Re: What's up with firefox on f26?

[Joe Zeff]

On 08/27/2017 08:52 PM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
So what is suggested is to not just enable updates-testing, but also 
enable it only
for ff. And I now need to remember to remove it when the issue is sorted 
out.

Is my understanding correct?


Almost.  You need to add --enablerepo=updates-testing to the command 
line so that it's enabled for that run of dnf only.

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: What's up with firefox on f26?

[Ed Greshko]

On 08/28/2017 11:52 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
> At the risk of prolonging this thread beyond the audience's patience...
>
> So what is suggested is to not just enable updates-testing, but also enable 
> it only
> for ff. And I now need to remember to remove it when the issue is sorted out.
> Is my understanding correct? 


I mean do this from the command line which will only enable it for the one 
session
and only update firefox

dnf --enablerepo updates-testing update firefox

-- 
Fedora Users List - The place to go to speculate endlessly



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: What's up with firefox on f26?

[Eyal Lebedinsky]

On 28/08/17 13:13, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 08/28/2017 11:06 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:

On 28/08/17 11:14, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 08/28/2017 08:59 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 08/28/2017 08:56 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:

True, but I do build packages at times. Nevertheless, I can always reinstall the
dependencies when needed,
so I'll bite now and see how it goes.

Still, it is probably a good idea to fix the root cause...


Oh, it will be fixedprobably sooner than later.



Oh, shoot

I just realized (can't keep numbering straight) that the problem you were seeing
isn't the same problem that existed earlier last week.

You could have enabled the updates-testing repo an installed firefox-55.0.2-3 


Sorry about that.


Thanks again,

I actually think that enabling the updates-testing repo is introducing new risks
that I prefer to stay away from. Many years ago I liked to live on the cutting 
edge,
with all that it brings, but these days I can do without the extra "excitement".

I am OK to wait for the stable ff package.

cheers


OK  But the only differences between the new releases was to correct the 
issues
with nspr.   So, the risk to update on single package is pretty much 0.


At the risk of prolonging this thread beyond the audience's patience...

So what is suggested is to not just enable updates-testing, but also enable it 
only
for ff. And I now need to remember to remove it when the issue is sorted out.
Is my understanding correct?

cheers, and thank you Ed for you prompt responses.
Eyal


* Thu Aug 24 2017 Martin Stransky  - 55.0.2-3
- Enable to build with nspr-4.16.

* Wed Aug 23 2017 Martin Stransky  - 55.0.2-2
- Rebuilt to remove wrong dependency to nspr-4.16.

* Fri Aug 18 2017 Martin Stransky  - 55.0.2-1
- Updated to 55.0.2

* Mon Aug 14 2017 Jan Horak  - 55.0.1-1
- Update to 55.0.1


--
Eyal Lebedinsky (fed...@eyal.emu.id.au)
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: What's up with firefox on f26?

[Ed Greshko]

On 08/28/2017 11:06 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
> On 28/08/17 11:14, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 08/28/2017 08:59 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>>> On 08/28/2017 08:56 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
 True, but I do build packages at times. Nevertheless, I can always 
 reinstall the
 dependencies when needed,
 so I'll bite now and see how it goes.

 Still, it is probably a good idea to fix the root cause...
>>>
>>> Oh, it will be fixedprobably sooner than later.
>>>
>>>
>> Oh, shoot
>>
>> I just realized (can't keep numbering straight) that the problem you were 
>> seeing
>> isn't the same problem that existed earlier last week.
>>
>> You could have enabled the updates-testing repo an installed 
>> firefox-55.0.2-3 
>>
>> Sorry about that.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> I actually think that enabling the updates-testing repo is introducing new 
> risks
> that I prefer to stay away from. Many years ago I liked to live on the 
> cutting edge,
> with all that it brings, but these days I can do without the extra 
> "excitement".
>
> I am OK to wait for the stable ff package.
>
> cheers
>
OK  But the only differences between the new releases was to correct the 
issues
with nspr.   So, the risk to update on single package is pretty much 0.

* Thu Aug 24 2017 Martin Stransky  - 55.0.2-3
- Enable to build with nspr-4.16.

* Wed Aug 23 2017 Martin Stransky  - 55.0.2-2
- Rebuilt to remove wrong dependency to nspr-4.16.

* Fri Aug 18 2017 Martin Stransky  - 55.0.2-1
- Updated to 55.0.2

* Mon Aug 14 2017 Jan Horak  - 55.0.1-1
- Update to 55.0.1


-- 
Fedora Users List - The place to go to speculate endlessly



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: What's up with firefox on f26?

[Eyal Lebedinsky]

On 28/08/17 11:14, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 08/28/2017 08:59 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 08/28/2017 08:56 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:

True, but I do build packages at times. Nevertheless, I can always reinstall the
dependencies when needed,
so I'll bite now and see how it goes.

Still, it is probably a good idea to fix the root cause...


Oh, it will be fixedprobably sooner than later.



Oh, shoot

I just realized (can't keep numbering straight) that the problem you were seeing
isn't the same problem that existed earlier last week.

You could have enabled the updates-testing repo an installed firefox-55.0.2-3 


Sorry about that.


Thanks again,

I actually think that enabling the updates-testing repo is introducing new risks
that I prefer to stay away from. Many years ago I liked to live on the cutting 
edge,
with all that it brings, but these days I can do without the extra "excitement".

I am OK to wait for the stable ff package.

cheers

--
Eyal Lebedinsky (fed...@eyal.emu.id.au)
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: What's up with firefox on f26?

[Ed Greshko]

On 08/28/2017 08:59 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 08/28/2017 08:56 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
>> True, but I do build packages at times. Nevertheless, I can always reinstall 
>> the
>> dependencies when needed,
>> so I'll bite now and see how it goes.
>>
>> Still, it is probably a good idea to fix the root cause... 
>
> Oh, it will be fixedprobably sooner than later.
>
>
Oh, shoot

I just realized (can't keep numbering straight) that the problem you were seeing
isn't the same problem that existed earlier last week.

You could have enabled the updates-testing repo an installed firefox-55.0.2-3 


Sorry about that.


-- 
Fedora Users List - The place to go to speculate endlessly



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: What's up with firefox on f26?

[Ed Greshko]

On 08/28/2017 08:56 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
> True, but I do build packages at times. Nevertheless, I can always reinstall 
> the
> dependencies when needed,
> so I'll bite now and see how it goes.
>
> Still, it is probably a good idea to fix the root cause... 


Oh, it will be fixedprobably sooner than later.

-- 
Fedora Users List - The place to go to speculate endlessly



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: What's up with firefox on f26?

[Eyal Lebedinsky]

On 28/08/17 10:46, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 08/28/2017 08:34 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:

On 28/08/17 10:11, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 08/28/2017 08:03 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:

A recent update asked to remove firefox (55.0.1-1.fc26), and when I followed 
with
an install
I ended with the old version 54.0-2.fc26 installed.

Attempting to upgrade to the latest goes nowhere (see below).
I found a redhat bugzilla regarding an unwise decision to force an unnecessary
dependency
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484345
mentioning there is a new package (firefox-55.0.2-3), but it is not showing up.

Anyone knows what is going on with this?
Firefox is the most 'net facing application here and I need to have the latest
version installed.

TIA

==
$ sudo dnf update firefox
Last metadata expiration check: 0:04:37 ago on Mon Aug 28 09:49:01 2017.
Dependencies resolved.

   Problem: problem with installed package nspr-devel-4.16.0-1.fc26.x86_64
    - package firefox-55.0.2-2.fc26.x86_64 conflicts with pkgconfig(nspr) >= 
4.16
provided by nspr-devel-4.16.0-1.fc26.x86_64
    - cannot install the best update candidate for package 
firefox-54.0-2.fc26.x86_64
==


   Package   Arch  Version
Repository  Size
==


Skipping packages with conflicts:
(add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade):
   firefox   x86_64    55.0.2-2.fc26
updates 82 M
   nspr-devel    x86_64    4.16.0-1.fc26
updates    119 k

Transaction Summary
==


Skip  2 Packages

Nothing to do.
Complete!



If you don't need it, or can do without it for a while, do a "dnf erase 
nspr-devel"
and then update firefox.

[egreshko@acer ~]$ rpm -q firefox
firefox-55.0.2-2.fc26.x86_64
[egreshko@acer ~]$ rpm -q nspr-devel
package nspr-devel is not installed


Thanks. Tried this already but was not confident that it was safe to do:

$ sudo dnf erase nspr-devel
Dependencies resolved.
===

  Package
Arch
Version
Repository   Size
===

Removing:
  nspr-devel
x86_64
4.16.0-1.fc26
@updates    446 k
Removing depended packages:
  evolution-data-server-devel
i686
3.24.5-1.fc26
@@commandline   4.8 M
  evolution-data-server-devel
x86_64
3.24.5-1.fc26
@@commandline   4.8 M
  libgdata-devel
x86_64
0.17.8-1.fc26
@@commandline   8.1 M
  liboauth-devel
x86_64
1.0.3-6.fc26
@@commandline    42 k
  nss-devel
x86_64
3.32.0-1.1.fc26
@updates    813 k
  nss-softokn-devel
x86_64
3.32.0-1.2.fc26
@updates 11 k
  nss-util-devel
x86_64
3.32.0-1.0.fc26
@updates    259 k
  xulrunner-devel
x86_64
44.0-9.fc26
@@commandline    54 M
Removing unused dependencies:
  webkitgtk4-devel
x86_64
2.16.6-1.fc26
@@commandline   2.7 M
  webkitgtk4-jsc-devel
x86_64
2.16.6-1.fc26
@@commandline   327 k

Transaction Summary
===

Remove  3 Packages

Freed space: 77 M
Is this ok [y/N]: n
Operation aborted.



The *-devel packages are "development" packages that are use if you're building 
or
recompiling source.

Most people never need these.  Removing them will not cause anything to break.  
Just
won't be able to build some packages on your own.


True, but I do build packages at times. Nevertheless, I can always reinstall 
the dependencies when needed,
so I'll bite now and see how it goes.

Still, it is probably a good idea to fix the root cause...

cheers

--
Eyal Lebedinsky (fed...@eyal.emu.id.au)
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: What's up with firefox on f26?

[Ed Greshko]

On 08/28/2017 08:34 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
> On 28/08/17 10:11, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 08/28/2017 08:03 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
>>> A recent update asked to remove firefox (55.0.1-1.fc26), and when I 
>>> followed with
>>> an install
>>> I ended with the old version 54.0-2.fc26 installed.
>>>
>>> Attempting to upgrade to the latest goes nowhere (see below).
>>> I found a redhat bugzilla regarding an unwise decision to force an 
>>> unnecessary
>>> dependency
>>>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484345
>>> mentioning there is a new package (firefox-55.0.2-3), but it is not showing 
>>> up.
>>>
>>> Anyone knows what is going on with this?
>>> Firefox is the most 'net facing application here and I need to have the 
>>> latest
>>> version installed.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>> ==
>>> $ sudo dnf update firefox
>>> Last metadata expiration check: 0:04:37 ago on Mon Aug 28 09:49:01 2017.
>>> Dependencies resolved.
>>>
>>>   Problem: problem with installed package nspr-devel-4.16.0-1.fc26.x86_64
>>>    - package firefox-55.0.2-2.fc26.x86_64 conflicts with pkgconfig(nspr) >= 
>>> 4.16
>>> provided by nspr-devel-4.16.0-1.fc26.x86_64
>>>    - cannot install the best update candidate for package 
>>> firefox-54.0-2.fc26.x86_64
>>> ==
>>>
>>>
>>>   Package   Arch  Version
>>> Repository  Size
>>> ==
>>>
>>>
>>> Skipping packages with conflicts:
>>> (add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade):
>>>   firefox   x86_64    55.0.2-2.fc26
>>> updates 82 M
>>>   nspr-devel    x86_64    4.16.0-1.fc26
>>> updates    119 k
>>>
>>> Transaction Summary
>>> ==
>>>
>>>
>>> Skip  2 Packages
>>>
>>> Nothing to do.
>>> Complete!
>>>
>>
>> If you don't need it, or can do without it for a while, do a "dnf erase 
>> nspr-devel"
>> and then update firefox.
>>
>> [egreshko@acer ~]$ rpm -q firefox
>> firefox-55.0.2-2.fc26.x86_64
>> [egreshko@acer ~]$ rpm -q nspr-devel
>> package nspr-devel is not installed
>
> Thanks. Tried this already but was not confident that it was safe to do:
>
> $ sudo dnf erase nspr-devel
> Dependencies resolved.
> ===
>
>  Package  
> Arch
> Version 
> Repository   Size
> ===
>
> Removing:
>  nspr-devel   
> x86_64  
> 4.16.0-1.fc26   
> @updates    446 k
> Removing depended packages:
>  evolution-data-server-devel  
> i686
> 3.24.5-1.fc26   
> @@commandline   4.8 M
>  evolution-data-server-devel  
> x86_64  
> 3.24.5-1.fc26   
> @@commandline   4.8 M
>  libgdata-devel   
> x86_64  
> 0.17.8-1.fc26   
> @@commandline   8.1 M
>  liboauth-devel   
> x86_64  
> 1.0.3-6.fc26
> @@commandline    42 k
>  nss-devel
> x86_64  
> 3.32.0-1.1.fc26 
> @updates    813 k
>  nss-softokn-devel
> x86_64  
> 3.32.0-1.2.fc26 
> @updates 11 k
>  nss-util-devel   
> x86_64  
> 3.32.0-1.0.fc26 
> @updates    259 k
>  xulrunner-devel 

Re: What's up with firefox on f26?

[Eyal Lebedinsky]

On 28/08/17 10:11, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 08/28/2017 08:03 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:

A recent update asked to remove firefox (55.0.1-1.fc26), and when I followed 
with
an install
I ended with the old version 54.0-2.fc26 installed.

Attempting to upgrade to the latest goes nowhere (see below).
I found a redhat bugzilla regarding an unwise decision to force an unnecessary
dependency
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484345
mentioning there is a new package (firefox-55.0.2-3), but it is not showing up.

Anyone knows what is going on with this?
Firefox is the most 'net facing application here and I need to have the latest
version installed.

TIA

==
$ sudo dnf update firefox
Last metadata expiration check: 0:04:37 ago on Mon Aug 28 09:49:01 2017.
Dependencies resolved.

  Problem: problem with installed package nspr-devel-4.16.0-1.fc26.x86_64
   - package firefox-55.0.2-2.fc26.x86_64 conflicts with pkgconfig(nspr) >= 4.16
provided by nspr-devel-4.16.0-1.fc26.x86_64
   - cannot install the best update candidate for package 
firefox-54.0-2.fc26.x86_64
==

  Package   Arch  Version
Repository  Size
==

Skipping packages with conflicts:
(add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade):
  firefox   x86_64    55.0.2-2.fc26
updates 82 M
  nspr-devel    x86_64    4.16.0-1.fc26
updates    119 k

Transaction Summary
==

Skip  2 Packages

Nothing to do.
Complete!



If you don't need it, or can do without it for a while, do a "dnf erase 
nspr-devel"
and then update firefox.

[egreshko@acer ~]$ rpm -q firefox
firefox-55.0.2-2.fc26.x86_64
[egreshko@acer ~]$ rpm -q nspr-devel
package nspr-devel is not installed


Thanks. Tried this already but was not confident that it was safe to do:

$ sudo dnf erase nspr-devel
Dependencies resolved.
===
 Package   Arch 
Version  
Repository   Size
===
Removing:
 nspr-develx86_64   
4.16.0-1.fc26
@updates446 k
Removing depended packages:
 evolution-data-server-devel   i686 
3.24.5-1.fc26
@@commandline   4.8 M
 evolution-data-server-devel   x86_64   
3.24.5-1.fc26
@@commandline   4.8 M
 libgdata-develx86_64   
0.17.8-1.fc26
@@commandline   8.1 M
 liboauth-develx86_64   
1.0.3-6.fc26 
@@commandline42 k
 nss-devel x86_64   
3.32.0-1.1.fc26  
@updates813 k
 nss-softokn-devel x86_64   
3.32.0-1.2.fc26  
@updates 11 k
 nss-util-develx86_64   
3.32.0-1.0.fc26  
@updates259 k
 xulrunner-devel   x86_64   
44.0-9.fc26  
@@commandline54 M
Removing unused dependencies:
 webkitgtk4-devel  x86_64   
2.16.6-1.fc26 

Re: What's up with firefox on f26?

[Ed Greshko]

On 08/28/2017 08:03 AM, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
> A recent update asked to remove firefox (55.0.1-1.fc26), and when I followed 
> with
> an install
> I ended with the old version 54.0-2.fc26 installed.
>
> Attempting to upgrade to the latest goes nowhere (see below).
> I found a redhat bugzilla regarding an unwise decision to force an unnecessary
> dependency
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484345
> mentioning there is a new package (firefox-55.0.2-3), but it is not showing 
> up.
>
> Anyone knows what is going on with this?
> Firefox is the most 'net facing application here and I need to have the latest
> version installed.
>
> TIA
>
> ==
> $ sudo dnf update firefox
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:04:37 ago on Mon Aug 28 09:49:01 2017.
> Dependencies resolved.
>
>  Problem: problem with installed package nspr-devel-4.16.0-1.fc26.x86_64
>   - package firefox-55.0.2-2.fc26.x86_64 conflicts with pkgconfig(nspr) >= 
> 4.16
> provided by nspr-devel-4.16.0-1.fc26.x86_64
>   - cannot install the best update candidate for package 
> firefox-54.0-2.fc26.x86_64
> ==
>
>  Package   Arch  Version  
>   
> Repository  Size
> ==
>
> Skipping packages with conflicts:
> (add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade):
>  firefox   x86_64    55.0.2-2.fc26
>   
> updates 82 M
>  nspr-devel    x86_64    4.16.0-1.fc26
>   
> updates    119 k
>
> Transaction Summary
> ==
>
> Skip  2 Packages
>
> Nothing to do.
> Complete!
>

If you don't need it, or can do without it for a while, do a "dnf erase 
nspr-devel"
and then update firefox.

[egreshko@acer ~]$ rpm -q firefox
firefox-55.0.2-2.fc26.x86_64
[egreshko@acer ~]$ rpm -q nspr-devel
package nspr-devel is not installed


-- 
Fedora Users List - The place to go to speculate endlessly


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

What's up with firefox on f26?

[Eyal Lebedinsky]

A recent update asked to remove firefox (55.0.1-1.fc26), and when I followed 
with an install
I ended with the old version 54.0-2.fc26 installed.

Attempting to upgrade to the latest goes nowhere (see below).
I found a redhat bugzilla regarding an unwise decision to force an unnecessary 
dependency
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1484345
mentioning there is a new package (firefox-55.0.2-3), but it is not showing up.

Anyone knows what is going on with this?
Firefox is the most 'net facing application here and I need to have the latest 
version installed.

TIA

==
$ sudo dnf update firefox
Last metadata expiration check: 0:04:37 ago on Mon Aug 28 09:49:01 2017.
Dependencies resolved.

 Problem: problem with installed package nspr-devel-4.16.0-1.fc26.x86_64
  - package firefox-55.0.2-2.fc26.x86_64 conflicts with pkgconfig(nspr) >= 4.16 
provided by nspr-devel-4.16.0-1.fc26.x86_64
  - cannot install the best update candidate for package 
firefox-54.0-2.fc26.x86_64
==
 Package   Arch  Version
 Repository  Size
==
Skipping packages with conflicts:
(add '--best --allowerasing' to command line to force their upgrade):
 firefox   x86_6455.0.2-2.fc26  
 updates 82 M
 nspr-develx86_644.16.0-1.fc26  
 updates119 k

Transaction Summary
==
Skip  2 Packages

Nothing to do.
Complete!

--
Eyal Lebedinsky (fed...@eyal.emu.id.au)
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: dnf upgrade to F26

[Paolo Galtieri]

In my case the system I tried to update is a laptop and I don't have an 
external monitor attached.


Paolo


On 08/26/2017 10:52 PM, Ed Greshko wrote:

On 08/27/2017 12:54 PM, jarmo wrote:

Sat, 26 Aug 2017 17:32:40 -0700
Paolo Galtieri  kirjoitti:


and here is where things went weird, there was no output at all on
the monitor.  The disk light was flashing, so something was going on,
but nothing showed up on the monitor.  After a while the disk light

I have had this. Found, tha If I use HDMI, I don't see any output
in monitor.
Second time, I took VGA cable, connected that into monitor and got
output ok.

First time I just waited and dnf rebooted automatically and my HDMI
connected monitor played well again.


FWIW, my main monitor is connected via HDMI.  My secondary monitor is connected 
via
Display Port.

During the upgrade from F25 to F26 (and prior upgrades) I always got the 
progress
output to my HDMI connected monitor.





___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: F26 guest in qemu/kvm and 4.12.8-300 kernel

[Ed Greshko]

On 08/26/2017 06:33 PM, Jon Ingason wrote:
> Den 2017-08-26 kl. 02:50, skrev Ed Greshko:
>> On 08/26/2017 08:44 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
>>> Has anyone tried running a F26 guest in qemu/kvm with the latest 4.12.8-300 
>>> kernel?
>>>
>>> When it comes to GNOME I can only boot to multi-user mode, not graphical, 
>>> by removing
>>> rhgb from the boot parameters.  If I attempt to boot to graphical mode it 
>>> hangs at
>>> "Started user manager for UID 42" with UID 42 belonging to gdm.  If I boot 
>>> to
>>> multi-user mode and then login and use "startx" I am presented with a black 
>>> screen
>>> and maybe the "Activities" indicator in the upper left.
>>>
>>> When it comes to KDE, which is configured for sddm, it will boot to 
>>> graphical mode if
>>> I remove "rhgb quiet" from the boot parameters.  However, the screen cannot 
>>> be
>>> resized and issuing a "xrandr --output Virtual-0 --auto" is not effective 
>>> and may
>>> result an apparent hang or a display which goes wonky in that it seems it 
>>> thinks it
>>> is resizedbut it isn't and the mouse isn't where it thinks it is.
>>>
>>> Any similar experiences?
>>>
>>>
>> Just to clarify a bit.  I'm talking about the guest running the latest 
>> kernel.  My
>> host is running the latest.  I installed F26 guest and it worked fine with 
>> the
>> initial kernel-4.11.11-300 but the above is what I'm seeing with the 
>> 4.12.8-300
>> kernel in the guest.
>>
> Yes, I got precise this problem with kernel 4.12.4-300 and 4.12.8-300
> for Gnome Workstation VM under KVM/qemu. I am running Fedroa 25 updated
> yesterday (Friday 25th August 2017).


FYI, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485743 has been submitted.

-- 
Fedora Users List - The place to go to speculate endlessly



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: several issues with F25

[Richard Hughes]

On 16 August 2017 at 05:48, Paolo Galtieri  wrote:
> lid being closed.  When I run gnome-tweak-tool and indicates the system
> should suspend on lid closed. I have attached the png image of the
> gnome-tweak-tool screen.

GNOME tweak tool isn't designed for MATE.

> Issue 2:  Back in the F24 days and even prior to that I filed a bug
> (1389019) which states that when I boot my laptop on battery and login the
> power status applet is not displayed in the MATE top menu bar.  It does show
> up when I plug the AC cord in.  This problem has now gotten worse.  The
> power applet is no longer displayed regardless of what I try.  I have had to
> re-open this bug since it was without it ever being fixed.

I wrote gnome-power-manager a long time ago, and then a old dead
branch was forked into mate-power-manager -- my code was incorporated
into gnome-settings-daemon and improved upon and further pushed down
into the stack. I don't think there is anyone who cares about the
long-obsolete mate power management stuff. Basically, MATE is a mostly
a fork of old GNOME components, and the developers who wrote the 99%
code shipping with MATE are either not working on Linux any more or
are working on GNOME. I think over time MATE is going to become harder
and harder to maintain. Sorry to be blunt.

Richard
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org