL 9 development is starting to wrap up with the spring
> 2022 release coming soon. That means planning for the
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022, at 1:40 PM, Alexander Sosedkin wrote:
>
> But these are all rather... crude?
> Sure there should be better ways,
> preferably something explored before.
One general technique I like is the "warn and sleep" approach; example:
https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree/pull/2098
On Thu, Mar 3, 2022, at 4:25 PM, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 2, 2022, at 7:04 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> * OOm killer looks and says... oh hey, I need to kill something. This
>> kojid process/slice is taking up all the memory.
>> * kojid is killed.
>
>
On Wed, Mar 2, 2022, at 7:04 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * OOm killer looks and says... oh hey, I need to kill something. This
> kojid process/slice is taking up all the memory.
> * kojid is killed.
If we replaced Koji's backend with Kubernetes (at least my employer's
production way to run Linux
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022, at 6:17 AM, Benjamin Berg wrote:
> network-online-waitonly.target with
> After=network-online.target
> StopWhenUnneeded=yes
>
> which is then used inside iscsi.service
> ExecStartPre=/usr/bin/systemctl start network-online-waitonly.target
No, avoid such things
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022, at 12:48 PM, Stephen Snow wrote:
> On Wed, 2022-02-16 at 12:12 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Silverblue_Kinoite_readonly_sysroot
>>
>> == Summary ==
>>
>> This change is about enabling an opt-in ostree feature that re-mounts
>>
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022, at 10:25 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> I agree, I think it should move to /usr/lib/sysimage/authselect instead.
That would break the use case of running it on an image based (i.e. readonly
/usr) system *client side*.
We settled on having it in /etc in
On Wed, Jan 19, 2022, at 6:38 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 19, 2022 at 6:05 AM Casey Jao via devel
> wrote:
>>
>> Doesn't rpm-ostree already provide transactional, image-based updates
>> without the use of filesystem snapshots? In addition, roofs snapshots are
>> only really useful if
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, at 1:48 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps the Fedora CoreOS folks would have some thoughts?
I can't speak for the whole team, but a few points. First, the FCOS build
tooling in https://github.com/coreos/coreos-assembler is designed to run as a
standard container. In
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, at 6:05 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> The path "/usr/lib/sysimage/rpm" does look very out-of-place in
> non-image-based systems, so *if* we want to move the rpmdb to a place
> that's consistent across all our Editions, it should also be a
> location name that makes sense
On Fri, Jan 14, 2022, at 2:46 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> What about /var/lib/selinux? It's owned by the selinux-policy-targeted
> package. Even though the files may not change often, it probably needs
> to be snapshot and rolled back with revision matching for /usr and
> rpmdb.
Yep, welcome
On Thu, Jan 13, 2022, at 7:52 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Actually, shouldn't rpm-ostree carry around some copy of the RPM
> database, which would describe the state of /usr and once the update is
> successful (or snapshot active?), merge it into the main system RPM
> database? Apparently,
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, at 4:04 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> Here seems to be another SMALL undocumented dependency of this change:
> completing the /usrmove thing to cover the whole world including /opt,
> /etc, /var, and presumably /boot as well because packages put stuff in it.
There are
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, at 4:05 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 02:53:52PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Should /usr be independently portable? And is that with a version
>> matched /opt, or can there be mix and match revisions of /usr and
>> /opt?
>
> We have
On Wed, Jan 12, 2022, at 4:24 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
>
> Oh, right. More hidden agenda behind this thing. When looking at it with
> these glasses on, it explains quite a few things about the change
> proposal, such as completely ignoring the fact that nearly all packages
> put something
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022, at 4:00 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> The point was though, that the rpmdb is not at all the only data of this
> kind and so having a dedicated home makes sense.
You mentioned dnf/yum/PackageKit data; there's two kinds of that. One is e.g.
/var/cache/dnf which does
On Mon, Jan 10, 2022, at 11:19 AM, David Cantrell wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2021 at 10:01:57AM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
>>https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RelocateRPMToUsr
>>
>>== Summary ==
>>Currently, the RPM databases is located in `/var`. Let's move it to
>>`/usr`. The move is already
Hi Kevin,
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021, at 11:50 AM, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
>
> But being allowed to run custom or self-developed software is a core feature
> of Free Software. If that stops working in the name of "security", Fedora is
> no better than iOS (where Apple also claims the
I don't think we need to go too deep on this cloud-init vs Ignition thread; but
you have a great message here and I just want to clarify some points,
everything else you said here is fair/accurate/relevant from my PoV.
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022, at 10:41 AM, David Duncan wrote:
> In most of those
>
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022, at 9:05 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NoIfcfgFiles
>
> == Summary ==
> Do not not include NetworkManager support for legacy network
> configuration files by in new installations.
It'd be nice to note this Change is actually just doing for
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022, at 9:22 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> There are none. Ignition deliberately cannot configure the network,
This is not true.
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-coreos/sysconfig-network-configuration/#_via_ignition
> and as a CoreOS tool, it is incapable of
For the record, I obviously support this change. Responding to a few threads:
On Wed, Dec 29, 2021, at 10:16 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> How does this work on RO /usr files systems? I thought data in /usr
> was supposed to be static/ It works for rpm-ostree because it's
> updated at tree
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, at 11:32 AM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Make_Authselect_Mandatory
Just to raise the visibility here, this currently breaks all ostree-based
systems (*again*):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2019052#c1
On Sat, Dec 18, 2021, at 5:06 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> Sure, I saw that ticket. But I fail to see how this is this a "new problem".
> If you use, for example, some shiny, new features that are only going
> to be in GCC 12 or LLVM 14,
There's a *big* difference between Go and C/C++/Rust
On Mon, Dec 13, 2021, at 5:21 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
>
> Did you test the impact this has on package build times? Particularly
> packages like llvm, clang, webkit2gtk3, etc. that have very large
> debuginfo files?
I think far too often the culture here is "make $change for all RPMs". But
On Wed, Dec 15, 2021, at 1:45 PM, Luca Boccassi wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2021 at 10:47:52AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>> Any file covered by fs-verity is immutable after installation. So you
>> cannot modify the contents, the kernel refuses. But you can just
>> replace the file (like during
On Wed, Dec 8, 2021, at 1:28 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2021 at 7:52 AM Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>>
>> On Di, 07.12.21 15:39, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
>>
>> > Latest systemd versions have been getting some support for the low-level
>> > parts,
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote:
>
> Also, how does this intersect with Fedora IoT and their desire to move
> to Imagebuilder?
Actually sorry you asked a specific question about IoT and I went off on a
larger tangent.
The simple answer is: everything in the
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021, at 12:32 PM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote:
> Also, how does this intersect with Fedora IoT and their desire to move
> to Imagebuilder?
I'd love for one of the team members there to comment on this. From the
FCOS side I can say there's interest in aligning CoreOS and Image
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021, at 11:33 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> A couple of things from my perspective:
>
> * I would like to see how this would enable CoreOS releases to go
> through Bodhi
To me, a notable chunk of the value of how we're doing FCOS is that
our build, test and release processes are
On Wed, Dec 1, 2021, at 4:34 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Colin Walters said:
>> https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/commit/eb74f2ea3e9b453902315539e4f327481162c4f8
>
> Missed this message earlier... this seems like this should be the
> default on pret
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021, at 9:49 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said:
>> Further, this change of defaults complements the default for root
>> account. The redesign of root setup screen in Fedora 35 makes it clear
>> that root should be left locked.
>
> So, not directly
On Wed, Nov 24, 2021, at 1:26 AM, Robin Lee wrote:
>
> This function is unrelated to 'rpm' but unfortunately provided by
> 'rpm-ostree'.
> Maybe we should provide another standalone tool so non-rpm/dnf-based
> distributions can be easier to deploy.
No, all the "ostree-container" logic lives
On Tue, Nov 23, 2021, at 4:28 PM, James Cassell wrote:
> Will things be slower than native ostree?
The only thing that will be less efficient is wire transfer as of right now.
But we're going to be working on that.
> I've got no problem with the capability being added, but I do wonder,
>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021, at 1:52 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> I'm working on extending quickemu[1] to be able to easily spin up
> Fedora VMs, but our lack of a static URL formula for fetching ISOs
> makes this a bit difficult.
>
> Do we have some kind of API endpoint that has the necessary
On Mon, Oct 4, 2021, at 3:08 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> But then you're back to *exactly how Fedora packages for Java projects
> already work* - only with the added complication that distributing
> those build artifacts as plain JARs instead of RPMs now makes them
> impossible to consume as
On Sun, Aug 15, 2021, at 6:43 PM, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>
> Mark kojid as non-killable by setting its OOM score to -1000? Adding
> swap might also help, but then the build is by no means guaranteed to
> finish in a reasonable amount of time.
If Koji wasn't a clustered container system
On Wed, Jul 21, 2021, at 9:04 AM, Miroslav Vadkerti wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Today we are gladly announcing that the Zuul CI system for Fedora,
Congrats!
> which is running checks for pull requests against
> src.fedoraproject.org, will also run Test Management Tool (tmt) based
> tests via
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021, at 10:23 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> Yeah I saw it but as with many things I didn't necessarily understand
> it :-( So in fact it's nothing to do with streams as I was thinking
> about it. I guess "stream" means something like "software stream", as
> in which distro
On Fri, Jul 23, 2021, at 7:20 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> I think I'd prefer that if you intend to do CLI wrappers, that the
> wrapper matches the semantics of the original tools as much as
> possible.
>
> That is, "dnf|yum install " should overlay RPMs on the system,
I can certainly see
Hi, this is to raise awareness of an effort we're driving from the Fedora
CoreOS side here:
"ship quay.io/coreos/fedora-coreos" at
https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-tracker/issues/812
Which builds on a bidirectional bridge between ostree and container images that
lives here:
I was originally thinking of this as a Change, but since it won't be enabled by
default, and I think it's most useful to gather feedback from this group first:
See https://coreos.github.io/rpm-ostree/cliwrap/
This is available since
https://github.com/coreos/rpm-ostree/releases/tag/v2021.6
But
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021, at 4:25 PM, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/MemoryConstraintsMacros
>
> == Summary ==
> Introduce macros, similar to openSUSE's
> [https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Factory/memory-constraints
> memory-constraints]), for optionally
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021, at 5:16 AM, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
> Greetings from the Fedora source-git SIG! We are planning to start
> publishing reports of what we are working on so everyone can easily
> pay attention and get involved if interested. If you have any ideas,
> comments or requests, don’t
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, at 6:21 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> systemd has systemd.status_unit_format= / [Manager].StatusUnitFormat=
> / -Dstatus-unit-format-default= option to use unit names instead of the
> Description in messages on the kernel console and in logs:
I meant to
On Thu, Jun 24, 2021, at 5:22 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 24. 06. 21 23:07, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > Dne 24. 06. 21 v 15:48 Tomas Tomecek napsal(a):
> >>> One thing to consider is that the upstream tarballs might be
> >>> cryptographically
> >>> signed and packages should verify the signature
On Fri, May 28, 2021, at 5:43 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> Part of the point of the different working groups was to handle the
> different use-cases *well* at their own pace. The CoreOS Working Group
> is *explicitly* excluded and frankly unlikely to ever switch because
> Colin believes
I am not
On Thu, May 20, 2021, at 8:21 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Lets say the Fedora base image is refreshed with updated RPMs on a weekly
> basis. Each application republishes their app containers on an arbitrarily
> different schedule, maybe fortnightly, monthly, whatever. Thus out of
> 10
On Thu, May 20, 2021, at 12:31 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> Then maybe FCOS needs to have a major version number to indicate that
> these breaks are going to happen. I am going to say off the bat it DOES
> NOT need to be the same as the Fedora Linux release number. It also
> doesn't
On Thu, May 20, 2021, at 10:01 AM, Daniel Walsh wrote:
>
> This might end up being a major problem with FCOS, if we are stuck with
> the defaults forever, and never able to take advantage of new
> technology.
Note that with cgroups v2, the status quo is that nodes updated in place stay
on
On Wed, May 19, 2021, at 7:54 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> It's not like making changes and breaking upgrades is acceptable in
> Fedora Linux either. It's just that the Fedora CoreOS WG has not
> participated in the main development process and rolled back changes
> instead of adapting to them,
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021, at 4:04 PM, przemek klosowski via devel wrote:
> Few weeks ago we had an announcement of a Python supply chain hack where
> people supplied libraries with names matching some private library
> names, which took precedence and overrode those private libraries,
> giving
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, at 8:44 PM, Matthew Almond via devel wrote:
>
> I think we should be careful to de-couple these two things. Just
> because $SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH is likely to affect a lot of binaries is not
> proof that all binaries will.
Agreed; it'd be interesting to gather some data here,
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, at 10:52 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> O
> (Of course, sd-boot works this way: the RPM packages drop EFI binaries
> into /usr/, and "bootctl install" and "bootctl update" will copy them
> into the boot loader partitions, carefully and defensively in order
> not to corrupt
1 - 100 of 536 matches
Mail list logo
