Re: F35 Change: Third-party Software Mechanism (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Sat, Jul 3, 2021 at 4:39 PM Mark Otaris wrote: > > I don’t agree with this change, as it seems obvious that many users who do > not want proprietary software installed do not want repositories with > proprietary software in them installed either (whether or not these > repositories are enabled) and would want to have to opt-in to that too. > Additionally, disabled repositories show up from time to time, bugs allowing, > so they are not as inactive as the name implies. Not having them installed > serves as a safeguard. Hi Mark, thanks for the feedback! While there can be bugs of any type, I don't see any reason to *expect* a bug that would make dnf or PackageKit show search results or listings from disabled repositories.Wouldn't that be noticed and fixed quickly? Is the number of users who don't even want a text file mentioning the existence of third-party software on their system significant? If FESCO feels that people wanting to remove the package entirely is a concern, we could soften the proposed fedora-release-workstation Requires: on fedora-workstation-repositories to a Recommends, to allow removing the package. I'd personally prefer to leave the Requires to prevent silent breakage. > Also, users who use some software from the third-party repositories likely > *do not* want all of them enabled It will be possible to opt-out and then enable individual repositories, or opt-in and disable individual repositories. What it doesn't provide is protection against a repository accidentally or intentionally offering an upgrade to a system package. I think this was one of the things that the disabled=1, disabled_metadata=0 system was meant to make better, but the dnf mainainers have explicitly expressed disinterested in implementing this in the past. As a PackageKit-only thing, we're providing users a fragmented and strange user experience. And there's even plans to eventually retire and remove PackageKit in favor of using dnf everywhere. Perhaps a more productive approach to this issue would be to allow a repository to be marked "LeafOnly" - meaning the packages it contains should not be used to satisfy dependencies of other repositories, and should not be considered for upgrades of packages installed from other repositories. Not considering how hard that would be to actually implement via libsolv and what corner cases would be a problem:-) > The stated benefit of the proposed change (“the removal of the state where > the user has opted in to third party repositories but they are not actually > enabled”) is not the benefit; the actual benefit that is wanted is an > improvement to the user experience that is made easier to provide by > installing the repos by default. Well, true - if it didn't affect either the cli or gui user experience, this state wouldn't be a problem! :-) Thanks! Owen ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Third-party Software Mechanism (System-Wide Change proposal)
I don’t agree with this change, as it seems obvious that many users who do not want proprietary software installed do not want repositories with proprietary software in them installed either (whether or not these repositories are enabled) and would want to have to opt-in to that too. Additionally, disabled repositories show up from time to time, bugs allowing, so they are not as inactive as the name implies. Not having them installed serves as a safeguard. Also, users who use some software from the third-party repositories likely *do not* want all of them enabled. The stated benefit of the proposed change (“the removal of the state where the user has opted in to third party repositories but they are not actually enabled”) is not the benefit; the actual benefit that is wanted is an improvement to the user experience that is made easier to provide by installing the repos by default. That said, the problems here are more on Council than FESCo, and Council already approved this, and people don’t agree with me. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Third-party Software Mechanism (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 7:53 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > * There is a fedora-third-party package with a > > fedora-third-party script with > > enable/disable/refresh/query subcommands. The status is > > stored in /etc/fedora-third-party.conf > > * Packages like fedora-workstation-repositories that > > include third-party repositories will drop config files into > > /etc/fedora-third-party.d/*.conf. There will be a > > post-transaction file trigger to run fedora-third-party > > refresh, which applies the users opt-in status to newly > > installed repository files. > > For packaged stuff, please do: > > s|/etc/fedora-third-party.conf|/usr/lib/fedora-third-party.conf| > > We shouldn't add yet more stuff in /etc/. Yes, agreed. Thanks for the suggestion! Owen ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Third-party Software Mechanism (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 02:09:19PM +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 30. 06. 21 v 13:52 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): > >For packaged stuff, please do: > > > > s|/etc/fedora-third-party.conf|/usr/lib/fedora-third-party.conf| > > > >We shouldn't add yet more stuff in/etc/. > > I guess that /usr/lib is typo and you meant /var/lib/ No, /usr/lib. This was in response to: > Packages like fedora-workstation-repositories that include > third-party repositories will drop config files into > /etc/fedora-third-party.d/*.conf Those config files should be in /usr/lib/fedora-third-party.d/. > There is a fedora-third-party package with a fedora-third-party > script with enable/disable/refresh/query subcommands. The status is > stored in /etc/fedora-third-party.conf That part is fine. When the user does a manual configuration step, this should be stored in /etc/. (Essentially, the usual systemd-style config file split.) Zbyszek ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Third-party Software Mechanism (System-Wide Change proposal)
Dne 30. 06. 21 v 13:52 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a): For packaged stuff, please do: s|/etc/fedora-third-party.conf|/usr/lib/fedora-third-party.conf| We shouldn't add yet more stuff in/etc/. I guess that /usr/lib is typo and you meant /var/lib/ Miroslav ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Third-party Software Mechanism (System-Wide Change proposal)
> == Technical implementation == > > * There is a fedora-third-party package with a > fedora-third-party script with > enable/disable/refresh/query subcommands. The status is > stored in /etc/fedora-third-party.conf > * Packages like fedora-workstation-repositories that > include third-party repositories will drop config files into > /etc/fedora-third-party.d/*.conf. There will be a > post-transaction file trigger to run fedora-third-party > refresh, which applies the users opt-in status to newly > installed repository files. For packaged stuff, please do: s|/etc/fedora-third-party.conf|/usr/lib/fedora-third-party.conf| We shouldn't add yet more stuff in /etc/. Zbyszek > * We add a new page to GNOME Initial Setup that asks a single > question, *along the lines of*: > '''Enable Third Party Software repositories?''' > ☑ Access additional software from selected third party sources. Some > of this software is proprietary and therefore has restrictions on use, > sharing, and access to source code. > [Find out > more...](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_Party_Software_Repositories) > * If the user leaves the box checked, GNOME Initial setup runs > `fedora-third-party enable`. > * For upgrades, GNOME Software shows an info-bar with the same > question if no status is stored in `/etc/fedora-thirdparty.conf` > > == Feedback == > > > == Benefit to Fedora == > > The main benefit of this proposal is the removal of the state where > the user has opted in to third party repositories but they are not > actually enabled. PackageKit supports the > enabled_metadata=1 key in a repository file, which allows > applications to be searched in this state, but this is not supported > by DNF. > > The new method is also easily extensible to Flatpaks, where there also > no equivalent to enabled_metadata=1, even in GNOME > Software. > > == Scope == > * Proposal owners: Create and test proposed > fedora-third-party package. Implement the graphical > controls for this in GNOME Software and gnome-initial-setup. > * Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10186 #10186] > No changes are required. > * Policies and guidelines: Third-party Software guidelines will need > minor changes to remove references to `enabled_metadata=1`. Pending > finalization of technical implementation. > * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) > * Alignment with Objectives: No real alignment > > == Upgrade/compatibility impact == > Because the "opt-in" status to 3rd party software is currently > represented by whether fedora-workstation-repositories is installed, > and because fedora-workstation-repositories will become an > installed-by-default package, users will need to opt-in again. > > They can do this either by responding in the infobar that will be > displayed in GNOME Software, or by running fedora-third-party > enable on the command line. > > == How To Test == > * A fresh install of Fedora Workstation where the user ''does not'' > opt-in should have all repositories disabled. > * A fresh install of Fedora Workstation where the user ''does'' opt-in > should have all 3rd-party repositories enabled. > * On an upgrade from F34, if the user opts-out, the enablement status > of third-party repositories should be ''unchanged'' (try enabling one > before the upgrade) > * On an upgrade from F35, if the user opts-in, all 3rd party > repositories should be enabled. > > == User Experience == > The user will get less confusing behavior around third-party > repositories - enabled will mean enabled and will take affect no > matter how they are installing packages. > > See https://hackmd.io/@owtaylor/fedora-third-party-repos for a > detailed description of the *current* experience along with some notes > about the desired behavior. > > == Dependencies == > The changes are limited to the following packages: > > * The new `fedora-third-party` package > * `fedora-workstation-repositories` > * `gnome-software` > * `gnome-initial-setup` > * `fedora-release-workstation` and other release packages that will > now require fedora-workstation-repositories. > > This change proposal is a prerequisite for a separate change proposal > to add a filtered view of Flathub to the set of third-party > repositories. > > == Contingency Plan == > * Contingency mechanism: revert all changes back to the F34 state. > (This will also require reverting the filtered-view-of-Flathub > change.) > * Contingency deadline: beta freeze > * Blocks release? Yes - this needs to be finished or reverted > > == Documentation == > '''This should be a link to a man page for the `fedora-third-party` tool''' > > == Release Notes == > Fedora optionally provides repository definitions allowing users to > install certain third-party software. This used to be done as a > two-step process where when the user asked to enable third-party > repositories, the repository definitions were installed but not > actually enabled, and they had to be
Re: F35 Change: Third-party Software Mechanism (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 6:50 AM Lars Seipel wrote: > >[Find out > >more...](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_Party_Software_Repositories) > >* If the user leaves the box checked, GNOME Initial setup runs > >`fedora-third-party enable`. > > Leaves the box checked? Either I'm misunderstanding or this contradicts > the remaining text which talks about "opt-in". Thanks for noticing the discrepancy! The current mockup for how the page in GNOME Initial Setup should look is at the top of: https://hackmd.io/@owtaylor/fedora-third-party-repos and is in-fact a classic opt-in. (*) The mockup tries to reduce the risk of an inexperienced user being confused by terms like "third party" and "repository" by mentioning specific software.I'll look at embedding that in the change proposal and will make sure that the text is consistent. - Owen (*) The text of the Third-Party Repository policy is "the user must explicitly enable third-party repositories to install from them" - I don't think a checked-by-default box would be in agreement with that. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Third-party Software Mechanism (System-Wide Change proposal)
Dne 29. 06. 21 v 22:24 Ben Cotton napsal(a): ''Note that this proposal is about a change to how third-party repositories are enabled, not about including anything new in Fedora.' I completely missed the "Third party repos" thing. I had to google it. To save you some time: https://fedoramagazine.org/third-party-repositories-fedora/ Miroslav ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Third-party Software Mechanism (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 04:24:58PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: * We add a new page to GNOME Initial Setup that asks a single question, *along the lines of*: '''Enable Third Party Software repositories?''' ☑ Access additional software from selected third party sources. Some of this software is proprietary and therefore has restrictions on use, sharing, and access to source code. [Find out more...](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_Party_Software_Repositories) * If the user leaves the box checked, GNOME Initial setup runs `fedora-third-party enable`. Leaves the box checked? Either I'm misunderstanding or this contradicts the remaining text which talks about "opt-in". ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
