Re: Updating/rebuilding of coin-or packages

2019-04-16 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 7:35 PM Jerry James wrote: > On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 12:00 PM Antonio Trande > wrote: > > On 15/04/19 19:25, Andrew Lutomirski wrote > > > Would one of you be interested in maintaining coin-or-lemon? I > packaged > > > it because I tho

Re: Updating/rebuilding of coin-or packages

2019-04-15 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 9:33 PM Jerry James wrote: > Hi Antonio, > > On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 12:26 PM Antonio Trande > wrote: > > Hi all. > > > > Updates of coin-or-Sample/CoinUtils/Ipopt packages are coming on > > Rawhide; involved packages: > > I didn't know you were working on this. I noticed

Re: Any plans to support .heic files in Fedora?

2018-12-03 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:56 PM Leigh Scott wrote: > > On 11/30/18 5:20 AM, Leigh Scott wrote: > > > > Thanks Leigh. I see those have already made progress in code review. > +1000 > > > > Is there a definitive reason why those are necessary to go in RPM > fusion? Was > > Tom Hughes right? > > > >

Re: Proposal: Faster composes by eliminating deltarpms and using zchunked rpms instead

2018-11-23 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
> On Nov 23, 2018, at 6:16 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > * Jonathan Dieter: > >>> On Tue, 2018-11-20 at 12:45 +, Michael Schroeder wrote: On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 08:30:14PM +, Jonathan Dieter wrote: Just to be clear on this, unlike deltarpm, zchunked rpms shouldn't require

How should the nvme-cli package generate its host "NQN"?

2018-09-28 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
There's a request for the nvme-cli package to generate a unique name to use when connecting to NVMe-over-fabrics targets: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1633814 I'm wondering what the right approach is. For the various Atomic variants, ISTM it's not very nice for the package to

Re: Guideline change: glibc malloc as the C/C++/Rust allocator

2018-08-05 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Jul 30, 2018, at 10:42 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: On Jul 27, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Owen Taylor wrote: On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 07/27/2018 03:33 PM, John Reiser wrote:The key principle is that > sizeof(foo) must be the stride of an array

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Remove Excessive Linking

2018-08-04 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
> On Aug 2, 2018, at 2:57 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 11:45:00AM +0200, Dominique Martinet wrote: >> Wearing a lib developer hat, I don't see how you can make a .pc that >> doesn't overlink if you provide something a bit entangled with other >> libs. >> The problem is

Re: Guideline change: glibc malloc as the C/C++/Rust allocator

2018-07-30 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Jul 27, 2018, at 9:58 AM, Owen Taylor wrote: On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 9:44 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 07/27/2018 03:33 PM, John Reiser wrote:The key principle is that > sizeof(foo) must be the stride of an array of foo, > > and the array must guarantee alignment of each element in the

Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot

2018-07-21 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
>>> On Jul 15, 2018, at 5:47 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 04:05:42PM +0200, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: >>> On 07/12/2018 10:17 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >>> Does each build start with its own fresh VM? Do you care about the >>> data in that build VM if either

Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot

2018-07-13 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
> On Jul 12, 2018, at 4:26 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: > >> On Thu, 2018-07-12 at 07:32 +, Petr Pisar wrote: >>> On 2018-07-11, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >>> The effects of fsync are impossible to see unless you hard-reboot >>> the >>> machine. >> >> Are you sure non-fsynced changes are

Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot

2018-07-11 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 10:08 AM, Mikolaj Izdebski wrote: > > On 07/11/2018 06:37 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > From my perspective as an occasional Fedora packager, I'm regularly > > surprised by just how long it takes for Koji builders to install > > dependencies.

Re: [HEADS UP] Removal of GCC from the buildroot

2018-07-11 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 1:13 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek < zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 06:03:33PM +0200, Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2018 at 5:52 PM Kevin Kofler > wrote: > > > > > Igor Gnatenko wrote: > > > > As per Changes/Remove GCC from BuildRoot > >

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default

2018-06-25 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
> On Jun 25, 2018, at 3:40 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > >> On Fr, 22.06.18 14:17, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 12:57 PM, Lennart Poettering >> wrote: >>> On Fr, 22.06.18 19:01, Javier Martinez Canillas (jav...@dowhile0.org) wrote: >>> >

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default

2018-06-25 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
> On Jun 25, 2018, at 3:54 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:47:35PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: >>> On Mo, 25.06.18 11:23, Daniel P. Berrangé (berra...@redhat.com) wrote: >>> >>> That would break applications like libguestfs which run as non-root and >>> have

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default

2018-06-18 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
> On Jun 18, 2018, at 3:54 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >>> On Jun 18, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas >>> wrote: > >>> Yes for EFI systems but no otherwise. On EFI the BLS snippets

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Make BootLoaderSpec the default

2018-06-18 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
> On Jun 18, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Javier Martinez Canillas > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:20 PM, Chris Murphy >> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 12:51 PM, Adam Williamson >> wrote a monolithic config > > >> The cited BLS spec requires $BOOT be VFAT, are we doing that? >> > > Yes

Re: f29 bootloader changes / raid1 installs + efi

2018-06-15 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 2:58 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 15/06/18 22:50, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>> >>> "KM" == Kyle Marek writes: >> >> >> KM> I can't remember what else I discovered in reading the manual >> KM> last. Do you know if there are any other discovery/identification >>

Re: Hiding the grub menu by default on single OS installs

2018-06-03 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Sun, Jun 3, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi, > > On 01-06-18 20:38, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 1, 2018, at 1:04 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> First of all I want to thank everyone f

Re: Hiding the grub menu by default on single OS installs

2018-06-01 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
> On Jun 1, 2018, at 1:04 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi All, > > First of all I want to thank everyone for their input. > > I also want to make clear that the hide the menu + > not listening for a keypress at all (aka fastboot) is a > Fedora 30 thing, quoting myself: > > "For F29, single OS

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Hide the grub menu

2018-05-31 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
ack in DOS days with a third-party tool > that permitted 'BAT files' to query for Shift, Alt, and Ctrl > key states, and to build boolean decision trees: > > On Thu, 31 May 2018, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > >> If the protocol were that the boot menu would be shown if >> any ke

Re: F29 System Wide Change: Hide the grub menu

2018-05-31 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 9:00 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> "JK" == Jan Kurik writes: > > JK> 1. Add patches to grub to also make pressing F8 show the menu > > One thing I've never really understood is the reason for using such a > small set of keys to interrupt the boot process. I seem

Re: [fesco] Updated FTBFS package policy

2018-05-27 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 2:51 PM, Till Maas wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, May 26, 2018 at 04:27:15PM +0100, Sérgio Basto wrote: >> On Fri, 2018-05-25 at 15:46 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> > Fedora package maintainers, >> > >> > FESCo approved an updated policy for

Re: Serious problem with SATA LPM in F28 on Lenovo 50 series laptops

2018-05-19 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On May 2, 2018, at 9:14 AM, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote: Hans, can't this be affected also by different disk vendors (drive vendor in Lenovo laptop can vary even in same model) and different firmware of disks? Also, drive FW is upgradeable in Lenovo laptops. On Wed, May 2,

DNF producing nonsense results (and a bogus F28 updates compose?)

2018-05-05 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
I just got some very strange behavior from dnf: $ sudo dnf upgrade --best --allowerasing Last metadata expiration check: 0:04:26 ago on Sat 05 May 2018 09:13:56 PM PDT. Dependencies resolved. PackageArch

Re: Why size of repositories metadata is too high in Fedora?

2018-03-02 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
> On Mar 2, 2018, at 6:42 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 03:48:46PM +0330, Farhad Mohammadi Majd wrote: >> I don't know, I just ran "dnf upgrade" and it took metadata in >> mentioned size, Fedora developers should answer to these questions. > > A

Re: Testers for LCD Panel Self Refresh on laptops with Intel graphics wanted

2018-02-05 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Hi All, > > For the "Improved Laptop Battery Life" feature: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ImprovedLaptopBatteryLife > > I'm working on for Fedora 28 I would like to also try and enable > Panel Self Refresh

Re: cflag ffast-math

2018-01-25 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 2:53 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: > Hi, > Question about gcc cflag ffast-math . > Should I enable cflag ffast-math on opencv build explicitly > ( -DENABLE_FAST_MATH=ON ) ? and I keep disable cflag ffast-math in mlt > build [1] ? > > I have no meaningful

Re: Security updates and batched pushes

2018-01-10 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 10 January 2018 at 14:46, Andrew Lutomirski <l...@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <smo...@gmail.com> > > wrot

Re: Security updates and batched pushes

2018-01-10 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <smo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 10 January 2018 at 14:23, Andrew Lutomirski <l...@mit.edu> wrote: > >> On Jan 9, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > >> > >>> On 01/08/2

Re: Security updates and batched pushes

2018-01-10 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
> On Jan 9, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> On 01/08/2018 10:53 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: >> Kevin Fenzi wrote: >>> Well, if this firefox update was urgent, shouldn't it have been marked >>> urgent? >> >> Urgency is always in the eye of the beholder. I as a user consider

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

2017-08-01 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 1:02 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 07/11/2017 10:26 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: >> I ran into this unannounced change: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Stop_Building_i686_Kernels >> >> If this is accepted, all x86 hardware on which Fedora

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks

2017-07-21 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
> On Jul 20, 2017, at 5:12 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Richard Hughes wrote: >> Sure they can. If you install the KDE runtime and the GNOME runtime, >> these are both built upon the Freedesktop runtime and share a huge >> number of files. Any duplicate files get

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks

2017-07-14 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
> On Jul 14, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Florian Weimer wrote: > The app store model also assumes that the app store operator acts as > some sort of gate keeper, so there has to be some policy enforcement at > this level, too. It is not sufficient to pass through just what the >

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks

2017-07-14 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Richard Hughes <hughsi...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 14 July 2017 at 19:12, Andrew Lutomirski <l...@mit.edu> wrote: >> As above, it could be the exact same sandbox technology with the same >> portals and everything. The sand

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks

2017-07-14 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Debarshi Ray wrote: > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:44:18AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote: >> > F29: packagers (of graphical applications) must create Flatpaks of >> > their

Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

2017-07-12 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
I'll bite, sort of. When bugs get reported through normal upstream channels that affect parts of the kernel that I'm involved in, they generally get fixed. That includes i686 and even 486. I flipped through several of the open i686 Fedora bugs, and they look familiar and look like issues that

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks

2017-07-12 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
After reading this, I think there's a false dichotomy here: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:26 PM, wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Kevin Kofler > wrote: >> >> There ought to be better ways to sandbox applications than to turn them >> into >>

Re: power management

2017-04-10 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Apr 10, 2017 7:39 AM, "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: On Fri, Apr 07, 2017 at 04:47:54PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > 01.org has several projects related to power management, but most > aren't in Fedora repositories. Are any of these useful for the recent > effort to make power

Re: httpd illegal instruction by rebuild with rpmrc file

2017-04-10 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Apr 10, 2017 2:28 PM, "Dominik Kucher" wrote: when i rebuild the src.rpm with my .rpmrc file i became the error "illegal instruction", when i create the rpm without the .rpmrc file it works perfectly! other builds (pure-ftpd, mpd, mpdscribble, samba, openssl) works

Re: Fedora kernel crashing in virtio when running on qemu

2017-03-21 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 20:48 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:58:06PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > On Tue, 2017-03-21 at 19:40 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> > >

Re: packaging work is becoming increasingly cumbersome

2017-02-01 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Julian Sikorski wrote: > While I am sure these changes are done with an aim of improving things > in the long run, the churn caused by them is really starting to take a > toll on my motivation. Could something be done to mitigate the >

Re: F26 Self Contained Change: Anaconda LVM RAID

2017-01-31 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Jan 31, 2017 6:34 AM, "Chris Adams" wrote: Once upon a time, Jan Kurik said: > LVM RAID provides same functionality as MD > RAID (it shares the same kernel code) with better flexibility and > additional features expected in future. How do LVM RAID

Re: Increasing compatibility with rpm-ostree for host packages

2017-01-26 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Colin Walters wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017, at 02:03 PM, Tom Hughes wrote: > >> How about you just explain here what it is you want rather than making >> everybody go and read some bug? > > OK, here's a copy of the text: > > rpm-ostree is a

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support

2017-01-05 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Jan 5, 2017 9:03 AM, "Jonathan Wakely" wrote:. The main > difference would be installation/deployment. The idea would be that > instead of > the 32-bit and 64-bit runtimes being installed directly in parallel on the > base > system, they would instead be installed

Debugging random suspend?

2017-01-03 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
My laptop occasionally randomly suspends itself. When this happens, it seems to happen quite a few times in a row, several seconds apart. The journal has this to say: Jan 03 20:44:25 ... systemd-logind[1106]: Suspending... So *why* is logind suspending? It's happened five or six times while

Re: Status of microcode updates

2016-12-10 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 2:23 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 12/09/2016 11:16 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: >> >> On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Florian Weimer >> wrote: >>> >>> We would like to enable hardware-assisted lock optimizations in glibc on >>>

Re: i686 [was Re: how does Fedora 24 x86_64 boot on EFI-32?]

2016-12-05 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 4:11 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:51:35AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >> into it, and it's in the middle of his priorities somewhere between >> "actual urgent work" and "other actual important work"), but >> preliminary

Re: how does Fedora 24 x86_64 boot on EFI-32?

2016-12-04 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Pretty sure this predates CONFIG_EFI_MIXED, so it's predicated on > creating 32-bit EFI GRUB *and* 32-bit OS which makes it easier to > create dedicated media that boots properly. Easier being relative, of > course. >

Re: how does Fedora 24 x86_64 boot on EFI-32?

2016-12-04 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 11:22 AM, Jack Howarth > wrote: >>While evaluating various Linux distributions for repurposing a >> MacBook Pro 2,1 as a Linux box, I was pleasantly

Re: F24 GStreamer zero day

2016-11-24 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Nov 24, 2016 2:03 AM, "Carlos Garnacho" wrote: > > Hi, > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Carlos Garnacho > > > I'm objecting to whatever piece of software opens thoroughly untrusted > > files out of ~/Downloads and parses them. If that's

Re: F24 GStreamer zero day

2016-11-23 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Carlos Garnacho wrote: > There is nothing specific in Tracker *design* about opening files, at all. > Tracker is a semantic database with a focus on local access/content, period. > Your gripe happens to be against a certain implementation of

Re: F24 GStreamer zero day

2016-11-23 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 2:58 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <l...@mit.edu> wrote: > >> >> > >> > I would go even farther and argue that Fedora should not, by default, >> > ever >> > enable a miner that isn't running in *strict* seccomp mode. If that

Re: F24 GStreamer zero day

2016-11-23 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Nov 23, 2016 2:21 PM, wrote: > > Hi, > > > On Nov 23, 2016 8:11 AM, "Stephen John Smoogen" > wrote: > > > > Can we leave tracker enabled but disable literally every miner? AFAIK the > > That is literally, overreacting. Of all tracker processes,

Re: F24 GStreamer zero day

2016-11-23 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Nov 23, 2016 10:12 AM, "Michael Catanzaro" wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 16:36 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > I don't think that is entirely true. I've recently been trying > > to get gnome3 to run on under-powered machines like cheap ARM > > tablets, and I can do

Re: F24 GStreamer zero day

2016-11-23 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Nov 23, 2016 8:11 AM, "Stephen John Smoogen" wrote: > > On 23 November 2016 at 09:36, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > On Wed, 2016-11-23 at 09:39 +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> > >> What about the larger picture? Can tracker be made optional again > >>

Re: F24 GStreamer zero day

2016-11-23 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Nov 23, 2016 6:37 AM, "Michael Catanzaro" wrote: > > or sandboxing tracker miners (e.g. maybe with > SELinux?) that would be a more practical way forward. This seems like it would be a fantastic use of the infrastructure behind xdg-app.

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

2016-11-11 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 8:47 AM, Chris Adams wrote: > Once upon a time, Stephen Gallagher said: > > The thread on Fedora Devel revealed some other issues which need to be > > considered carefully. One of these is that of privacy: for example, the > DHCP >

Re: RFC (round 2): Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

2016-11-11 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Fri, 11.11.16 11:12, Stephen Gallagher (sgall...@redhat.com) wrote: > > > The hostname may always be set manually and the result will (for the vast > > majority of people) be unique within their environment.

Re: RFC: Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

2016-11-08 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:25 PM, Andrew Lutomirski <l...@mit.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Zb

Re: RFC: Change the default hostname for Fedora 26+

2016-11-08 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 3:19 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:14 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 05:25:36PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 04:49:42PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher

Re: DNF and PackageKit background data usage

2016-10-29 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 5:26 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > Hi folks! > > I kinda hate kicking off discussions like this without having a solid > solution to propose or being able to promise to work on one, but this > really seems important. Unfortunately I can't claim

Re: Pondering security update time frames

2016-10-25 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Adam Williamson <adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 17:59 -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> 2. There doesn't appear to be a working process to get updates out >> quickly. As a current and pressing example, there is no

Pondering security update time frames

2016-10-25 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
It seems to me that Fedora has three severe distribution wide issues relating to security updates: 1. Updates, even critical security updates, are very slow. Getting an update out involves creating a build and an update (which is reasonably fast for most packages), pushing the update to

Re: F25 workstation, and (almost) hidpi displays

2016-10-25 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 09:30 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Tue, 2016-10-25 at 05:16 -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: >> > >> > - Original Message - >> > > Adam Williamson wrote: >> > > > If you use

Re: grub, grubby, btrfs, was: PSA: Do not run 'dnf update' inside GNOME, KDE ...

2016-10-07 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> Changed this subject to match the other one I changed, so if I'm doing >> it wrong at least I'm consistent! >> >> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at

Re: F26 proposal: Make Fedora Media Writer the officially supported USB install media creator

2016-10-07 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > Modifying the image at all breaks the existing media verification > option in the boot menu, and we know people get bad writes using bad > or flaky media This part, at least, should be relatively straightforward to

Re: PSA: Do not run 'dnf update' inside GNOME, KDE or any other graphical desktop on Fedora 24

2016-10-07 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Oct 7, 2016 1:29 PM, "Frank Ch. Eigler" wrote: > > > >> > [...] I always run dnf manually from the > >> > command line, in a VT logged in as root. And I can run X while doing > >> > this and I've never had a dnf update issue. > > To the extent that the problem is that dnf

Re: F26 proposal: Make Fedora Media Writer the officially supported USB install media creator

2016-10-07 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Oct 7, 2016 12:39 PM, "Adam Williamson" wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-10-03 at 20:03 +, John Florian wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-10-03 at 12:07 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > If we do not 'support' livecd-iso-to-disk any more, we no longer > > support: > > > > 1)

Re: PSA: Do not run 'dnf update' inside GNOME, KDE or any other graphical desktop on Fedora 24

2016-10-05 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Andrew Lutomirski <l...@mit.edu> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:

Re: PSA: Do not run 'dnf update' inside GNOME, KDE or any other graphical desktop on Fedora 24

2016-10-04 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Kevin Fenzi <ke...@scrye.com> wrote: > On Tue, 4 Oct 2016 09:51:16 -0700 > Andrew Lutomirski <l...@mit.edu> wrote: > >> By that standard, why do we support dnf at all? >> >> $ sudo dnf upgrade >> Error: dnf upgrade is

Re: PSA: Do not run 'dnf update' inside GNOME, KDE or any other graphical desktop on Fedora 24

2016-10-04 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 9:09 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgall...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 10/04/2016 12:06 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > > > > On Oct 4, 2016 8:52 AM, "Adam Williamson" <adamw...@fedoraproject.org > > <mailto:adamw...@fedoraproject.o

Re: PSA: Do not run 'dnf update' inside GNOME, KDE or any other graphical desktop on Fedora 24

2016-10-04 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Oct 4, 2016 8:52 AM, "Adam Williamson" wrote: > > Recently several reports of people getting 'duplicated packages' and > 'kernel updates not working' have come through to us in QA from Fedora > 24 users. I managed to get one reporter to explain more specifically >

Re: t460s fedora 24 - display freeze

2016-09-20 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Sep 20, 2016 7:31 AM, "Dusty Mabe" wrote: > > > Several times over the past month my t460s has just blank screens > when I come back to it after some time. I don't know if the thing > froze up completely or if it is just the display not working. I lock > my screens (laptop

Re: Testing request: AMD chipset kernel issue

2016-08-20 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Aug 20, 2016 4:50 PM, "Andrew Lutomirski" <l...@mit.edu> wrote: > > > How about ordinary earlyprintk to serial? > > Try booting with nokaslr, though. There was a bug, now fixed upstream (I think) that broke AMD early microcode if kaslr was used. You would li

Re: Testing request: AMD chipset kernel issue

2016-08-20 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Aug 20, 2016 4:38 PM, "Chris Murphy" wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 11:16 PM, Luya Tshimbalanga > wrote: > > On 19/08/16 08:11 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > >> On Fri, 2016-08-19 at 18:53 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > >>> On 19/08/16

Re: User instances of systemd and SELinux

2016-08-15 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Daniel J Walsh <dwa...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 08/10/2016 03:42 PM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek >> <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 09, 2016

Re: User instances of systemd and SELinux

2016-08-10 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Wed, Aug 10, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 01:32:10PM -0400, Daniel J Walsh wrote: >> >> >> On 08/09/2016 10:24 AM, Michal Sekletar wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > Most of you are probably aware that systemd except running as

Re: Snaps and Fedora

2016-07-22 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Jul 22, 2016 5:48 PM, "Neal Gompa" wrote: > This is done through the "plugs" and "slots" that can be used to > create interfaces among them. This is a true superset of the > capability provided by Flatpak through Portals, since it can be used > to export non-DBus oriented

Re: Packaging suggestions for Apple Swift Language

2016-07-18 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Jul 18, 2016 10:30 PM, "Jeremy Fergason" wrote: > > > 3) Swift relies on LLDB for it’s REPL functionality on linux. This is annoying because it creates a custom version of LLDB that conflicts with the main lldb package. I can’t see anyway around this conflict as

Re: RFC: Fixing the "nobody" user?

2016-07-18 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Lennart Poettering writes: > >> On Fedora, we currently have a "nobody" user that is defined to UID >> 99. It's defined unconditionally like this. To my knowledge there's no >> actual use of this user at all in

Re: F25 System Wide Change: KillUserProcesses=yes by default

2016-07-13 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 11:28 AM, Björn Persson wrote: > In my opinion the proposal needs to be amended in the following ways: > > > Scope: > > Understanding the scope of this Change requires understanding how many > programs there are that will have to be adapted to avoid

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

2016-06-16 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 01:12:07PM -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: >> ship pip, npm, etc? Where I become uncomfortable, and the reason I chimed >> in on this thread initially, is with the idea that these new

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

2016-06-15 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Jun 14, 2016 11:24 PM, "Florian Weimer" <fwei...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 06/15/2016 06:27 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> On 06/15/2016 04:11 AM, An

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

2016-06-14 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/15/2016 04:11 AM, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: > >> I *strongly* disagree here. The xdg-app folks seem to be doing a >> pretty good job with their sandbox. The kernel attack surface is

Re: Fedora development of Snap packages

2016-06-14 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:36 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 9:04 PM, Michael Catanzaro > wrote: > > On Tue, 2016-06-14 at 16:45 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote: > >> Well, if a packager wants to maintain it, why not? > >> > >> As someone

provenpackager request: fix keepassx for f24

2016-06-08 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
See: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1338054 Pushing a reasonable version of keepassx for f24 is apparently an accepted freeze exception, but it hasn't happened. It would be rather unfortunate if f24 final was released before this was dealt with. Since fixing this is as simple as

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

2016-06-02 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:09 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 04:07:28PM -0400, Eric Griffith wrote: >> On May 31, 2016 15:44, "Adam Williamson" wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 15:26 -0400, Eric Griffith wrote:

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

2016-06-01 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Jun 1, 2016 7:29 AM, "Tomasz Torcz" wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 10:04:27AM -0400, Dan Book wrote: > > > > > > Again, this isn't just work-arounds around broken programs. It's a > > > security thing. It's privileged code (logind, PID 1) that enforces a > > > clear

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

2016-06-01 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Jun 1, 2016 3:03 AM, "Vít Ondruch" wrote: > > > > Dne 31.5.2016 v 21:20 DJ Delorie napsal(a): > > Lennart Poettering writes: > >> Again, as mentioned before: key here is that permitting user processes > >> to stick around after all sessions of the

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

2016-05-31 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On May 31, 2016 3:24 PM, "Howard Chu" wrote: > > DJ Delorie wrote: >> >> >> Lennart Poettering writes: >>> >>> Again, as mentioned before: key here is that permitting user processes >>> to stick around after all sessions of the user ended needs to be a >>>

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

2016-05-29 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 5:06 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> * Does 'loginctl enable-linger ' take effect in the current >> session? Or do you have to start a new one? does it persist over >> sessions or only affects the current/next one? > Lingering applies to

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

2016-05-29 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 11:53 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > * Does 'loginctl enable-linger ' take effect in the current > session? Or do you have to start a new one? does it persist over > sessions or only affects the current/next one? > Also, what exactly does linger do? Does

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

2016-05-28 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On May 28, 2016 6:42 AM, "Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek" wrote: > Once you have at least one process staying around, the login session > remains in "closing" state. As long as the session stays around, the > user's user@.service stays around, and this means many more processes >

Re: Fedora lists From munging/DMARC (Was: audio problems)

2016-05-27 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Chris Adams <li...@cmadams.net> wrote: > Once upon a time, Andrew Lutomirski <l...@mit.edu> said: >> Unfortunately, gmail and others are blazing ahead with breaking >> everything before ARC will be ready. > > To be fair, Google

Re: Fedora lists From munging/DMARC (Was: audio problems)

2016-05-27 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 8:19 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, 23 May 2016 16:42:05 +0200 > Dominique Martinet wrote: > > ...snip... > >> The question is, should fedora's lists be configured to rewrite the >> from ? I'm pretty sure mailman 3.1 can

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

2016-05-27 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:28 AM, Andrew Lutomirski <l...@mit.edu> wrote: > > Either the scope code is buggy or has IMO very strange behavior: > > $ systemd-run --user --scope echo foo > Running scope as unit run-4980.scope. > foo > > $ systemctl --user status run

Re: systemd 230 change - KillUserProcesses defaults to yes

2016-05-27 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 8:04 AM, Tom Hughes wrote: > On 27/05/16 15:48, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 03:26:45PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote: >> >>> Which works fine except that the scope remains even after the screen >>> has exited... >> >> Hm, it

Re: Policy change on emulators

2016-05-03 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On May 3, 2016 8:01 PM, "Neal Gompa" wrote: > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 5:17 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 03:23:45PM -0400, Tom Callaway wrote: > >> Are the FreeDOS sources under a Fedora-acceptable license? > > > > Probably

Re: Policy change on emulators

2016-05-03 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On May 3, 2016 12:07 PM, "Tom Callaway" wrote: > > * Emulators which depend on firmware or ROM files to function may not be > included in Fedora, unless the copyright holder(s) for the firmware/ROM > files give clear permission for the firmware/ROM files to be distributed >

Re: Checking signatures on package source tarballs

2016-03-22 Thread Andrew Lutomirski
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Björn Persson wrote: > > Till Maas wrote: > > I guess it might even make the new hotness do scratch builds with > > verified tarballs, since iirc it updates both the tarball and the > > signature and then %prep makes sure that they are

  1   2   3   4   >