I can't confirm that. Maybe because I relabel my system after every selinux
policy update.
--
Heiko Adams
Am 24. Mai 2018 04:13:25 MESZ schrieb Jerry James :
>I installed the latest batch of updates for F28 tonight. Since that
>included a new kernel (4.16.10-300.fc28), I rebooted. The system ca
Sorry, I probably won't be able to participate today due to health issues.
Fabio
On Thu, May 24, 2018, 05:40 James Antill wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
> meeting Thursday at 2018-05-24 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
> irc.freenode.net.
>
> Local
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC
meeting Thursday at 2018-05-24 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on
irc.freenode.net.
Local time information (via. uitime):
= Day: Thursday ==
2018-05-24 09:00 PDT US/Pacific
2018-05-24 1
Once upon a time, Adam Williamson said:
> The
> packager could always just add BuildRequires python-unversioned-command
> to "fix" the problem, which is probably the fix we don't want them to
> do, but at least then we have a handy way to identify recalcitrant
> packages
So, I have no stake in t
I installed the latest batch of updates for F28 tonight. Since that
included a new kernel (4.16.10-300.fc28), I rebooted. The system came up
with the GDM panic screen [1]. I rebooted into the previous kernel
thinking that something might be wrong with the new one. Same result. I
rebooted again
On 23 May 2018 at 11:30, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> as a user of python what do you expect
> /usr/bin/pythong to do? You expect it to run the python2 interpreter.
Careful with the generalization. I expect /usr/bin/python to launch
python3 and I get surprised with each Fedora release why it still
keeps
On 24.5.2018 00:56, Adam Williamson wrote:
The thing you're missing - which the Change doesn't explicitly state,
so it's understandable - is the effect of having the python2 package
Recommend the package with /usr/bin/python in it.
For *user* systems that will mean that package always gets insta
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:56 PM, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> The thing you're missing - which the Change doesn't explicitly state,
> so it's understandable - is the effect of having the python2 package
> Recommend the package with /usr/bin/python in it.
>
Okay, that makes sense. I don't have any con
On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 18:45 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> > How exactly is this change breaking users' software? We certainly want to
> > avoid that.
> >
>
> If anything installed from outside our repos calls `/usr/bin/python`,
> we break it
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:24 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> How exactly is this change breaking users' software? We certainly want to
> avoid that.
>
If anything installed from outside our repos calls `/usr/bin/python`,
we break it. Unless we install the new python symlink package
alongside, but if we
On 24.5.2018 00:13, Ben Cotton wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
This change indeed is not very beneficial to user installs. Except maybe for
highly experienced users who would like to ship their own /usr/bin/python
(except I don't think that's a good idea anyway).
T
On 24.5.2018 00:12, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
So from the change request.. I thought it was for the users.
'''
The upstream
recommendation (PEP 394), which we try to follow in Fedora, is that
users -- not distros, and not sysadmins -- should be in control of the
python command.
'''
To me that
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> This change indeed is not very beneficial to user installs. Except maybe for
> highly experienced users who would like to ship their own /usr/bin/python
> (except I don't think that's a good idea anyway).
>
> The benefit here is for the distr
On 23 May 2018 at 18:05, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 23.5.2018 20:36, Ben Cotton wrote:
>>
>> And so if the python symlink is a separate package that always gets
>> installed alongside python2, then is there really any benefit to this
>> change?
>
>
> This change indeed is not very beneficial to user
On 23.5.2018 17:30, Brian C. Lane wrote:
I think the rules can be distilled down to this:
* New python2 programs use /usr/bin/python2
* New python3 programs use /usr/bin/python3
* Leave /usr/bin/python pointing to /usr/bin/python2 for legacy
programs
What we actually try to accomplish
On 23.5.2018 20:36, Ben Cotton wrote:
And so if the python symlink is a separate package that always gets
installed alongside python2, then is there really any benefit to this
change?
This change indeed is not very beneficial to user installs. Except maybe
for highly experienced users who wou
> "CD" == Christian Dersch writes:
CD> For me this change is just an unnecessary additional change which
CD> will probably annoy users.
I'm struggling to see how anyone but packagers (whose packages already
don't meet the requirements against not directly using /usr/bin/python)
would even no
I completely agree here. /usr/bin/python should go when python2 itself
will be removed from Fedora. For me this change is just an unnecessary
additional change which will probably annoy users. And if the solution
to get /usr/bin/python back is to install that additional package: 95%
(I guess) of us
I don't have any objection to moving `/usr/bin/python` into a separate
package, but only if it's installed every time python2 is installed.
I'm less concerned about breaking Fedora packages, because we have
ways of checking and fixing those (do your package fail to build?
Better fix it!) My concern
> "SB" == Sérgio Basto writes:
SB> Maybe better is remove /usr/bin/python , it will force people fix
SB> the path , instead of a silent move .
That's just a more extreme version of what is being proposed here.
The proposal moves the /usr/bin/python symlink to a separate package.
If your pac
On Wed, 2018-05-23 at 08:30 -0700, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 02:55:40PM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:
> > = Proposed System Wide Change: Move /usr/bin/python into a separate
> > package =
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Move_usr_bin_python_into_sep
> > arate_package
> >
>
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 02:55:40PM +0200, Jan Kurik wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: Move /usr/bin/python into a separate package =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Move_usr_bin_python_into_separate_package
>
> === Motivation ===
>
> The meaning of the python command is ambiguous:
= Proposed System Wide Change: Move /usr/bin/python into a separate package =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Move_usr_bin_python_into_separate_package
Owner(s):
* Petr Viktorin
* Miro Hrončok
Reflecting the recent changes of
https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0394/ PEP 394 -- ''T
Is this going to be backward compatible or not? rubygem-tzinfo is using
tzdata as data source, so I wonder if any action is required.
V.
Dne 22.5.2018 v 16:24 Jan Kurik napsal(a):
> = Proposed System Wide Change: The tzdata transition to 'vanguard' format =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Chan
On 05/22/2018 05:06 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
The old format was nicely documented in tzfile(5):
http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man5/tzfile.5.html
Through this it kinda has become API. Which doesn't mean it can't be
changed, but can we please make sure that the new format is as well
docume
25 matches
Mail list logo
