Re: F38 proposal: Rpmautospec by Default (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hi On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:38 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 10:25 AM Chuck Anderson wrote: > > > Perhaps this can be modified to create a layout that matches dist-git? > > Probably not, because Dist-Git is a Fedora-specific thing, so I > wouldn't accept such a change in

Orphaning packages

Hi I have orphaned all the packages I used to maintain but haven't had the time to keep up with in a long time. Feel free to pick them up if you like. All the best. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/chocolate-doom https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gif2png

Re: F39 proposal: Replace DNF with DNF5 (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hi On Tue, Oct 25, 2022 at 7:14 AM Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > > DNF team has experience with replacing of YUM in Fedora and RHEL. It give > us an advantage to not repeat the same mistakes. We already know that > shipping DNF as YUM was not a good idea. > This response really doesn't clarify what

Re: status update on "ostree native containers"

Hi On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 6:09 PM Colin Walters wrote: > 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"

Re: DNF5 wants to replace regular rpms with modules

Hi On Fri, Sep 23, 2022 at 9:50 AM Jaroslav Mracek wrote: > Correct, the modular filtering is not yet implemented and this is the last > blocker for rawhide release. > Quick notes from what I am seeing with limiting testing using the copr repo * Performance is much better * Search seems

Re: F37 Change: Signed RPM Contents (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hi On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 5:33 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > > I don't think we should characterize the Changes process in this way. > Fedora > is a place for experimentation, and if a proposal is rejected, it is > totally > appropriate to adjust that proposal based on feedback and re-submit. >

Re: F37 Change: Deprecate Legacy BIOS (System-Wide Change proposal)

Hi On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:59 PM Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > Current owners plan to orphan some packages regardless of whether the > > proposal is accepted. > > And that is completely unacceptable blackmailing. > Blackmail is always conditional. Stating openly that someone is going to do

Re: Let's retire original glib and gtk+ (new report)

Hi On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 11:29 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7 2022 at 04:17:09 PM +, Sérgio Basto > > Hi, > > In resume glib still required for 20 packages [1], > > apart of the sweet memories that some package bring to us , any of > > these packages is needed ? or haven't

Re: unsafe systemd setup in Fedora

Hi On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 11:40 AM Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 08:13:15PM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: > > It would probably be good to use more of those features, but you need > > to understand the service very well to know what systemd security > > features

Re: unsafe systemd setup in Fedora

Hi On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 5:07 PM Lennart Poettering wrote: > > There have been various requests of generalizing this, and making it > available for any kind of service, not just portable services. I'd be > onboard with that actually, but there are some unanswered questions > regarding how

Re: unsafe systemd setup in Fedora

Hi On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 9:51 AM Lennart Poettering wrote: > > Yes, opt-out would be better than opt-in, but it would be a major > compat break, UNIX software doesn't expect to be sandboxed, so if you > sandbox everything out-of-the-box you'll be drowning in bugs, and the > failure modes are

Re: unsafe systemd setup in Fedora

Hi On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 8:18 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote > > What do you mean by "global service overrides"? Currently security hardening features are opt-in. You will have to set it on a per service level. What I would prefer to see is the ability to have an opt out of hardening

Re: unsafe systemd setup in Fedora

Hi On Wed, Mar 2, 2022 at 12:31 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 02:28:56PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > Ability to modify these policies via configuration (the above one looks > > like a build config) and ability to do global ov

Re: unsafe systemd setup in Fedora

Hi On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 2:14 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > Systemd 250 (coming in F36), has --security-policy switch which can be > used to enable/disable some of the checks. There is no way to tell > systemd-analyze that things about a specific unit though. > Ability to modify these

Re: Package FFMPEG with royalty free codes (AV1, THEORA, VPX, OGG, OPUS, SPEEX, ...) for Fedora

Hi On Wed, Nov 10, 2021 at 12:05 PM Lyes Saadi wrote: > > (Also, I just want to insist I am not pushing nor advising anyone to do > something breaking Discord's TOS without their approval, I'm just > thinking of examples of external demand for a Discord package in Fedora.) >

Re: video meeting to discuss Matrix/Element and IRC

Hi On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 7:56 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > > No, you don't. I've just joined a random room without any kind of > registration. Try it yourself if you don't believe me: > https://app.element.io/#/room/#lounge:privacytools.io > You are able to view it but are you

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Hi On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:54 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 05:46:46PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > I think for a community distro, having it all in a single repo is > > technically better as well because part of the problem that was being > >

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Hi On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:23 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > That reason was _mainly_ to erase the inside Red Hat, > community-around-the-edges distinction. That was a huge success and Fedora > wouldn't be interesting without that. But I think the _technical_ choice > was > in retrospect a

Re: Self Introduction: Boian Bonev

Hi On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 4:57 PM Boian Bonev wrote: > > I didn't start that project, just improved it, and somehow changing the > name does not seem right to me :) > This isn't a minor change and the current name is a bit awkward and because of a shared name, you have to deal with Conflicts

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

Hi On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 4:32 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > These "qualifiers" are important. > > 1) Yes, I did get a response, as I said in the first email. The response > showed that there weren't any issues with the kernel or core packages at > the > time it was dropped. > What you

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

Hi On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 2:14 AM John M. Harris wrote: > > None of those bugs were release blocking, and none of them meant that x86 > wouldn't boot, or that core packages didn't work > When you add so many qualifiers, you are now admitting a) you did get a response b) that things weren't

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

Hi On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 6:49 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: >That's a link to the release announcement. Hardly the first time it was announced. It refers to x86_32 sig that was formed much earlier which itself was a response to an earlier warning that x86_32 support is going away unless people

Re: The future of legacy BIOS support in Fedora.

HI On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 4:54 PM John M. Harris Jr > That's not really true. When it came down to it, it was dropped while 32 > bit > Fedora still worked perfectly. I'm left with 5 systems that will never be > updated as a result. I asked for a list of issues that warranted ending 32 > bit >

Re: an "old-school *nix defaults" spin [was Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: swap on zram]

Hi On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:40 PM Markus Larsson wrote: > > Thanks, I am well aware. That wasn't really the topic here. > If there is a repeated feeling that anyone has that a particular edition isn't what they are looking for, figuring out how to make a different set of choices is and perhaps

Re: an "old-school *nix defaults" spin [was Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: swap on zram]

Hi On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 4:30 PM Markus Larsson wrote: > > No that doesn't help at all. It doesn't address what I wrote about many > seeing a problem for the first time when a change is suggested and that > this leads to more heated debates than needed. > I also feel alienated by the target

Re: Self Introduction: Erich Eickmeyer

Hi Eric On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 6:59 PM Erich Eickmeyer wrote: > Hello all! > > I'm Erich, the current project leader of Ubuntu Studio, the > creativity-oriented flavor of Ubuntu. I've been leading that project for > the past two years. > > In order to do the Self-Contained Change

Re: Git Forge Requirements: Please see the Community Blog

Hi On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 10:46 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > Welcome to our lives! > If it was mathematically possible to go above 100% that's how much > agreement you > would have from us. > If Red Hat is using Pagure internally, it is really odd to discuss replacing Pagure with something

Re: swap-on-ZRAM by default

Hi On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 8:56 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > It is "upstream" in the sense that it is under the same umbrella. > There are no plans to move the code to the main repo, because it's in > rust and currently combining meson which is used for systemd proper > with rust and

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Enable fstrim.timer by default

Hi On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:43 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Friday, December 20, 2019 5:33:59 PM MST Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > No, I mean the things that actually changed between the two. "What's new" > or > so on. This looks like it's just general documentation

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Enable fstrim.timer by default

Hi On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 7:15 PM John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > > ...release notes are published on the docs site as they have always been: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/f31/release-notes/ > > Where are the changes from the previous release there? > Do you mean 30?

Re: Announcing new anitya integration and de-orphaning process

Hi On Mon, Dec 9, 2019 at 11:43 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > `Monitoring` means: you get a bugzilla ticket > `Monitoring and scrach builds` means: you get the bugzilla ticket and an > attempt to do a scratch build for the new version > I was wondering how hard it would be to open a

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

Hi On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:21 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:17 PM Stephen Gallagher > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 9:14 PM Rahul Sundaram > wrote: > > If that's the case, the most obvious way to inform you is to disallow > >

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Currently, our default stance has been "disallow the system upgrade if > the modules they've locked onto won't be available there". This is > based on our philosophy that ultimately "the app is what matters". > Most people don't install Linux because they enjoy

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks

On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:27 PM Matthew Miller > > How about reliable online updates of running applications as a > > benefit? > > AND the ability to roll back, to choose beta or stable streams, etc. > These are reasonably good advantages but if there isn't a seamless transition between them, it

Re: New pastebin service on paste.fedoraproject.org

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 1:29 PM Athos Ribeiro . I am not aware > of the details on why we moved to this new paste, but I also agree that > we do not need a fancy website for that and maybe that was not the > reason we moved. > Seems pretty obvious it was done to get a more maintainable upstream

Re: F27 System Wide Change: No More Alphas

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 11:04 AM Gerald B. Cox > wrote: > > > So let's berate and silence someone because you thought they made "vague > accusations" > Are you saying he didn't post an accusation and refused to elaborate when asked or are you saying he did it and we should just ignore it or

Re: F27 System Wide Change: No More Alphas

On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 8:55 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote: > It gets a bit tedious to read all the feigned outrage and the continuous > aggrandisement of the Fedora Code of Conduct; it shouldn't be used as a > construct to silence debate. > Vague accusations are not a debate. Rahul

Re: F27 System Wide Change: No More Alphas

On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 5:00 AM Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 02/21/2017 01:02 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 6:42 PM Ralf Corsepius > > > > > > No. Mr. Williamson's attitude towards the Fedora community makes it > >

Re: F27 System Wide Change: No More Alphas

On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 6:42 PM Ralf Corsepius > > No. Mr. Williamson's attitude towards the Fedora community makes it > impossible to answer Without details, a vague discussion adds nothing meaningful to the conversation. Rahul ___ devel mailing

Re: F26 Self Contained Change: Container Minimal Image

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:21 PM Matthew Miller > It is the DNF team. I have a hope that these will be fronted by a > command called "yum" which will implement close-to-full compatibility > with Yum Classic > Would be nice to have this available in general Fedora releases by default as well. The

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:25 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > I don't see any context missing in a direct quote which I responded to. > If you believe otherwise, feel free to summarize your position and include > an

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:59 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > " KDE folks by and large want the updates as fast as possible. If the > GNOME folks would like > their updates to age for six months, they can just keep them in > updates-testing." > > > Obviously you missed it. Again, you have to take

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:33 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > > Right. I understand that but the solution of letting things stay in > updates-testing for a long time isn't a great way to implement that. It an > abuse of updates-testing. > > > No one is doing that. You have to read

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 9:26 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote: > > I was just repeating what I thought was a good suggestion - which is based > upon what has > already been implemented using the current infrastructure. Reserve "new" > releases only for things > that absolutely require it and let

Re: Two more concrete ideas for what a once-yearly+update schedule would look like

On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 1:23 PM Gerald B. Cox wrote: > Well, it isn't some theoretical construct... it's being done now with KDE > and has > been working just fine. It stays in updates-testing until you decide to > push it to stable. KDE > folks by and large want the updates as fast as

Re: CVE-2016-8655, systemd, and Fedora

Hi On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:00 PM Lennart Poettering > Well, some of them are pretty drastic. For example, I think it would > make a ton of sense to run all daemons where that's possible with > ProtectSystem=strict. This would make the entire directory tree > read-only for them (with the

Re: CVE-2016-8655, systemd, and Fedora

Hi On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 4:03 PM Lennart Poettering > Hmm, yeah, I should probably blog more about all the nice sandboxing > features we have now in systemd. It would be useful if we can set these type of options as system wide - for both the distribution/vendor and for admin overrides with

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM James Hogarth wrote: > Considering how this actively negates the security of our distribution and > how this is being promoted in the media, with them pointing to the > snapcraft site and the instructions there with COPR looking like it's on > approved Fedora

Re: ZFS on linux

Hi On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Kevin, I don't believe that is the case in this instance. No one is > talking about mixing code. If you do have something however specifically > regarding the FSF stance on > ZFS, I'd like to read it - I've searched and haven't been

Re: systemd package bloat

Hi On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: > > the same way as other packages to it? > > * see php > * see httpd > More useful if you could submit a spec file patch Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: F24: no rsyslog forwarding

Hi On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: > to say it in other words: i did not ask for "probably", just pointed out > that Rawhide is currently broken, that probably systemd or probably rsyslog > is broken in the one or other direction is clear Can you file a bug report?

Re: bodhi 2 now live

Hi On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: No, sorry, but that is not true. I wrote those update notes in the Bodhi 1 web interface, so of course I looked at the resulting formatting. Bodhi 1 interpreted that syntax as a list, not as a single paragraph. This is a change in Bodhi

Re: dnf caches

Hi On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Pádraig Brady wrote: My Fedora 22 system prompted me that there was a new coreutils package for update. Rather than clicking restart and install in the GUI I tried to: # dnf install coreutils dnf install coreutils --refresh # dnf --disablerepo=*

Re: yumdownloader vs dnf??????

HI On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Richard Shaw wrote: I'm not volunteering! ...but perhaps a yum-dnf transition guide on the Fedora wiki would be nice which would cover things like this. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Yum_to_DNF_Cheatsheet Rahul -- devel mailing list

Re: bodhi / fedora-easy-karma dead

Hi On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: no idea where to file a ticket there i can show tickets and see Fedora Account Sign Up but no login anywhere - Click on open id login no idea why this is using the horrible trac instead bugzilla Fedora doesn't host bugzilla.

Re: dnf replacing yum and dnf-yum

Hi On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:40 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: * When you run 'yum' you get: % sudo yum list foobar Yum command has been deprecated, use dnf instead. See 'man dnf' and 'man yum2dnf' for more information. To transfer transaction metadata from yum to DNF, run 'dnf migrate'

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

Hi On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:01 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: You'd be surprised. There is apparently work under way, in the larger Fedora ecosystem, on scriptless booting, in the name of securinity (eventually making Android-style locked bootloaders). Eliminating scripting from boot doesn't

Re: F22 Self Contained Change: Disabled Repositories Support

Hi On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Mike Pinkerton wrote: What I don't understand is the wisdom of an official Fedora product endorsing a copr when either the software or packaging (or both) is not of sufficient quality to make it into the official Fedora repo. I don't think of it as a

Re: dnf and yum works different

Hi On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 9:46 PM, Adrian Soliard wrote: Recently, I run dnf update, then yum update, and I notice that yum detect 2 packages (fros-recordmydesktop-1.0-5.fc21.noarch and, from adobe repo, flash-plugin-11.2.202.451-release.x86_64). The case was present on two different

Packages

Hi I would like to give away as many packages as I can to others who are interested. My current job keeps me pretty busy and I have been hanging on to them in hopes of finding the elusive free time that I don't get much of anymore. So if you to be a comaintainer or want to take over anything

Re: Packages

Hi On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:22 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: I will take deluge. FAS: mooninite Done Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: Packages

Hi On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Matthias Runge wrote: Congrats to the new job! I'd take * python-kombu * python-gdata * python-billiard Thanks and done. * django-* packages should be all become retired. I have orphaned them since they have EPEL branches. Rahul -- devel

Re: Packages

Hi On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: I rely on duplicity (via duply) so I'm willing to take it if no-one else will, but I'm really no expert on duplicity per se so I might not be the best choice. Is anyone with more experience with it willing to take it? Limb asked

Re: Packages

Hi On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Sereinity wrote: Hi, I will take e_dbus and evas-generic-loaders. Done. The e* stack is quite old in Fedora now. If you or anyone else wants to keep it more current, that would be nice Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Packages

Hi On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Pete Travis wrote: I'll take python-dateutil15, and see it through to retirement once the last of the dependencies are gone. Done. I see you've already retired askbot - any sign from upstream that they'll support a newer django within a reasonable

Re: [EPEL-devel] Question about EPEL 7 python-ipython*

Hi On Thu, Feb 26, 2015 at 10:05 PM, Nordgren, Bryce L -FS wrote: I notice that ipython has not been released in epel7, but has a release version for epel6 and Fedora 20-22. Was there a decision to exclude it from epel, or is this due to lack of resources/interest?

Re: systemd-219 issues with 22 and Rawhide composes

Hi On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: And seriously, Rahul Sundaram is hardly a third party person. He's one of the active maintainers of systemd package, which you can easily check in the pkgdb, as well as your colleague from Red Hat. Neither is correct

Re: Proposal to (formally/easily) allowing multiple versions of the same library installable

Hi On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I don't buy this argument wrt. Fedora. Fedora is a rapid moving, forward looking distro, in which such regressions should be fixed and not be worked around by compat-libs. In ideal conditions, this is fine but in the real world,

Re: systemd-219 issues with 22 and Rawhide composes

Hi On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: How many months would you like me to notify people in advance of a simple change like this? Isn't 6 month *ample* time? The problem isn't necessarily the speed of change but the amount of caution and attention paid to inform

Re: [Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies

Hi What is wrong with using Copr for the ring packages. It already works just fine (may be BZ is missing). There are no reviews, no guidelines, you can bundle ... I believe that everybody understands that while Copr is supported by Fedora, you are using these packages on your own risk. I

Re: How to become a packager (was: Re: [Proposal] Ring-based Packaging Policies)

Hi On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:40 AM, Ian Malone wrote: Thanks. I think when I'd looked at it I'd discounted the review and comment on others' submissions process as it would seem to require you to have a better idea of what you're doing than the person submitting the package, and potentially

Re: F22 System Wide Change: Login Screen Over Wayland

Hi On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 7:25 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote: How does this affect users of other display managers (or does it)? It doesn't affect them afaik. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct:

Re: F22 System Wide Change: Set sshd(8) PermitRootLogin=no

Hi On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Lubomir Rintel wrote: For this reason, I avoid privilege escalation when I need to conduct privileged operations, but open a separate session. The sshd daemon running with root privileges is more trustworthy to me than my user session. I have no idea

Re: F22 System Wide Change: RpmOstree - Server side composes and atomic upgrades

Hi On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: You gain… nothing! Kevin, If you are unaware of the gains, ask for it. Image based upgrades are very common in cloud environments I work with. It is used as alternative to configuration management in some places and it is incredibly

Re: Deleting f20-gnome-3-12 copr

Hi On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: /me reiterates his usual argument that we need to have a graphical fedup front-end in Workstation to help people upgrade when it's time... That is kind of a basic requirement. We need to do more. We need to inform people when

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

Hi On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 4:18 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: Also, if any UI changes need to happen, the time to talk to the designers is NOW. Which designers? Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

Hi On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: I'd prefer either aday or jimmac in #gnome-design as they did most of the original designs, but Mo and Ryan also know the UX well. Pinged jimmac and ryan on that channel. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

Hi On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 8:46 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: We're not filtering out packages that don't qualify as applications. GNOME Software only searches the AppStream metadata Yes. My suggestion was to change that Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: Yet another frustration with Fedora package management

Hi On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote: So, I thought that maybe every package *likes* to have its specific settings method; and therefore I proposed to have a global configuration which configures main package manager policy. I agree with the problem. However I don't

Re: allowing programs to open ports

Hi On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 6:32 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Björn Persson wrote: I bet! I worry that the questions would quickly become annoying. But if ports are going to be blocked by default, then there needs to be some way for non-sysadmin users to open them. No, why? The ports just

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

Hi On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:18 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: So what exactly is the problem the target audience has? They want GNOME Packages to be included again by default so they have both an application GUI installer, and a packages GUI installer? That is potentially one way to address it.

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

Hi On Sun, Jan 4, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: There's already an application that does this, it's GNOME Packages or use yum/dnf. If this was the answer, there wouldn't be so many repeated discussions about it. Users don't differentiate between say htop and geany as much as the

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

Hi On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 6:20 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: We may have been too aggressive in removing it. I think we could include it by default if it had a first-run dialog that briefly explains what a package is, and that package management is an advanced tool for system administrators.

Re: Ramblings and questions regarding Fedora, but stemming from gnome-software and desktop environments

Hi On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Ian Malone wrote: Minor correction, CentOS is unbranded RHEL and Fedora is not RHEL upstream (so far as I am aware anyway). That is incorrect. Fedora is upstream for RHEL and therefore upstream for CentOS as well albeit, one step removed. Rahul --

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

Hi On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: Well, I don't think the majority of folks would agree that F2FS is some random filesystem. You'll either turn it on, or explain why not. The community can then judge for themselves. That is not how it works. The default position

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

Hi On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:04 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: The XFStest scenario assumes that Fedora is being somewhat innovative... in this instance we're not. We're playing catch-up. The horse has already left the barn. The longer we delay, the sillier we look. The requirement is obvious.

Re: Why isn't F2FS support in the Kernel?

Hi On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:57 PM, Gerald B. Cox wrote: If no one else was using this, that would be another thing. You're also making up rules that weren't applied to other products which are included in Fedora; It applies to filesystems enabled in Fedora. Someone has to do the

Re: Cinnamon Spin

Hi On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Dan Book wrote: Hello, I have put together a basic Cinnamon Live spin, and was wondering if this is something people would like to see become official. It's not ready for submission quite yet, there is a bit of a hack to change the default gtk-theme to

Re: F21 downloads repository metadata in 3 places!

Hi On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Sudhir Khanger wrote: DNF regularly downloads cache, disables delta RPM support, and doesn't support local repos. With the latest dnf update, Delta RPM support is enabled again.

Re: Workstation Product defaults to wide-open firewall

Hi On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 11:49 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: Is there an upvote mechanism for that? I'd like to join the chorus if I can. ;-) No. Voting is limited to FESCo members. However, if you feel you have something more to add than the in-numerous responses already in this

Re: Poll: How users use DNF

Hi On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 7:19 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote: I have yet to port my scripts (https://bitbucket.org/znmeb/osjourno) from 'yum' to 'dnf'. I'm not sure I am going to unless the live ISO creation tools also switch. But I have tried both 'dnf' and 'yum' manually during the F21

Re: How many users does Fedora have?

Hi On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: Okay, this seems like a good start. What _are_ the right questions? * Which packages are part of the default installation for various products or spins that users actively remove? * Which packages are not part of the installation

Re: Entire process's environment attached to bugzillas by ABRT

Hi On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Lars Seipel wrote: There's also OpenNebula (^ONE_) and Vmware (^VI_) doing the same. Seems to be pretty common with virt and cloud stuff. Apart from that I can't think of anything else right now. Rackspace, DigitalOcean, Google Computing Engine etc

Re: Abotu setting 'PermitRootLogin=no' in sshd_config

Hi On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 7:24 AM, P J P wrote: Yes, we'll ensure that noone is locked out of their systems after a fresh install or upgrade. This seems pretty tricky to ensure. Anaconda doesn't enforce an additional user because that could be done via the initial setup or gnome initial

Re: Abotu setting 'PermitRootLogin=no' in sshd_config

Hi Yes, true. We need to talk to them about it yet; still in the process. And that's why I was wondering if it needs to be a fully fledged feature? or just talking to upstream maintainers would do it? I would suggesting going through the feature process. Although the config file change

Re: RFC: xserver update strategy in F21+

On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: My opinion is strongly in line with Kevin, but Chris has a good point. However, isn't it possible to have both. I'm not familiar with the proprietary drivers other than knowing that the NVidia one is available through rpmfusion. (Out of the

Re: No more deltarpms by default

Hi On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-updates.repo on f21 has metadata_expire=6h I was looking at dnf since the discussion is about dnf and the metadata right now for f21 updates is an empty repo with no packages in it f20 updates repo

Re: Note on 'systemd-216-9'

Hi On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: The subject of point releases hasn't come up before. Actually I haven't had *any* communication about the stable branches since they were created apart from a few patches backported by other systemd maintainers. If there

Re: Note on 'systemd-216-9'

Hi On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: On Tue, Nov 04, 2014 at 08:30:32AM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: systemd 216-9 is not built from 216 at all, it is in fact systemd-217 Why the misleading version number? More importantly, why is this pushed so late in the release

dnf wants to install new packages when one tries to remove some

Hi Just a heads up since I have run into this twice in a span of few days. It probably makes sense from the satsolver perspective but I found it pretty surprising behavior. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1154202 Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >