As I understand it, the problem is that mirrors want to mirror Fedora using
generic rsync, and ostree repositories have huge numbers of small files. To use
rsync requires, at a minimum, a full directory walk, calling stat() every file
on both the source and destination.
From the little I know a
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 5:17 AM, Jiří Eischmann wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia píše v Út 18. 07. 2017 v 22:44 -0400:
>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:59 PM, 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, Ow
> 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 deduplicated on disk -- you
>> don'
> "OT" == Owen Taylor writes:
OT> The issue with this is that nobody has yet figured out how to handle
OT> OSTree repositories within the Fedora mirror infrastructure. While
OT> OSTree repositories can be mirrored efficiently, they can't be
OT> mirrored efficiently by rsync.
Is the problem s
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 deduplicated on disk -- you
> don't even download the duplicates when you update either or bot
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 11:13 -0700, Japheth Cleaver wrote:
> On 7/19/2017 8:05 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 12:56 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > wrote:
> > > [...]
> > Bundling enables some of the key features of Flatpak - the ability to
> > try out new versions of an
On 7/19/2017 8:05 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 12:56 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 20:43, Owen Taylor wrote:
[...]
An example of where conditionals may be useful is when a library is
bundled into a Flatpak - the rebuild for the flatpak
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017, at 08:49 AM, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
> As Fedora is going to use (IIRC) Flatpack's in OCI format rather than
> ostree, does it also work with OCI images? Both deduplication on disk,
> and also delta-downloads?
dedup is a tricky topic since we use SELinux;
https://github
On Thu, 2017-07-20 at 17:19 +0430, Hedayat Vatankhah wrote:
> /*Richard Hughes*/ wrote on Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:24:10 +0100:
> > On 20 July 2017 at 04:10, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > It's even required. There is no support for unbundling anything beyond the
> > > runtime at all, nor can runtimes share
/*Colin Walters*/ wrote on Tue, 18 Jul 2017 15:43:12 -0400:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017, at 02:58 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
But if I've understood correctly, any changes to the base will be discarded
when you update the base image. right?
No; `rpm-ostree install` is persistent, and so are other change
/*Richard Hughes*/ wrote on Thu, 20 Jul 2017 09:24:10 +0100:
On 20 July 2017 at 04:10, Kevin Kofler wrote:
It's even required. There is no support for unbundling anything beyond the
runtime at all, nor can runtimes share files without duplicating them.
Sure they can. If you install the KDE ru
On Thursday, 20 July 2017 at 10:24, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 20 July 2017 at 04:10, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > It's even required. There is no support for unbundling anything beyond the
> > runtime at all, nor can runtimes share files without duplicating them.
>
> Sure they can. If you install the
On 20 July 2017 at 04:10, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> It's even required. There is no support for unbundling anything beyond the
> runtime at all, nor can runtimes share files without duplicating them.
Sure they can. If you install the KDE runtime and the GNOME runtime,
these are both built upon the Fr
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> The bundling thing is what I'm afraid of. If we don't make it a
> requirement or at least a strong recommendation to unbundle libraries
> from Flatpaks, then we'll end up with Android app store-like
> ecosystem, where everyone bundles everything which is not
Chris Murphy wrote:
> What happens on Fedora now, because applications are merged with the
> OS, there are application updates that end up making some unnecessary
> reboots compulsory. But with atomic + flatpak installations, there is
> much better separation of when reboots are necessary. OS updat
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> This situation already exists, though - each of these systems are already
> snowflakes if they're user-maintained:
> - some apps installed via RPMs connected to Fedora repos
> - some from COPRS
> - some from Random RPM Downloaded From Third-Party Website
> - some from npm/p
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 05:27:17PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
> > * We will track (via the PDC) what versions of what packages are
> What's "PDC"?
Part of Fedora Infrastructure:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ProductDefinitionCenter
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Lea
On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 17:27 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 17:05, Owen Taylor wrote:
> >
> > * Bundled libraries will not be arbitrary source code builds, they
> > will
> > be built from the exact same spec files in dist-git.
> > * We will track (via t
On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 12:25:26PM +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> Sure, but they can't have it both ways: be part of Fedora when they
> need support, resources, testers and endorsement, and independent
> project that owes nothing to anyone when it's time to integrate their
> stuff in F
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 17:05, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 12:56 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 20:43, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > [...]
> > > An example of where conditionals may be useful is when a library is
> > > bundled into a Fla
On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 12:56 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 20:43, Owen Taylor wrote:
> [...]
> > An example of where conditionals may be useful is when a library is
> > bundled into a Flatpak - the rebuild for the flatpak could skip
> > building the devel
On 07/17/2017 08:44 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Dusty Mabe wrote:
>> I'm sure some people are aware but for those who aren't it is worth noting
>> that we have an entire edition (atomic host) that is built around atomic
>> updates for rpm content.
>
> Atomic updates for "rpm content", but not for
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 13:28, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 19 July 2017 at 11:56, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > And since there's no easy way
> > to track bundled stuff inside Flatpaks, we're much worse off than
> > where we are with RPM packages currently.
>
> I'm getting some
On 19 July 2017 at 11:56, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> And since there's no easy way
> to track bundled stuff inside Flatpaks, we're much worse off than
> where we are with RPM packages currently.
I'm getting somewhat sick of the hyperbole, but I'm wondering if
you're aware of
/var/lib
On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 22:01, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:41 PM, wrote:
[...]
> > Then I'm glad there is absolutely no plan to preempt flatpack technical
> > assessment by shipping one or more GNOME apps as flatpack-only, leaving
> > Fedora users for whom flatpack does not
On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 20:43, Owen Taylor wrote:
[...]
> An example of where conditionals may be useful is when a library is
> bundled into a Flatpak - the rebuild for the flatpak could skip
> building the developer docs because they have complicated build
> dependencies (graphviz or whatever.
On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 21:43, Colin Walters wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017, at 02:58 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> > > But if I've understood correctly, any changes to the base will be
> > > discarded
> > > when you update the base image. right?
>
> No; `rpm-ostree install` is persistent, and
On Wednesday, 19 July 2017 at 12:21, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
[...]
> $ flatpak remotes
> Name Options
> gnome user
> gnome-apps user
> $ flatpak remote-ls gnome-apps
> error: Remote "gnome-apps" not found
>
> Now that's confusing. It shows me configured remotes, but
De: "Jiří Eischmann"
> It's a group that focuses on building a desktop OS based on GNOME, yes,
> that involves packaging of a sizable part of the GNOME stack, but that
> doesn't mean that it's their job and obligation to package (any) GNOME
> software.
Sure, but they can't have it both ways: be
On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 17:15, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 15:25 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 13:39, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 13:23 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > > wrote:
> > > > By the way, I
Nico Kadel-Garcia píše v Út 18. 07. 2017 v 22:44 -0400:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:59 PM, 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 applica
Neal Gompa píše v Út 18. 07. 2017 v 16:03 -0400:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:41:30PM +0200, nicolas.mailhot@laposte.n
> > et wrote:
> > > Then I'm glad there is absolutely no plan to preempt flatpack
> > > technical assessment by shippi
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 12:59 PM, 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 applications if poss
De: "Owen Taylor"
> But maybe it would be more useful to try it out the Flatpak and see
> what the experience is like, and what needs to be improved? [*]
I probably would if the resource profile was compatible with this chromebook
storage capabilities. As it is I'm not too keen on having syste
> "OT" == Owen Taylor writes:
OT> If Fedora packages just hardcoded FHS paths, then all the path
OT> macros wouldn't be necessary to start with!
Actually we've been making those really annoying macros more and more
optional over time. The only one which is mandatory is %_libdir. I
personal
> In other words, GNOME Recipes is a special case,
Again, I am just glad there is no plan to shift more and more apps to flatpack
only before there is any assessment of how it actually works out. No more, no
less, and for what it's worth.
Cheers,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
__
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:07:28PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Matthew, as FPL I think you also shouldn't take sides here. There's a
> lot of inflamatory rhetoric in this thread, and it's my opinion that
> you've sided with what I'd call the "GNOME/Flatpak" camp, and ignored
> some inflamat
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 04:00:10PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:41:30PM +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> > Then I'm glad there is absolutely no plan to preempt flatpack
> > technical assessment by shipping one or more GNOME apps as
> > flatpack-only, leaving
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 21:41 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> De: "Owen Taylor"
>
> > But I want to be clear that there is no *proposal* on the
> > table to ship things Flatpak only, and *no proposed timescale*. And
> > there won't be until we know how the tools work out for packagers,
>
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 4:00 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:41:30PM +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
>> Then I'm glad there is absolutely no plan to preempt flatpack
>> technical assessment by shipping one or more GNOME apps as
>> flatpack-only, leaving Fedora user
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 3:41 PM, wrote:
>
> De: "Owen Taylor"
>
>> But I want to be clear that there is no *proposal* on the
>> table to ship things Flatpak only, and *no proposed timescale*. And
>> there won't be until we know how the tools work out for packagers, how
>> Flatpak usage works out
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:41:30PM +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> Then I'm glad there is absolutely no plan to preempt flatpack
> technical assessment by shipping one or more GNOME apps as
> flatpack-only, leaving Fedora users for whom flatpack does not work
> yet behind, and bypassing
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017, at 02:58 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> > But if I've understood correctly, any changes to the base will be discarded
> > when you update the base image. right?
No; `rpm-ostree install` is persistent, and so are other changes like
`rpm-ostree initramfs --enable` and so is the rec
De: "Owen Taylor"
> But I want to be clear that there is no *proposal* on the
> table to ship things Flatpak only, and *no proposed timescale*. And
> there won't be until we know how the tools work out for packagers, how
> Flatpak usage works out for users, and we have a significant body of
> Fed
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:14 PM, Hedayat Vatankhah
wrote:
>
> /*Chris Murphy*/ wrote on Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:28:53 -0600:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
>> wrote:
>
> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> "One size fits everyone" approach can be dangerous. It never does, in
>>> f
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 13:23 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 00:02, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Kevin Kofler > at>
> > wrote:
> > > The problem is that the RPMs that go into the Flatpaks are not
> > > FHS-
> > > compliant,
/*Chris Murphy*/ wrote on Tue, 18 Jul 2017 09:28:53 -0600:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
...
"One size fits everyone" approach can be dangerous. It never does, in
fact, fit everyone, and often sacrifices flexibility and resource usage
for the convenie
.
Christian
- Original Message -
> From: "Owen Taylor"
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 10:15:12 AM
> Subject: Re: F27 System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks
>
> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at
On 18 July 2017 at 16:36, Joonas Sarajärvi wrote:
> My guess, too, would be that it does not address this situation.
Sure, flatpak doesn't do this, because it can't. If the application
author wants to rev the schema of the config, then they have to handle
to migration -- and it's unlikely they wa
Hi,
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski kirjoitti 18.07.2017 klo 14:28:
On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 13:15, Bastien Nocera wrote:
[...]
How does Flatpak handle application updates and downgrades when the
application introduces incompatible changes to user data format between
versions and supports dat
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 15:39, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Could you explain the benefits of Atomic system + few layered RPMs vs. a
>> > tra
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 15:25 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 13:39, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 13:23 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> > wrote:
> > > By the way, I can't figure out how to look inside a Flatpak and
> > > review its
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> I'm not necessarily concerned about subverting (or "changing" as I would
> prefer to think of it) the One True Fedora Way, if there are good reasons to
> do so and it improves things.
I don't know what you mean by One True Fedora Way. Sounds l
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 8:06 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 18/07/17 14:55, Richard Hughes wrote:
>>
>> On 18 July 2017 at 14:52, Tom Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>> So what is the user experience of "updating" in this world? How does the
>>> transition from one snapshot to the next occur?
>>
>>
>> Basically t
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) said:
> > On a more general note I think a lot of people are assuming we're all
> > horrible evil people, trying to subvert the One True Fedora Way. This
> > is exceptionally poisonous and needs to stop, otherwise Fedora should
> > to drop both the "Friends", "Features
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 7:52 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 18/07/17 14:39, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Could you explain the benefits of Atomic system + few layered RPMs vs. a
>>> traditional Fedora installation?
>>
>>
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 15:06 +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
> Nobody wants to have to resetup their desktop every day
I do.
I actually turn off my computer when I'm not using it, and start it
again in the morning before I start working.
--
Mathieu
___
devel
On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 15:39, Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
>
>
> > Could you explain the benefits of Atomic system + few layered RPMs vs. a
> > traditional Fedora installation?
>
> The OS itself is versioned and binary ident
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 08:35 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> > > Even if it eventually succeeds crash-landing it in Fedora while
> > > half
> > > the security and management tools are lacking is a great way for
> > > the
> > > distribution to get an awful reputation, while others will ri
On 18/07/17 14:55, Richard Hughes wrote:
On 18 July 2017 at 14:52, Tom Hughes wrote:
So what is the user experience of "updating" in this world? How does the
transition from one snapshot to the next occur?
Basically the same as now. Kalev added a gnome-software plugin that
downloads the new d
On 18/07/17 14:52, Richard Hughes wrote:
On a more general note I think a lot of people are assuming we're all
horrible evil people, trying to subvert the One True Fedora Way. This
is exceptionally poisonous and needs to stop, otherwise Fedora should
to drop both the "Friends", "Features" and th
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 02:52:57PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On a more general note I think a lot of people are assuming we're all
> horrible evil people, trying to subvert the One True Fedora Way. This
> is exceptionally poisonous and needs to stop, otherwise Fedora should
> to drop both the
- Original Message -
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > However we end up doing it, I think it'd be better if we could do it
> > without you, whatever it is you do for Fedora. We, and certainly I, don't
> > want this level of toxicity and utter malfeasance on a mailing-list that
> > I'm supposed
On 18 July 2017 at 14:52, Tom Hughes wrote:
> So what is the user experience of "updating" in this world? How does the
> transition from one snapshot to the next occur?
Basically the same as now. Kalev added a gnome-software plugin that
downloads the new data, shows the OS update in gnome-softwar
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 09:54:47AM +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> Anyway let's close this branch of the thread, it is making me sick.
Yes please. Thank you.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fed
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 08:35:58AM +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> Working on it is fine. Improving it is fine. Proposing
> Fedora-generated Flatpacks outside of Fedora is fine.
>
> Planning to ship stuff as Flatpack only when basic questions such as
> inter-component dependencies, aut
On 18 July 2017 at 14:25, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> In other words, it's not possible to inspect a binary flatpak without
> installing it.
You can install it to /tmp... gnome-software actually "installs" the
flatpakref into a temp directory so that we can show the application
metada
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 03:29:00AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Fedora also still provides the infrastructure for building flatpaks,
> > hosting to distribute and mirror them, review of flatpak image manifests,
> > quality testing before release, and more. Essentially the things that
> > Fedora a
On 18/07/17 14:39, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
Could you explain the benefits of Atomic system + few layered RPMs vs. a
traditional Fedora installation?
The OS itself is versioned and binary identical to any other
installation w
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 5:23 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> Could you explain the benefits of Atomic system + few layered RPMs vs. a
> traditional Fedora installation?
The OS itself is versioned and binary identical to any other
installation with the same version. There is no longe
On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 13:39, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
> On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 13:23 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
> > By the way, I can't figure out how to look inside a Flatpak and
> > review its contents. Could someone provide some pointers?
>
> On the repo all you have is an
On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 14:40, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>
> Dne 18.7.2017 v 13:23 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a):
> > On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 00:02, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Kevin Kofler
> >> wrote:
> >>> The problem is that the RPMs that go in
Dne 18.7.2017 v 13:23 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski napsal(a):
> On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 00:02, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Kevin Kofler
>> wrote:
>>> The problem is that the RPMs that go into the Flatpaks are not FHS-
>>> compliant, so the RPMs will have to
On Tue, 2017-07-18 at 13:23 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> By the way, I can't figure out how to look inside a Flatpak and
> review its contents. Could someone provide some pointers?
On the repo all you have is an object store (much like Git's
.git/objects/ folder), but if you inst
On Monday, 17 July 2017 at 13:15, Bastien Nocera wrote:
[...]
> "Fixing the update tools" doesn't fix the breakage handled by applications
> when you change files from underneath them. Again, read the original threads
> to get a complete picture.
>
> And when you take it all into account, the fix
On Tuesday, 18 July 2017 at 00:02, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
> > The problem is that the RPMs that go into the Flatpaks are not FHS-
> > compliant, so the RPMs will have to carry some conditionals and be built
> > twice.
>
> Yes, that is tru
Kevin Kofler píše v Út 18. 07. 2017 v 03:06 +0200:
> Jiří Eischmann wrote:
> > I agree with Matt here, Fedora Project's mission (neither the old
> > one,
> > nor the new draft) doesn't say anything about RPM. RPM is just
> > means to
> > an end, not the goal. And I don't know why Fedora should be t
- Mail original -
De: "Kevin Kofler"
>> Please, do leave, so you don't have to endure our apparent incompetence.
> Nicolas Mailhot has done a lot of work on font packaging and organizing the
> Fonts SIG.
Thanks a lot Kevin. However, that really should not matter. Many people here
make
>> Even if it eventually succeeds crash-landing it in Fedora while half
>> the security and management tools are lacking is a great way for the
>> distribution to get an awful reputation, while others will rip the
>> fruits of this work some years later.
>I'm entirely puzzled about how you think
On 7/17/2017 10:22 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 11:13:28PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Matthew Miller wrote:
I strongly dispute the idea that Fedora must be tied to a particular
packaging technology.
The particular packaging technology is what ensures that we have a coh
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Use of RPM is merely a particular historical choice of delivery mechanism,
> and certainly not the defining characteristic of what it means to be the
> Fedora distribution. For users consuming the Fedora desktop, the fact that
> they're using RPM is hidden away as an imp
On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 02:58:52AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > Yeah, that last point is the real difficult issue, it forces you to keep
> > the RPM in parallel with the flatpak, unless we were to either change
> > RPM (yuk), or find a way to auto-generate a RPM wrappe
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> However we end up doing it, I think it'd be better if we could do it
> without you, whatever it is you do for Fedora. We, and certainly I, don't
> want this level of toxicity and utter malfeasance on a mailing-list that
> I'm supposed to be subscribed to.
>
> Please, do lea
Jiří Eischmann wrote:
> I agree with Matt here, Fedora Project's mission (neither the old one,
> nor the new draft) doesn't say anything about RPM. RPM is just means to
> an end, not the goal. And I don't know why Fedora should be tied to RPM
> forever. Really successful brands don't die when their
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> Yeah, that last point is the real difficult issue, it forces you to keep
> the RPM in parallel with the flatpak, unless we were to either change
> RPM (yuk), or find a way to auto-generate a RPM wrapper around the flatpak
> to pull in it contents.
You need to keep the R
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> I had to write a script to read the dnf planned transaction log and finish
> installing and erasing remaining packages, and manually run any %posttrans
> scripts.
Such a dnf-complete-transaction script would be a nice addition to DNF.
Kevin Kofler
_
Michael Stahl wrote:
> no, the worst case is this:
>
> https://www.happyassassin.net/2016/10/04/x-crash-during-fedora-update-when-system-has-hybrid-graphics-and-systemd-udev-is-in-update/
That was a one-time bug that is already fixed. It also affected only systems
with hybrid graphics, lots of s
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> It's like you didn't listen to the arguments when this feature was
> implemented in Fedora years ago, and continue not to. You're wrong, and
> the fact that you keep insisting you're not is frankly intellectual
> dishonesty.
I am using online updates of RPMs all the time. H
Dusty Mabe wrote:
> I'm sure some people are aware but for those who aren't it is worth noting
> that we have an entire edition (atomic host) that is built around atomic
> updates for rpm content.
Atomic updates for "rpm content", but not for actual RPMs, unfortunately,
only for blobs composed on
Daniel Walsh wrote:
> I read this like containers are something new and interesting.
Nope, we are saying they are something new and uninteresting. ;-)
> Upstream docker project started this effort a few years ago and the world
> has latched onto it. Fedora needs to adjust and become great at
> c
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 05:02:42PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> I think that's probably worthwhile. The way I see it, we have a
> large number of users who prefer an entirely RPM-based system,
> although most users would be better off with an Atomic system and
> just layering a few RPMs on top
On Fri, 2017-07-14 at 21:29 +0200, Lars Seipel wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:26:04PM -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> > But we have not been. Very few applications actually have SELinux
> > profiles,
> > and they are all maintained downstream rather than upstream. The
> > volume of
> > er
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 3:38 AM, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
The problem is that the RPMs that go into the Flatpaks are not FHS-
compliant, so the RPMs will have to carry some conditionals and be
built
twice.
Yes, that is true. Some apps will have to be patched for Flatpak, and
building them as bot
On Mon, 2017-07-17 at 17:51 +0200, nicolas.mail...@laposte.net wrote:
> > There's a
> > burning the ships sort of appeal in that approach,
>
> Actually, the correct analogy would be "burning platform" (and we all
> know how well that ended).
I almost certainly should avoid responding to such an
On Sat, 2017-07-15 at 13:43 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 02:56:34PM -0700, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> > This is only a problem because Flatpak is currently following the
> > IMO
> > rather busted old Android model. With very few, if any, exceptions,
> > I
> > think a much
On 07/17/2017 03:14 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 17.07.2017 19:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:03:13PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
On 16.07.2017 12:54, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:59:37PM +000
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 2:48 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 17.07.2017 19:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:03:13PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
>>> On 16.07.2017 12:54, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:59:37PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> On Fr
On 17.07.2017 19:26, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 12:03:13PM +0200, Michael Stahl wrote:
>> On 16.07.2017 12:54, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 04:59:37PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote:
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:44:18AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote
On 07/14/2017 05:04 PM, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On 14 July 2017 at 20:28, Andreas Tunek wrote:
>> Is this really more reliable than using dnf (for graphical packages
>> like Recepies and Builder)?
>
> It's hugely more reliable. You can't actually trust rpm to do anything
> atomically, and this
On Mon, Jul 17, 2017 at 09:48:46AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 05:17:44PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:42:15PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > > > On Mo
1 - 100 of 205 matches
Mail list logo