Unretire python-dockerpty
I intend to unretire python-dockerpty, which was retired four weeks ago due to being orphaned. It is a dependency of docker-compose, which cannot build in f32 without it, and for which I'm the maintainer. I've submitted releng issue https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9288 ___ 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
Orphan package: firehol
Hello all, I've orphaned package firehol. Unfortunately I do not have enough time to maintain this package, and I also do not use it. Regards, signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Orphaned Packages in branched (2016-04-25)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I will take over firehol. It just happens that I was looking for (the current version of) this package last week, and had to build my own in Copr. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: GPGTools - http://l1.ioerror.us/wf/click?upn=AF-2F3dbqhk2zenp127Lnl3iCcBve37FfyfvgGLK7chOQ-3D_2IBM4owxJpt44xkfeINYiL2GrBUpaApDdYVuwYSa-2Byy2-2F8e3yA3R18uEacbizcjddjNgDqIWhxsKGQTGCYYaMzcP-2BwyKdBHAGvgSxZowuriZEx89HbS0aHaS7ltWsU29GBiz5ln0ZZNsdKuDmKAH-2B2phs0y6V-2FIAzFJ7j7TFk4OXzWlBgsiHq7Ue2YzbCR316MmldvwY9aSzSFrs-2FRK49IDoBugcHzdvtORQmIG2fpo-3D iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXHqroAAoJEJICkBIKCqxcW4QP/1HbBv7ch6Z+qyNJV+2F1Et8 QMpsdeV+TkUPL26Lkoh0cJhsbPrHNr7lp12IbCE2QWDo2xnFMuvtmOdEM0HapEOT K0tXS1TFbHB75lUxfU5PQPKxO61m4wY7CwrulLERATthmgn+7PKwfJS9P4R7WSLg xRSdxL6C5fGxFSjxEMM43s59GdvVMxlBV9HQtwpf187pyaZJDLmwU9qB2zDN7a7o YA+QpY/b+yHa/ENfBvs66chQomjS2KSw++jPOlzkwQ+RzdFJcXEdbEyfQ7Ge5ZK8 05MLSgEI9eFNwNClr5VS7zIzej9AjFSnnyBdMGHKZ+GPC5UvtqhR1ZnFPSOoTJgG 3p1zev8TnPm6P+GwECIOp4qBUueuy/5Zdf3kOZC9w7jgy7jTWhDoon8hb1YnKI71 SNBRA4D/J0ivs7lbD29wpkJtyb0nd1T6+uALNtHKZRjPJgBB47SnPubRFAlyWuMO ka/eOx/i/l0VXGWoIIMYva+9d2/X7tIF5WTX2F493XzOWfSf3Y7NVL9B8Xfvh4ky gIcVkarZWOr9dC42cnpXu3ln7j56TLaDQN+WhnITNFgW9po5c4XPWyrtKBCyAJyz 8966uBNV7q74H7hldZdRndijH2SehqgCrZxj1nG7C0Tn91U5wnEl1g6erx2KKvSE RFUPWUCrPOhUCoyQUCRa =befH -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Some analysis on the size of the minimal and Server installs, of Fedora 23
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 11/16/2015 08:39 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > With these two goals in mind, the most obvious approach to improving > this situation would be by reducing the number of packages installed > by default on the Minimal and Fedora Server installs. As a specific > goal of the Server Working Group, we want to aim for a world wherein > administrators will no longer desire to install the Minimal install > and instead will rely on the platform provided by the default Fedora > Server install. They do not do this today because the Fedora Server > installation is considerably larger. I postulate that this is due > primarily to dependency bloat, which is where we should focus our > efforts during the Fedora 24 timeframe. I postulate (but have not yet > confirmed) that there are likely many places where we could replace > Requires: with Recommends: (or even Suggests:) dependencies. In my > ideal world, the difference between a Minimal and Server install would > be identical to installing the same set of packages with Recommends: > on or off. As someone who is using Fedora extensively for both physical and virtual servers, I can tell you that dependency bloat _per se_ is not why I use Minimal rather than Server as a base for server and virtual machine installs. Rather, the issue for me is that Server installs many things I simply do not need or want. For instance, while I have Docker container hosts, they are only a small percentage of my hosts, and so I do not want Docker installed on every server. But Server includes docker out of the box. And, Server installs things which are only useful for physical machines (or at least, virtual machines bridged to the network) such as lldpad, openhpi, etc. Finally, I'm installing necessary software for each server via Ansible anyway, so having something preinstalled, even if I wanted it, isn't very beneficial to me. What I would like to see out of a Server looks a whole lot like Minimal does today, with the possible addition of cockpit and rolekit, and _anything_ else added either during installation as an optional choice, or after installation via rolekit, Ansible, Puppet, or whoever. Along those lines, I would like to see Anaconda detect whether the system is a virtual machine, and automatically select for installation the _appropriate_ guest agents for the detected hypervisor, rather than _all_ of them, but this doesn't affect Server exclusively. > Some specific observations I can make: > * The largest difference in the Fedora Server install vs. the minimal > install is due to the FreeIPA and Samba packages requiring the > inclusion of the Python 2 stack; focusing on eliminating this > requirement in Fedora 24 would have the largest impact on both the > number of packages and the space on disk. See above; my recommendation is to cut it to the bare bones, and install packages and groups of packages only on demand. > * The largest individual package in both deployments is the > glibc-common package. This is primarily due to the 106MiB > locale-archive. I'd really like to hear from glibc folks if there is > something we can do to break this up into smaller pieces contained in > different sub-packages with Suggests: dependencies. Can these not be split into separate packages per language, and then installed only if that language is requested? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWSwXcAAoJEJICkBIKCqxc8HIP/0W7Si9SB+B9fkBrNYKJ55Na VUD5h9+UfV8KJPSI/p9fkljHsLait78yMtFGas5bQIDVGwUFaFoDy2FfKj2gAAMQ FajpEzh6ANaZlKrCi7jle5ZkXP6tNnlbnQ8QnIC855ILbPrB3cfZwnaL1UV0BlF2 u9QwXV6fHJqEdVm4wnJp+Ew0YB0K2dRhY4+dKBkn0ArNzs7lGZyzmCynrQTbk8kP KlZeVeBKquXP2wI9bNwqfWTnmfXjvulXShB6WgYng1bFmty9Kwp2MjfAm6UfUkza a72inN0JWR/tTMzlJh+bcDtrzv1G4JENYfemTd5GYuTA25Hk531+0Ir9wbMtiHXG nzNRY7vow+if4vtPNeUko5BQqgUnRTTe1oVqLGUUmHzm3EOQtw0xC5jOC6lJ80kx 6PadjEb3/g/CVnBoNCYHGabIJKB2xXK7ssw0woaXuVSMHyJ6gt6pM9fvicy3Ejoz BLFtjE0r3vjjV79P8xo2jSk1unrRzQeD4dN7Wx3TS6ruf0TCv2I/6WY3tT+xu/ry m5gY41yrkUI6PAzyfBy+0QEpFLfjGtnOVdVyNvd3ZEjJKgiOzUCaTHYmQTIbcHrl uul6zZC5Xo/HfS0tFVq7GpsmH7P47NNo5eg60YDgXDnUc3zlIXxviIWIw5PEzXo7 fb8Tz/sLwclFvSdvpd5Z =d7f1 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Fedora IPv6 testing and improvements - request for ideas
On Thu Oct 29 15:15:10 UTC 2015, Pavel Simerda wrote: > I am writing to Fedora development mailing lists to get opinions > and ideas regarding our project on improving IPv6 support in > Fedora across its components. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Networking > > Most prominent subpages: > > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Networking/Test_environment > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Networking/Client_software > * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Networking/Server_software > > During the first phase we are interested in getting feedback on > testing methods and test cases. Any other ideas are of course > welcome. Even contacts for future collaboration would be great. I was an early adopter of IPv6; I've had it in some form or another continuously since 2006. I may have a few ideas to share. My late response today was motivated in part by my attempting to install Fedora in a VM from my private IPv6-only Fedora mirror, and having it completely fail to download .treeinfo and squashfs.img, despite picking up an SLAAC IPv6 address and being bridged to the same subnet as the mirror... One of the REALLY early adopters of IPv6 was Microsoft, who began rolling it out internally in the early 2000s, when XP was the new OS on the block. I recently read a Microsoft book, Understanding IPv6 (Third Edition) and one of the things I took away from that, with regard to testing, is that since Vista/2008 they do not test Windows without the IPv6 stack, nor can it even be fully removed! But you can uninstall the IPv4 stack from Windows, and this is a fully supported configuration. A short bit from the book: > From Microsoft's perspective, IPv6 is a mandatory part of the Windows > operating system, and it is enabled and included in standard Windows service > and application testing during the operating system development process. > Because Windows was designed specifically with IPv6 present, Microsoft does > not perform any testing to determine the effects of disabling IPv6. If IPv6 > is disabled in Windows, some components will not function. Moreover, > applications that you might not think are using IPv6—such as Remote > Assistance, HomeGroup, DirectAccess, and Windows Mail—could be. I'm aware that there remain kernel issues preventing IPv4 from being entirely disabled, but it should be possible today to test Fedora in an (almost) entirely IPv6-only configuration. Such a setup could shake loose a very large pile of bugs (on the order of thousands, across all Fedora packages). One interesting test in particular would be to remove 127.0.0.1 from the lo interface, leaving only ::1; there is a lot of software out there that assumes that 127.0.0.1 will always be there, and this is not a valid assumption. For some background on things that can be expected to go wrong in an IPv6-only network, RFC 6586 makes good reading. OK, maybe I just had one idea... (Note that I'm on digest and usually only skim it, so I might miss any messages not CC'd to me.) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Self Introduction
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone, I'm Michael Hampton. I've been using Fedora for its entire existence, and Red Hat Commercial Linux before that, starting around 3.0.3 or so. Until now, though, I've never really had a good opportunity to contribute back, aside from the occasional bug report. I've been a system administrator for many years, working for myself and clients of my choice. I am perhaps most obviously visible as a community moderator of Server Fault, a site in the Stack Exchange network. http://serverfault.com/users/126632 I do drop in on Freenode on occasion, but since my nick is io_error I am often confused with a famous individual, and as a result I don't spend much time there. I am doing some work with Windows Azure, and I need to run Fedora on it. While the kernel contains all the necessary drivers, the Linux agent software that Microsoft provides, and which Linux VMs need to be provisioned properly on Azure, isn't packaged for Fedora. I intend to change that, and I have submitted a review request for my packaging of the agent. Since I haven't officially packaged for Fedora before, I need a sponsor. The review request can be found at: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1006116 I would appreciate your comments and, if you can, your sponsorship. Ultimately I want to look at automating cloud image builds of Fedora for Windows Azure similarly to the way it is done for Amazon EC2, and I would appreciate hearing from anyone who can tell me more about how Fedora currently does this. Thanks for reading, -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (GNU/Linux) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSL6BiAAoJEJICkBIKCqxcV04P/2vh8mIR82DvFE6rJ2tqlZDf 51q5TlWDrmRHGFpk5nBEi9sdq4wt3bro1QnfH2ZW0INchMGy1kVH0ZU4fqtP8M5Y J9XzxkWB7+fTsmDuY7jINv4lrfxkvwMW3bxeNj5uVXuyCAjdW9GLqonarPFVVbxA IdIoX4hPW59FYduCyci6Uj97ZbeMz6qABQZw878Hl/bXo07fHXUNJNt4pJ1sR4js vM/UhhIKEwS4ro5mlEZW4EkGRwVOBT15+SKoX0t21indW/RUafLYyL7twmHz9iG4 v8T9MGvvkHfRplfOK/tVRnToypYFK3s9cO9XIH3SIo0JRR6FZrE1e9P4L8eor/2O iPNbWve8RtKplh6RtIPdNIlol82eM09FUcR4zPQserGHlJ4yXszNLcQ7OhTDrnts wj2XLvX9a1p6OTItsUE3xLG3YiMLyA2g8fIBw2hVGDrgl/Qkz9Ba8MV/jcD0MFHj bgv9Vb4UrOTp3vLEyAMItO4vInD91fHdSkJSLDCJ5UUo7Z+sDSlMMZlH85//RY2v dCiSiwpeBGCH0lOgUWbRRflRwc+10/zMQCfAV5h5KuQd4SC5wT/kUtSEstMgoBvv imazIjrco5Z5luO78HpZuboYN33X76KIPP72dLZ4/SUjTqN0biFMT3rqGpuz8/Tj bRP/Y2TYeurUAp79fVLx =RObu -END PGP SIGNATURE- 0x0A0AAC5C.asc Description: application/pgp-keys -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
