Re: Easier %config management?

On 12/15/2015 10:54 AM, Christopher wrote: On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 12:37 AM J. Randall Owens > wrote: On 12/14/2015 02:47 PM, Christopher wrote: > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 11:22 AM Reindl Harald

Re: ntpstat

On 2/12/2016 3:36 AM, Peter Lemenkov wrote: 2016-02-12 12:10 GMT+01:00 Miroslav Lichvar : I could write a new man page and put it in the ntp package as a replacement. Or it could be added as a new package in Fedora, which ntp could recommend or suggest. Would that make

Re: /sbin/nologin in /etc/shells

On 9/29/2016 5:55 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Nobody should ever add this at all. And most definitely not Fedora. The behavior the original poster pointed out: | - su -s /bin/bash - nologinuser (if "nologinuser" has /sbin/nologin as the | default shell) succeeds with /bin/bash if auth is successful

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

On 10/5/2016 2:40 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:14 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: I think it is a mistake to require reboot for _every_ update, even though, as you say, even user apps sometimes _cannot_ be updated online (*). I am comfortable with

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

On 10/5/2016 9:37 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Wed, 5 Oct 2016 10:56:35 -0500 Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Tue, Oct 04, 2016 at 20:42:11 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: The one thing I absolutely would advise against: don't do an update over ssh!

Re: /sbin/nologin in /etc/shells

On 10/3/2016 3:02 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On 3 October 2016 at 16:53, Toby Goodwin wrote: I was just reviewing this thread to date, and came across somebody asking: How is this a "critical...security hole"? I'm wondering if perhaps some of the staunch defenders of

Re: Supported way to require that a service be stopped prior to installing an .rpm package?

On 10/25/2016 6:13 PM, jha...@gmail.com wrote: On 10/25/2016 4:47 PM, jhally(a)gmail.com wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets It seems like this is something that could be done in %pretrans, as well. Alternatively, depending on the paradigm you're working with, you could

Re: Supported way to require that a service be stopped prior to installing an .rpm package?

On 10/25/2016 4:47 PM, jha...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, My team is building and maintaining a fairly complex software stack that is being packaged via rpm. As part of the requirements, the service provided by the .rpm file must be stopped prior to installation / update of the package. Is

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

On 11/9/2016 1:30 PM, Louis Lagendijk wrote: On Wed, 2016-11-09 at 12:58 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 11/09/2016 08:02 AM, Simo Sorce wrote: Although this is true, one thing we could do is set a default hostname that is static ("fedora" or similar is fine), and teach the utilities used

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

On 11/10/2016 8:45 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 11:17:20AM +0100, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote: On 11/09/2016 02:32 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Nov 08, 2016 at 03:25:58PM -0800, Andrew Lutomirski wrote: If the hostname is non-constant, can we also arrange that, by

Re: RPM %changelog?

On 10/25/2016 11:35 AM, David Shea wrote: Please, no, don't do that. RPM is a standard lol. * The representation of file names in package headers changed in rpm-4.0. * Originally, file names were stored as an array of absolute paths. * In rpm-4.0, file names are stored as separate arrays

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

On 11/11/2016 9:08 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: I still believe we should stick to a generic hostname by default, (though I'd rather use "localhost" than "localhost.localdomain" in order to drop the redhatism that "localdomain" is), and make the IPA client-side enrollment code automatically

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

On 12/13/2016 7:00 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 12:14:44PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: Well, the security policies need to be adapted to the service in question, hence a blanket switch to enable all of them for every service is problematic. Let's say you block

Re: Proposal: Rethink Fedora multilib support

On 1/5/2017 9:12 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: On 05/01/17 09:56 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: Teamviewer comes in an i686 only package for Fedora. So is there going to be this interim approach, and then yet another change when they're expected to use FlatPak? That's a lot of changes... And are these

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks

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

Re: F27 System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks

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

Re: GCL and SELinux: help requested

On 10/13/2017 2:41 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 03:07:05PM -0600, Jerry James wrote: But that's not the end of the fun. GCL failed the mass rebuild this summer. It built successfully on every architecture but s390x. On s390x, the build failed due to a failed call to

Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

On 11/15/2018 8:19 AM, John Florian wrote: I totally agree, but we are talking about radical changes here and I think we should keep all options on the table.  If some particular path forward is overwhelmingly desirable, that is the time to decide if the push is worth it, not earlier IMHO.  If

Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

On 11/15/2018 3:54 PM, Jason Tibbitts wrote: And to add in an additional argument that we didn't have a decade ago: We're actually trying to evolve our packaging now. EPEL with it's "old RPM never changes" restriction is bad enough but fortunately limited in scope. Having years of Fedora

Re: Editions vs. Spins

On 1/13/2019 10:19 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 07:51:34PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Stephen John Smoogen wrote: Side note, I was at a loss of what you were getting at. There were several ways it could be interpreted and has been used by people in the past to

Re: Editions vs. Spins

On 1/14/2019 4:58 PM, John Harris wrote: On Monday, January 14, 2019 6:48:47 PM EST Matthew Miller wrote: Merging Core and Extras into one thing was absolutely the right thing to do for the project, but not having a unique name for the resulting OS was a mistake and leads to this. Ah well. In

Re: Fedora 30 System-Wide Change proposal: Remove Obsolete Scriptlets

On 12/12/2018 2:20 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveObsoleteScriptlets == Summary == Remove scriptlets which are not needed anymore (ldconfig, gtk-update-icon-cache, etc.). *snip* == Upgrade/compatibility impact == Installed F30 RPMs on F28/EL6/EL7 might not

Re: Proposal: Move to an annual platform release starting at F30

On 11/27/2018 10:39 AM, Owen Taylor wrote: We can definitely talk about whether moving to a slower cadence for certain parts of the base platform. But people don't judge Fedora on how beautifully we maintain glibc and gcc - they mostly judge it by installing it on a laptop and seeing how well it

Re: Fedora Lifecycles: imagine longer-term possibilities

On 11/16/2018 3:19 PM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le vendredi 16 novembre 2018 à 13:02 -0800, Japheth Cleaver a écrit : I'm not sure why punting like this is a good thing. RPM is a standard, moving along at what one might expect a core component to do, but to the extent that "evolving our pack

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/25/2019 2:10 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 08:18:34PM +, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: Switching to other than bash sh interpreter allow reduce total gcc package build time by ~5%. OK. But that just shows that it is — possibly — worth to switch the gcc build

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

not just change it to /bin/bash and move on? Japheth Cleaver explained why in response to me a couple of days ago: apparently changing it would also change the shell used for some scriptlets... Well, each of the build-time scriptlets (%prep vs %check, for example) have distinct shell macros that can

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/26/2019 8:47 AM, Japheth Cleaver wrote: On 3/26/2019 8:14 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 09:08 -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 5:05 PM, Tomasz =?UTF-8?b?S8WCb2N6a28=?= wrote: [tkloczko@domek SPECS.fedora]$ rpm -E %_buildshell /bin/sh How can

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/26/2019 9:04 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le 2019-03-26 16:51, Japheth Cleaver a écrit : As far as actually making changes in specs, let's try addressing that separately and perhaps asynchronously. Most of the changes for things likely to run in scriptlets are probably just straight

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/26/2019 5:24 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le 2019-03-26 12:29, Dridi Boukelmoune a écrit : On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:43 AM Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le 2019-03-25 22:47, Japheth Cleaver a écrit : > If you can take a one-time hit to > remove bashisms and get a 25-40% improvement, CP

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/25/2019 2:46 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: Le 2019-03-25 09:53, Jan Pokorný a écrit : Good point, and that's something capable of making upstream maintenance cumbersome at times (sed is a common pet peeve), but that's an order of magnitude more demanding level when it comes to portability,

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/25/2019 5:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: Fedora is so different from other GNU/Linux systems these days, so I'm not sure if *any* recommendation to encourage portability (at the cost of convenience to Fedora developers or users) makes sense anymore.

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/25/2019 8:02 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2019-03-25 at 12:59 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: And since RPM appears to be configurable for the default interpreter, have it use /usr/bin/bash by default. TBH, it seems to me reasonable that we just do this. If our position is that we

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/26/2019 10:57 AM, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: You want something faster than bash – write something faster than bash with as expressive a syntax (and ideally the same syntax). Winning CPU time by consuming packager time is not going to work. This seems like it's begging the question. "The same

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

not just change it to /bin/bash and move on? Japheth Cleaver explained why in response to me a couple of days ago: apparently changing it would also change the shell used for some scriptlets... FYI: https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/issues/646

Re: Ditch RPM in favor of DPKG

On 2/20/2019 7:29 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 2/20/19 5:19 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote: On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 11:46 +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: No, that was a bad joke from my end, what I need is proper apt in Fedora to use sbuild. If you also do the review-request for apt [1] it would be

Re: More than 10% of all Fedora spec files are not POSIX sh compliant

On 3/21/2019 3:23 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: So what? On Fedora /bin/sh is bash, and bash is a fine shell. All this nonsense of using dash for /bin/sh on Debian is IMO a pointless bunch of make-work. Fedora has certainly made a lot of make-work projects over the last decade, under

Re: Can we maybe reduce the set of packages we install by default a bit?

On 4/9/2019 11:14 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Di, 09.04.19 12:54, Stephen John Smoogen (smo...@gmail.com) wrote: This is more about socializing and teaching the systemd replacements... because most of the systemd advocates and heavy users I have asked aren't sure about how systemd

Re: Can we maybe reduce the set of packages we install by default a bit?

On 4/17/2019 10:36 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: On Mi, 17.04.19 10:55, Steve Grubb (sgr...@redhat.com) wrote: On Wednesday, April 17, 2019 4:38:18 AM EDT Lennart Poettering wrote: rngd runs as regular system service, hence what's the point of that altogether? I mean, it runs so late during

Re: dropping %systemd_requires from most packages (guidelines change and mass package update proposal)

On 5/9/2019 7:46 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, May 09, 2019 at 09:19:32AM -0500, Mátyás Selmeci wrote: On 5/9/19 9:00 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Hi, let's drop the requirement and ordering on systemd (as implemented by %systemd_requires) from packages which

Re: dropping %systemd_requires from most packages (guidelines change and mass package update proposal)

On 5/9/2019 4:14 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 2:40 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Also, if for some reason I don't grok one absolutely needs to use the exact same spec file for Fedora 31+ and EPEL7 (which is based on F19), than keeping the dependency as it is now

Re: Can we maybe reduce the set of packages we install by default a bit?

On 4/10/2019 4:10 AM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote: On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 8:40 PM Japheth Cleaver wrote: Is this really worth the effort? cronie in F30 is a 103K package, and a decent chunk of that might be the ChangeLog. crontabs is all of 18K, which is 95% the GPL and the RPM header

Re: Can we maybe reduce the set of packages we install by default a bit?

On 4/11/2019 8:32 AM, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 4/11/19 10:16 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote: However, that's intended for system services only (i.e. for services running as users UID < 1000). For regular users (i.e. human ones, those with UID >= 1000), the idea is to install timer units in the

Re: RFC: Drop lz4-static

On 8/14/2019 2:08 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "DS" == David Sommerseth writes: DS> As I can see it, there is little benefit of removing lz4-static. Isn't that entirely the decision of those maintaining the package? It's still completely reasonable if they want to remove it for no other

Re: Fedora Workstation and disabled by default firewall

On 8/27/2019 4:01 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2019-08-27 at 15:06 +0200, Jiri Eischmann wrote: mcatanz...@gnome.org píše v Út 27. 08. 2019 v 15:07 +0300: On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 4:22 AM, John Harris wrote: No, that is not how this works, at all. First, let's go ahead and address the

Re: Fedora Workstation and disabled by default firewall

On 8/29/2019 8:10 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2019-08-28 at 23:13 -0400, Christopher wrote: On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 8:56 PM John Harris wrote: It might be okay to be a GNOME-specific thing, as that's the only spin of Fedora which is affected by this decision. The default firewall

Re: Upcoming change for adopting orphaned packages and anitya integration

On 9/17/2019 9:39 AM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 10:21:31AM +0200, Till Hofmann wrote: On 9/13/19 12:32 PM, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: ## Anitya integration Currently if you want to tweak the setting for the anitya integration, you need to open a pull-request on the

Re: RPM Fusion Bugzilla Bug 5307

On 9/23/2019 10:55 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 1:49 PM Ty Young wrote: On 9/23/19 9:56 AM, Neal Gompa wrote: The problem with that is that if we did it that way, nobody would adapt to the change. Much in the same manner that we're moving to cgroups v2 in Fedora 31, if we

Re: splitting out systemd-networkd, systemd-standalone-{sysusers,tmpfiles} subpackages in F33+

On 9/30/2020 1:26 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 3:42 PM Ian Pilcher wrote: On 9/30/20 2:19 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: On Wed, Sep 30, 2020 at 2:00 pm, Ian Pilcher wrote: And what about places where NetworkManager isn't used? (Just because it's the default, doesn't mean

Re: The future of Fedora Server (was Re: Fedora 34 Change: Make Fedora CoreOS a Fedora Edition (System-Wide Change))

On 12/4/2020 12:35 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: Anecdata which is as 'useful' as any other. Most of the people I have dealt with in the last 4 years with Server have been using it mainly as a replacement for the Everything DVD and because it was the most 'un-opinionated' release of

Re: Fedora 34 Change: Enable spec file preprocessing (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 12/17/2020 3:59 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 12:51:49AM +0100, clime wrote: This change proposal does affect users. The User Experience section needs to answer the following: Well, the users here are still packagers here no? I thought the "User" in the title means "end

[EPEL-devel] EPEL, Playground, CentOS Stream, etc

In light of the announcement, but also specifically: https://centos.org/distro-faq/#q8-i-need-to-buildtest-my-packages-for-epel-locally-which-i-used-centos-for-centos-stream-will-have-different-abiapi-at-times-so-my-builds-wont-work-with-that