Re: Fedora 30 EOL
On Thu, 28 May 2020 21:19:34 -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1742960 > > > > > > Lately all my bug reports tend to go like this. > > > > > > Why don't you try to reproduce issues with Fedora 31, 32 or Rawhide > > and then reassign the tickets accordingly? > > It's quite possible that Suvayu Ali is one of the many users that cannot > install Fedora 31, because it doesn't work on their hardware. Fedora 30 was > the last release to support i686, so many users are now stuck there forever, > unless they move to another distro entirely. Clearly the ticket is about x86_64, so no, i686 is beyond the scope of this thread. But when talking about i686, I doubt it is "many users". ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Question on difference between dnf upgrade versus clean install?
> On 2020-05-29 01:58, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote: >> I've got 5 Fedora machines at my house. Recently >> upgraded a couple since FC30 was becoming EOL. >> >> Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install >> from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole >> process. Including install of OS, and then install of a >> number of other packages I use that are not installed by >> default. >> >> Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf >> system update. This system has some more packages >> installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the >> clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes, >> but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over >> 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes. >> >> Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked >> while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just >> using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if >> others just run it, and check when done, but seems to >> be a bigger difference in time than it should be. > > I do not know why your upgrade would have taken so long. I just upgraded > an > F30 VM to F32. It is a pretty vanilla Workstation install. The VM's > disks are actually > hosted on a NAS over nfs and are traditional spinning HW. > > I upgraded via "dnf system-upgrade". The number of packages upgraded was > 1656. > The download phase took 9 minutes 10 seconds. The upgrade phase took a > few ticks > over 25 minutes. > > I would think that checking > > dnf system-upgrade log > > and seeing if one area in particular was responsible for the excessive > time may be > helpful. > > Another recent upgrade of an old notebook from F31->F32, Core2 Duo CPU, > with 2626 > packages upgraded took 58 minutes. That notebook does have an SSD. > > -- > The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions. Pulled the data from the boot.log 31814 lines Total Time 14:59.59.05 Longest single change was 1156.203674 seconds [ 1740.207952] dnf[807]: Running scriptlet: filesystem-3.12-2.fc31.x86_64 1/1 Average of transactions 1.6918392547953 Only 11 transactions took 60 seconds or longer Had to clean out lines that where mixed in with the upgrade of starting and stopping things during process. Extracted the time data, and then compared the times of each process to calculate the difference. CPU is Intel(R) Pentium(R) CPU 2020M @ 2.40GHz with just 2 cores. Has 12G of Ram. If you want, I could send you the libreoffice calc file. Perhaps you would see something that I've missed. > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org > ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Question on difference between dnf upgrade versus clean install?
On 5/28/20 11:15 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: On 2020-05-29 13:33, Samuel Sieb wrote: My son's Ryzen 3 laptop that does not have an SSD took all night and half the next day to upgrade to F32. I hadn't seen upgrade times that long before. Usually only up to a few hours on laptops with slow hard drives. I take it you decided it wasn't worth the additional time to try and determine why it took so long? It's his laptop, I don't really have access to it. He's also been having some issues with it getting slow and I'm planning to get him an SSD for it. So no, I didn't even think about trying to find out why until this thread came up. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Question on difference between dnf upgrade versus clean install?
On 2020-05-29 13:33, Samuel Sieb wrote: > My son's Ryzen 3 laptop that does not have an SSD took all night and half the > next day to upgrade to F32. I hadn't seen upgrade times that long before. > Usually only up to a few hours on laptops with slow hard drives. I take it you decided it wasn't worth the additional time to try and determine why it took so long? -- The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
On 5/28/20 9:19 PM, John M. Harris Jr wrote: It's quite possible that Suvayu Ali is one of the many users that cannot install Fedora 31, because it doesn't work on their hardware. Fedora 30 was the last release to support i686, so many users are now stuck there forever, unless they move to another distro entirely. If it's a 32-bit issue then it has become irrelevant anyway since that is no longer supported in Fedora. I have a computer mounted on my wall that used to run Fedora. It has a Cyrix Geode processor and a few years ago Fedora was no longer suitable for it. I didn't fuss at Fedora about that, technology moves on. I switched to buildroot instead, which works much better. Please accept that the decision has been made and other major distros are doing the same. Stop bringing it up all the time. If you really have a device that can only do 32-bit, there are still other options. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Question on difference between dnf upgrade versus clean install?
On 5/28/20 7:57 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: I do not know why your upgrade would have taken so long. I just upgraded an F30 VM to F32. It is a pretty vanilla Workstation install. The VM's disks are actually hosted on a NAS over nfs and are traditional spinning HW. I upgraded via "dnf system-upgrade". The number of packages upgraded was 1656. The download phase took 9 minutes 10 seconds. The upgrade phase took a few ticks over 25 minutes. Another recent upgrade of an old notebook from F31->F32, Core2 Duo CPU, with 2626 packages upgraded took 58 minutes. That notebook does have an SSD. My son's Ryzen 3 laptop that does not have an SSD took all night and half the next day to upgrade to F32. I hadn't seen upgrade times that long before. Usually only up to a few hours on laptops with slow hard drives. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 2:30:11 AM MST Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2020 08:18:48 +, Suvayu Ali wrote: > > > > > As of the 26th of May 2020, Fedora 30 has reached its end of life for > > > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1742960 > > > > Lately all my bug reports tend to go like this. > > > Why don't you try to reproduce issues with Fedora 31, 32 or Rawhide > and then reassign the tickets accordingly? It's quite possible that Suvayu Ali is one of the many users that cannot install Fedora 31, because it doesn't work on their hardware. Fedora 30 was the last release to support i686, so many users are now stuck there forever, unless they move to another distro entirely. -- John M. Harris, Jr. Splentity ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Question on difference between dnf upgrade versus clean install?
On 2020-05-29 01:58, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote: > I've got 5 Fedora machines at my house. Recently > upgraded a couple since FC30 was becoming EOL. > > Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install > from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole > process. Including install of OS, and then install of a > number of other packages I use that are not installed by > default. > > Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf > system update. This system has some more packages > installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the > clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes, > but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over > 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes. > > Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked > while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just > using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if > others just run it, and check when done, but seems to > be a bigger difference in time than it should be. I do not know why your upgrade would have taken so long. I just upgraded an F30 VM to F32. It is a pretty vanilla Workstation install. The VM's disks are actually hosted on a NAS over nfs and are traditional spinning HW. I upgraded via "dnf system-upgrade". The number of packages upgraded was 1656. The download phase took 9 minutes 10 seconds. The upgrade phase took a few ticks over 25 minutes. I would think that checking dnf system-upgrade log and seeing if one area in particular was responsible for the excessive time may be helpful. Another recent upgrade of an old notebook from F31->F32, Core2 Duo CPU, with 2626 packages upgraded took 58 minutes. That notebook does have an SSD. -- The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: fedora 32 live DVD crashes
On Thu, 28 May 2020, Michael Hennebry wrote: On Thu, 28 May 2020, Samuel Sieb wrote: I don't recall you mentioning which live image you're using. Assuming it's workstation, edit /etc/gdm/custom.conf and uncomment the line with "WaylandEnable=false". Then reboot and see what happens. 'Twas only in the first post: On Sun, 24 May 2020, Michael Hennebry wrote: I've trying to run Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-32-1.6.iso on my HP Compac dc5800 Small Form Factor. Alas when I boot, I get the message Unable to find persistent overlay; using temporary one. I tried booting to runlevel 3, editing custom.conf and telinit 5 . Without nomodeset , it gave me the Oh no ssscreen. -- Michael henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu "Sorry but your password must contain an uppercase letter, a number, a haiku, a gang sign, a heiroglyph, and the blood of a virgin." -- someeecards ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: fedora 32 live DVD crashes
On Thu, 28 May 2020, Samuel Sieb wrote: I don't recall you mentioning which live image you're using. Assuming it's workstation, edit /etc/gdm/custom.conf and uncomment the line with "WaylandEnable=false". Then reboot and see what happens. 'Twas only in the first post: On Sun, 24 May 2020, Michael Hennebry wrote: I've trying to run Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-32-1.6.iso on my HP Compac dc5800 Small Form Factor. Alas when I boot, I get the message Unable to find persistent overlay; using temporary one. I'd used the following command and had gotten the ok: [root@localhost-live ~]# livecd-iso-to-disk --format --msdos --overlay-size-mb 1024 *.iso /dev/sdc Grrr. -- Michael henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu "Sorry but your password must contain an uppercase letter, a number, a haiku, a gang sign, a heiroglyph, and the blood of a virgin." -- someeecards ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Question on difference between dnf upgrade versus clean install?
On 5/28/20 1:43 PM, Michael D. Setzer II wrote: On 28 May 2020 at 11:40, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 5/28/20 10:58 AM, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote: Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf system update. This system has some more packages installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes, but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes. Upgrading for some reason does take a lot longer, maybe because it's being extra safe in how it writes the files? A lot more scripts to run? Yes, would expect 2 or 3 times as long, but 15 seems way to much. It is interesting that each of the updates for packages both on upgrade and cleaning seems to be from 1 second to 6 seconds. The process shows 10140 with 1/2 being the installs, and 1/2 being the cleanup and then 10140 verifies. Seems it is doing something every single time? Yes, although the verify steps are usually pretty quick. Then there are also some scripts that run before and after each section. Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if others just run it, and check when done, but seems to be a bigger difference in time than it should be. How are you able to see CPU usage during the upgrade? Weren't you doing the offline upgrade? The process should be very IO bound, not CPU. Unless you happened to catch it running a script like the selinux one. After doing the dnf system-upgrade reboot It comes up with a graphic screen that just shows it is doing upgrade and to not shut down. Very little info. Ctrl-ESC does show it doing the process, and shows each package and the count as it goes with time of each step. Was able to do Ctrl-Alt-F? Think it was F6 that finally gave a command line login. Was able to login as root, and just ran top command. Noticed that CPU was showing 100% other numbers all seemed low. Never saw CPU change from 100%, and it only showed dnf process as high activity. That's something very useful to find out. I didn't think there were any consoles available during the upgrade process. That CPU usage is a problem. I really don't think it should be doing that. I would suggest filing a bug. If you do, please post the link here after. I don't have any systems to upgrade at this point, but I'll check for that happening when I do. P.S. X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.73.639) ?? Wow, I remember using that 25 years ago, back when I still used Windows. It does add a large, annoying header chunk to your replies though. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: fedora 32 live DVD crashes
On 5/28/20 1:16 PM, Michael Hennebry wrote: On Tue, 26 May 2020, Samuel Sieb wrote: livecd-iso-to-disk --format --msdos --overlay-size-mb 1024 Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-32-1.2.iso /dev/sdd Replace the sdd with your USB drive, this will completely wipe the drive. Put the name of whatever iso image you're using instead of the workstation one. The 1024 makes a 1GB overlay. When you boot that drive, any changes you make will be persistent. You can install packages, change configs, whatever you want, up to 1GB of changes. There's also an option to create a home partition as well, optionally encrypted, but you don't need that right now. For now, the /home directory will be part of the overlay. Done that. I suppose now I need to boot and figure out the changes I need to make. I don't recall you mentioning which live image you're using. Assuming it's workstation, edit /etc/gdm/custom.conf and uncomment the line with "WaylandEnable=false". Then reboot and see what happens. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Question on difference between dnf upgrade versus clean install?
On 28 May 2020 at 13:37, Roger Heflin wrote:
From: Roger Heflin
Date sent: Thu, 28 May 2020 13:37:28 -0500
Subject:Re: Question on difference between dnf
upgrade versus clean install?
To: Community support for Fedora users
Copies to: "Michael D. Setzer II"
> Both spinning disks? No SSD's involved?
Both disk regular 7200 rpm drives
> On the upgrade it will have to read the packages from disk and then
> write them back to the same disk at a different location as files,
> this will cause a lot of extra seeking (maybe 2x slower here)
>
> The laptop drive may be a lower RPM than the other machine disk (if
> 7200rpm) that would result in 1.5x at least.
>
> You have 2.5x the packages, 2.5x if none of those packages are the
> larger packages, which the stuff you installed afterward may be.
> Given you have 2.5x the package there may be a lot of stuff you aren't
> using.
>
> On the upgrade you also have to delete the current packages after you
> install the newer one, another 2x there.
>
> So that is 2.5x2x2 ignoring the hard disk speed, that is about 10x
> slower for the upgrade.
>
> From my experience most of the time is disk io and seeks, very little
> of it is actaully cpu.My machines will do an upgrade in about 60
> minutes, and that is with all of them having SSD's, so I would expect
> it to be much longer with a spinning disk, 14x does not sound that
> unreasonable if you have a lot of packages, and a slow laptop HD.
>
See two to 4 times as a reasonable amount, but 15
times seems high.
Note: I do include installing all the packages on both
systems.
With the clean install the initial install takes only about
30 minutes. Then about another 30 minutes to install the
missing packages.
Do an
rpm --qf "%{NAME}\n" -qa | sort | grep -v gpg-pubkey >
installed_pkgs`date +%F`.txt
tp create a file that contains all the packages that I have
installed as a full list.
Then run dnf install `cat installed_pkgs file`
Shows that many are already installed, but then installs
the missing ones. Usually, just takes about 30 minutes
do download and install.
My big concern with the time, is power outage. Since it
takes so long, if there was an outage don't have a ups
that would keep even a notebook up for 14 hours.
Many years ago, was doing an upgrade and had an
outage that went beyond UPS. Was unable to get
process to restart, so ended up having to wipe drive and
do a clean install and manually reinstall everything.
Started long ago with Unixware, and Redhat 9 was first
Linux.
Taught Computer Science for 36+ years when I retired
in 2017. Started with an IBM 1130 with 4K ram and
punch cards in high school in mid 70's. Thanks for info.
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:59 PM Michael D. Setzer II via users
> wrote:
> >
> > I've got 5 Fedora machines at my house. Recently
> > upgraded a couple since FC30 was becoming EOL.
> >
> > Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install
> > from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole
> > process. Including install of OS, and then install of a
> > number of other packages I use that are not installed by
> > default.
> >
> > Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf
> > system update. This system has some more packages
> > installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the
> > clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes,
> > but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over
> > 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes.
> >
> > Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked
> > while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just
> > using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if
> > others just run it, and check when done, but seems to
> > be a bigger difference in time than it should be.
> >
> > Thanks and be Safe..
> >
> >
> > ++
> > Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor
> > (Retired)
> > mailto:mi...@guam.net
> > mailto:msetze...@gmail.com
> > Guam - Where America's Day Begins
> > G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer
> > http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/
> > ++
> >
> > http://setiathome.berkeley.edu (Original)
> > Number of Seti Units Returned: 19,471
> > Processing time: 32 years, 290 days, 12 hours, 58
> > minutes
> > (Total Hours: 287,489)
> >
> > BOINC@HOME CREDITS
> >
> > ROSETTA 68715567.359982 | ABC
> > 16613838.513356
> > SETI110890891.666494 | EINSTEIN
> > 147926043.499240
> > ___
> > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> > To unsubscribe send an email to users-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
Re: Question on difference between dnf upgrade versus clean install?
On 28 May 2020 at 11:40, Samuel Sieb wrote: Subject:Re: Question on difference between dnf upgrade versus clean install? To: users@lists.fedoraproject.org From: Samuel Sieb Date sent: Thu, 28 May 2020 11:40:39 -0700 Send reply to: Community support for Fedora users > On 5/28/20 10:58 AM, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote: > > Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install > > from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole > > process. Including install of OS, and then install of a > > number of other packages I use that are not installed by > > default. > > If it was an install from a live boot, then the "install" process is > just copying the files directly to the hard drive which is very fast. > If it is a net install, then after the download, it's just installing > rpms into a clean partition. > Both where from the same usb device with the live boot. Both hard drives are 7200 rpm. > > Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf > > system update. This system has some more packages > > installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the > > clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes, > > but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over > > 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes. > > Upgrading for some reason does take a lot longer, maybe because it's > being extra safe in how it writes the files? A lot more scripts to run? > Yes, would expect 2 or 3 times as long, but 15 seems way to much. It is interesting that each of the updates for packages both on upgrade and cleaning seems to be from 1 second to 6 seconds. The process shows 10140 with 1/2 being the installs, and 1/2 being the cleanup and then 10140 verifies. Seems it is doing something every single time? > > Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked > > while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just > > using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if > > others just run it, and check when done, but seems to > > be a bigger difference in time than it should be. > > How are you able to see CPU usage during the upgrade? Weren't you doing > the offline upgrade? The process should be very IO bound, not CPU. > Unless you happened to catch it running a script like the selinux one. After doing the dnf system-upgrade reboot It comes up with a graphic screen that just shows it is doing upgrade and to not shut down. Very little info. Ctrl-ESC does show it doing the process, and shows each package and the count as it goes with time of each step. Was able to do Ctrl-Alt-F? Think it was F6 that finally gave a command line login. Was able to login as root, and just ran top command. Noticed that CPU was showing 100% other numbers all seemed low. Never saw CPU change from 100%, and it only showed dnf process as high activity. > _ __ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org ++ Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired) mailto:mi...@guam.net mailto:msetze...@gmail.com Guam - Where America's Day Begins G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/ ++ http://setiathome.berkeley.edu (Original) Number of Seti Units Returned: 19,471 Processing time: 32 years, 290 days, 12 hours, 58 minutes (Total Hours: 287,489) BOINC@HOME CREDITS ROSETTA 68715567.359982 | ABC 16613838.513356 SETI110890891.666494 | EINSTEIN 147926043.499240 ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: fedora 32 live DVD crashes
On Tue, 26 May 2020, Samuel Sieb wrote: livecd-iso-to-disk --format --msdos --overlay-size-mb 1024 Fedora-Workstation-Live-x86_64-32-1.2.iso /dev/sdd Replace the sdd with your USB drive, this will completely wipe the drive. Put the name of whatever iso image you're using instead of the workstation one. The 1024 makes a 1GB overlay. When you boot that drive, any changes you make will be persistent. You can install packages, change configs, whatever you want, up to 1GB of changes. There's also an option to create a home partition as well, optionally encrypted, but you don't need that right now. For now, the /home directory will be part of the overlay. Done that. I suppose now I need to boot and figure out the changes I need to make. -- Michael henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu "Sorry but your password must contain an uppercase letter, a number, a haiku, a gang sign, a heiroglyph, and the blood of a virgin." -- someeecards ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: fedora 32 live DVD crashes
On Wed, 27 May 2020, George N. White III wrote: https://www.systutorials.com/configuration-of-linux-kernel-video-mode/ has an incantation (from 2015) to display available video modes. Got it. vbeinfo notices several resolutions at at least two resolutions each: 1920 x 1440 at 8 or 16 bits 1600 x 1200, 1280 x 1024, 1024 x 768 and 640 x 480 at 8, 16 or 32 bits It claims that 1440 x 900 is the preferred mode, but gives no mode number. Note that the first three modes are larger than 1140 x 900. -- Michael henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu "Sorry but your password must contain an uppercase letter, a number, a haiku, a gang sign, a heiroglyph, and the blood of a virgin." -- someeecards ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Question on difference between dnf upgrade versus clean install?
On 5/28/20 10:58 AM, Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote: Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole process. Including install of OS, and then install of a number of other packages I use that are not installed by default. If it was an install from a live boot, then the "install" process is just copying the files directly to the hard drive which is very fast. If it is a net install, then after the download, it's just installing rpms into a clean partition. Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf system update. This system has some more packages installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes, but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes. Upgrading for some reason does take a lot longer, maybe because it's being extra safe in how it writes the files? A lot more scripts to run? Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if others just run it, and check when done, but seems to be a bigger difference in time than it should be. How are you able to see CPU usage during the upgrade? Weren't you doing the offline upgrade? The process should be very IO bound, not CPU. Unless you happened to catch it running a script like the selinux one. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Question on difference between dnf upgrade versus clean install?
Both spinning disks? No SSD's involved? On the upgrade it will have to read the packages from disk and then write them back to the same disk at a different location as files, this will cause a lot of extra seeking (maybe 2x slower here) The laptop drive may be a lower RPM than the other machine disk (if 7200rpm) that would result in 1.5x at least. You have 2.5x the packages, 2.5x if none of those packages are the larger packages, which the stuff you installed afterward may be. Given you have 2.5x the package there may be a lot of stuff you aren't using. On the upgrade you also have to delete the current packages after you install the newer one, another 2x there. So that is 2.5x2x2 ignoring the hard disk speed, that is about 10x slower for the upgrade. From my experience most of the time is disk io and seeks, very little of it is actaully cpu.My machines will do an upgrade in about 60 minutes, and that is with all of them having SSD's, so I would expect it to be much longer with a spinning disk, 14x does not sound that unreasonable if you have a lot of packages, and a slow laptop HD. On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:59 PM Michael D. Setzer II via users wrote: > > I've got 5 Fedora machines at my house. Recently > upgraded a couple since FC30 was becoming EOL. > > Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install > from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole > process. Including install of OS, and then install of a > number of other packages I use that are not installed by > default. > > Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf > system update. This system has some more packages > installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the > clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes, > but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over > 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes. > > Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked > while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just > using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if > others just run it, and check when done, but seems to > be a bigger difference in time than it should be. > > Thanks and be Safe.. > > > ++ > Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor > (Retired) > mailto:mi...@guam.net > mailto:msetze...@gmail.com > Guam - Where America's Day Begins > G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer > http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/ > ++ > > http://setiathome.berkeley.edu (Original) > Number of Seti Units Returned: 19,471 > Processing time: 32 years, 290 days, 12 hours, 58 > minutes > (Total Hours: 287,489) > > BOINC@HOME CREDITS > > ROSETTA 68715567.359982 | ABC > 16613838.513356 > SETI110890891.666494 | EINSTEIN > 147926043.499240 > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Question on difference between dnf upgrade versus clean install?
I've got 5 Fedora machines at my house. Recently upgraded a couple since FC30 was becoming EOL. Some I did a clean install. New Hard disk, and install from iso. Usually, that takes about 1/2 hour for whole process. Including install of OS, and then install of a number of other packages I use that are not installed by default. Did update on my notebook machine as well using dnf system update. This system has some more packages installed. Showed 5070 versus about 2000+ for the clean install. Download process took about 30 minutes, but then the reboot and upgrade process took just over 14 hours. Total was 14 hours 50 minutes. Not clear why it would take 15 times as long? Checked while running, and dnf was running at 100%, but just using 1 cpu. Notebook has dual cpus. Don't know if others just run it, and check when done, but seems to be a bigger difference in time than it should be. Thanks and be Safe.. ++ Michael D. Setzer II - Computer Science Instructor (Retired) mailto:mi...@guam.net mailto:msetze...@gmail.com Guam - Where America's Day Begins G4L Disk Imaging Project maintainer http://sourceforge.net/projects/g4l/ ++ http://setiathome.berkeley.edu (Original) Number of Seti Units Returned: 19,471 Processing time: 32 years, 290 days, 12 hours, 58 minutes (Total Hours: 287,489) BOINC@HOME CREDITS ROSETTA 68715567.359982 | ABC 16613838.513356 SETI110890891.666494 | EINSTEIN 147926043.499240 ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: f31 :: sd card not accesible
On 5/28/20 10:07 AM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote: On 5/28/20 8:01 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: What is the "lspci" line for your sd card reader? 01:00.0 SD Host controller: O2 Micro, Inc. SD/MMC Card Reader Controller (rev 01) Subsystem: Lenovo Device 3824 Kernel driver in use: sdhci-pci Kernel modules: sdhci_pci Can you do that again with "-n"? I need the id that is in the form of 1234:abcd. What are the log messages when you put it in the reader? [23880.295558] mmc0: new ultra high speed SDR104 SDXC card at address [23880.296086] mmcblk0: mmc0: SN64G 59.5 GiB [23880.811578] print_req_error: 4 callbacks suppressed [23880.811582] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev mmcblk0, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 0 I assume you can read other SD cards. If you do "journalctl -b", can you find the log messages from when the SD reader is initialized? Search for "mmc", then scroll back a bit. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Workspaces lost -
On 2020-05-28 10:47, Ed Greshko wrote: Are you saying that if you went to "Backup and Restore" and pick Xfce 4.14 and then click on the gear icon in the lower left, nothing happens? ° Well, not exactly, /did not know of that backup. All I ever did there was select the 4.12 version. After experimenting with the various options for a couple of hours I have things configure nearly the way I want them. Thank you for the help, Bob / -- Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD FEDORA-32/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3 ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
On Thu, 28 May 2020 18:08:48 +0930, Tim via users wrote: > Perhaps there should be an automated culling of participants. If you > step up the plate to say you'll maintain a package, but don't, *you* > get dumped from bugzilla. Please let's not create a thread of doom. You can't seriously suggest blocking kernel maintainers from bugzilla just because they don't have the manpower to take a look at every ticket and perform meaningful, helpful triaging. Some key components are literally flooded with bug reports. In order to deal with the number of tickets, using scripts is an obvious thing to do. Yet it isn't done in a proper and OS user-friendly way. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: f31 :: sd card not accesible
On 5/28/20 8:01 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote: On 5/28/20 2:24 AM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote: Hi! I have a very strange situaion with a sandisk extreme sd card: while in windows i can use it just fine in f31 i have the following: lsblk shows : NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT mmcblk0 179:0 0 59.5G 0 disk dmesg says: [ 641.162507] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev mmcblk0, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 0 [ 641.367806] Buffer I/O error on dev mmcblk0, logical block 0, async page read [ 641.367869] ldm_validate_partition_table(): Disk read failed. What is the detailed class information for the card? U? A? U3 A2 What is the "lspci" line for your sd card reader? 01:00.0 SD Host controller: O2 Micro, Inc. SD/MMC Card Reader Controller (rev 01) Subsystem: Lenovo Device 3824 Kernel driver in use: sdhci-pci Kernel modules: sdhci_pci What are the log messages when you put it in the reader? [23880.295558] mmc0: new ultra high speed SDR104 SDXC card at address [23880.296086] mmcblk0: mmc0: SN64G 59.5 GiB [23880.811578] print_req_error: 4 callbacks suppressed [23880.811582] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev mmcblk0, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 0 [23880.813287] buffer_io_error: 1 callbacks suppressed [23880.813291] Buffer I/O error on dev mmcblk0, logical block 0, async page read [23880.966064] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev mmcblk0, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 0 [23881.018842] Buffer I/O error on dev mmcblk0, logical block 0, async page read [23881.223069] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev mmcblk0, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 0 [23881.275373] Buffer I/O error on dev mmcblk0, logical block 0, async page read [23881.275391] ldm_validate_partition_table(): Disk read failed. [23881.996562] Dev mmcblk0: unable to read RDB block 0 [23882.149071] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev mmcblk0, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 0 [23882.405009] Buffer I/O error on dev mmcblk0, logical block 0, async page read [23882.558001] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev mmcblk0, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 0 [23882.559697] Buffer I/O error on dev mmcblk0, logical block 0, async page read Thank you, Adrian ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: f31 :: sd card not accesible
On 5/28/20 2:24 AM, Adrian Sevcenco wrote: Hi! I have a very strange situaion with a sandisk extreme sd card: while in windows i can use it just fine in f31 i have the following: lsblk shows : NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT mmcblk0 179:0 0 59.5G 0 disk dmesg says: [ 641.162507] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev mmcblk0, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 0 [ 641.367806] Buffer I/O error on dev mmcblk0, logical block 0, async page read [ 641.367869] ldm_validate_partition_table(): Disk read failed. What is the detailed class information for the card? U? A? What is the "lspci" line for your sd card reader? What are the log messages when you put it in the reader? ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 05:01:19PM +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > I didn't say to remove the packages, but to mark them as "unmaintained" > (assuming there is such a mechanism). There is a process to orphan packages, but it is a process started by the maintainer. Periodically, you can see on the -devel list that unresponsive maintainers have their packages orphaned. This leads to all sorts of dependency issues. A bunch of java dependencies were orphaned earlier this year, iirc, and it caused many packages to be removed because their dependencies could not be met. Basically, a huge chunk of the java ecosystem in Fedora went away. -- Jonathan Billings ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
Lets follow the removing the maintainers if they don't respond to BZ'.s So we remove maintainers, we don't get a replacement maintainer and then after a few times of unmaintained packages, we remove the packages. Repeat until we have no packages except the most basic packages. Everyone seems to believe the maintainers are being paid to answer our questions by someone and/or required to respond to the BZ, they aren't. And there seems to be the believe that it is an honor to be a maintainer and that there are people waiting in line for the job, and they aren't. When you have paid support (read 10k's of paid distro copies) the maintainers always respond, and often the response is "engineering is looking at that" repeated until the enterprise packages goes EOL, or "we aren't going to fix that". Also remember the Distro maintainer is more or less just packaging it up and/or slightly adjusting for fedora and maybe some testing. They rarely own the original package source code, and rarely do they even know enough to do major code changes. I know I debugged and submitted code a fix to a package I like to use that had some code backported incorrectly and must have had only limited testing. Kernel bugs should be duplicated on the newest kernel.org kernel and then details posted to the linux kernel list, that will get it fixed upstream which in 30-60days or so will magically show up in fedora. Much the same thing is true with the packages, it is best to go to the actual package maintainer outside of the distro as they may have actually written the code. i know of at least one of "the engineering is looking at that" and/or "we aren't going to fix" that got fixed because someone I work with went to the upstream maintainer and fixed it at the source, and that got packaged up into the distro. If you fix it upstream you can also make the much simpler request to backport patch from upstream and/or uplift to current upstream the given package. On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 10:26 AM Tim via users wrote: > > Tim: > >> Perhaps there should be an automated culling of participants. If > >> you step up the plate to say you'll maintain a package, but don't, > >> *you* get dumped from bugzilla. > > Patrick O'Callaghan: > > I was about to suggest something similar. Not necessarily dumping > > them from BZ but removing the package's "maintained" status (or > > whatever the terminology is). Clearly if bug reports are not being > > addressed, the package is not being maintained in any meaningful > > sense. > > The trouble with dumping unmaintained packages is that you can remove > packages that actually work for some people (on distros that cull > unmaintained packages). Ignoring faulty ones, for the moment, there's > plenty of abandoned things that still work. Even broken ones may work > for some people. > > I do think it's fair to remove someone who isn't actually contributing. > There's no point in them being there if they don't do anything. > > -- > > uname -rsvp > Linux 3.10.0-1127.8.2.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue May 12 16:57:42 UTC 2020 x86_64 > > Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted. > I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list. > > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
On Fri, 2020-05-29 at 00:55 +0930, Tim via users wrote: > Tim: > > > Perhaps there should be an automated culling of participants. If > > > you step up the plate to say you'll maintain a package, but don't, > > > *you* get dumped from bugzilla. > > Patrick O'Callaghan: > > I was about to suggest something similar. Not necessarily dumping > > them from BZ but removing the package's "maintained" status (or > > whatever the terminology is). Clearly if bug reports are not being > > addressed, the package is not being maintained in any meaningful > > sense. > > The trouble with dumping unmaintained packages is that you can remove > packages that actually work for some people (on distros that cull > unmaintained packages). Ignoring faulty ones, for the moment, there's > plenty of abandoned things that still work. Even broken ones may work > for some people. > > I do think it's fair to remove someone who isn't actually contributing. > There's no point in them being there if they don't do anything. I didn't say to remove the packages, but to mark them as "unmaintained" (assuming there is such a mechanism). poc ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 32: Anyone have success building akmod-xtables-addons ?
Stan, thanks for your reply and your time. You too, Jerry. I'm using Shorewall and iptables instead of firewalld. I've used this for years. nftables configuration seems overly verbose to me. I created a rpmfusion bugzilla. https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5662 Bill On 5/28/2020 11:39 AM, stan via users wrote: On Thu, 28 May 2020 08:54:41 -0600 Jerry James wrote: On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:36 AM Bill Shirley wrote: Build log attached. It shows that nothing was built. Take a look at the "Executing(%build)" part. There is a make invocation, followed by nothing. Stan is probably right; the change from iptables to nftables may have broken this module. Possibly relevant: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg59160.html From discussions on the -devel list, I think there is a setting for firewalld that reverts to using iptables. Check man firewalld? Look in /etc/firewalld? If you can, that would be a workaround until this gets fixed. Opening a ticket at rpmfusion's bugzilla, if there isn't already one, would put the issue on their radar. https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/ ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 32: Anyone have success building akmod-xtables-addons ?
On Thu, 28 May 2020 08:54:41 -0600 Jerry James wrote: > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:36 AM Bill Shirley > wrote: > > Build log attached. > > It shows that nothing was built. Take a look at the > "Executing(%build)" part. There is a make invocation, followed by > nothing. Stan is probably right; the change from iptables to nftables > may have broken this module. Possibly relevant: > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg59160.html From discussions on the -devel list, I think there is a setting for firewalld that reverts to using iptables. Check man firewalld? Look in /etc/firewalld? If you can, that would be a workaround until this gets fixed. Opening a ticket at rpmfusion's bugzilla, if there isn't already one, would put the issue on their radar. https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/ ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
Tim: >> Perhaps there should be an automated culling of participants. If >> you step up the plate to say you'll maintain a package, but don't, >> *you* get dumped from bugzilla. Patrick O'Callaghan: > I was about to suggest something similar. Not necessarily dumping > them from BZ but removing the package's "maintained" status (or > whatever the terminology is). Clearly if bug reports are not being > addressed, the package is not being maintained in any meaningful > sense. The trouble with dumping unmaintained packages is that you can remove packages that actually work for some people (on distros that cull unmaintained packages). Ignoring faulty ones, for the moment, there's plenty of abandoned things that still work. Even broken ones may work for some people. I do think it's fair to remove someone who isn't actually contributing. There's no point in them being there if they don't do anything. -- uname -rsvp Linux 3.10.0-1127.8.2.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue May 12 16:57:42 UTC 2020 x86_64 Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted. I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 32: Anyone have success building akmod-xtables-addons ?
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 8:36 AM Bill Shirley wrote: > Build log attached. It shows that nothing was built. Take a look at the "Executing(%build)" part. There is a make invocation, followed by nothing. Stan is probably right; the change from iptables to nftables may have broken this module. Possibly relevant: https://www.spinics.net/lists/netfilter/msg59160.html -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Workspaces lost -
On 2020-05-28 22:29, Bob Goodwin wrote: > I removed a mysterious blank area on the panel and all my workspaces went > with it. I have not been able to restore them with the Panel Preferences GUI. > Changes there are ignored. > > Apparently it needs the workspaces restored first and I have no idea how to > do that. > > This updated Fedora 32 using xfce, any siggestions welcome, Bob Are you saying that if you went to "Backup and Restore" and pick Xfce 4.14 and then click on the gear icon in the lower left, nothing happens? -- The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 32: Anyone have success building akmod-xtables-addons ?
Build log attached. It cleans up the /tmp directory: $ ls /tmp crontab.wVcyKK~ systemd-private-d1e60303890a4d22a4daf097e979ca6f-bluetooth.service-Tw72Bg systemd-private-d1e60303890a4d22a4daf097e979ca6f-chronyd.service-icD9Ah systemd-private-d1e60303890a4d22a4daf097e979ca6f-clamav-milter.service-gRSPQg systemd-private-d1e60303890a4d22a4daf097e979ca6f-dbus-broker.service-viOLrf systemd-private-d1e60303890a4d22a4daf097e979ca6f-dovecot.service-rgKyuf systemd-private-d1e60303890a4d22a4daf097e979ca6f-httpd.service-7w82Qh systemd-private-d1e60303890a4d22a4daf097e979ca6f-mariadb.service-BHlFof systemd-private-d1e60303890a4d22a4daf097e979ca6f-ModemManager.service-N20beh systemd-private-d1e60303890a4d22a4daf097e979ca6f-named.service-vI718g systemd-private-d1e60303890a4d22a4daf097e979ca6f-openvpn-server@server.service-XN2Nti systemd-private-d1e60303890a4d22a4daf097e979ca6f-php-fpm.service-4odq5g systemd-private-d1e60303890a4d22a4daf097e979ca6f-postfix.service-ZMiyOh systemd-private-d1e60303890a4d22a4daf097e979ca6f-systemd-logind.service-8WMvzf Thanks for the replies, Bill On 5/28/2020 10:15 AM, stan via users wrote: On Thu, 28 May 2020 08:32:23 -0400 Bill Shirley wrote: For years I've installed akmod-xtables-addons with no problems. Not so with Fedora 32. It has a build error (excerpt): [..] Processing files: kmod-xtables-addons-5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 error: Directory not found: /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/lib/modules/5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64/extra error: Directory not found: /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/lib/modules/5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64/extra/xtables-addons If you look in the /tmp directory, are there any akmodsbuild files there, perhaps under a different key? That is, is there a communication problem, it is built, just not where expected. $ rpm -qa | grep -e kmod -e mock -e xtable | sort akmods-0.5.6-25.fc32.noarch akmod-xtables-addons-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 kmod-27-1.fc32.x86_64 kmod-libs-27-1.fc32.x86_64 kmodtool-1-38.fc32.noarch kmod-xtables-addons-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 mock-2.3-1.fc32.noarch mock-core-configs-32.6-1.fc32.noarch xtables-addons-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 The trouble is I don't know if this is due to a akmods (Fedora) problem or a akmod-xtables-addons (RPMfustion) problem Could this have anything to do with the change from iptables to nftables as backend in F32? ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org 2020/05/28 07:04:25 akmods: Building RPM using the command '/sbin/akmodsbuild --kernels 5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64 /usr/src/akmods/xtables-addons-kmod.latest' + RPM_EC=0 ++ jobs -p + exit 0 Executing(%install): /bin/sh -e /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.I7smH7 + umask 022 + cd /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB//BUILD + '[' /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 '!=' / ']' + rm -rf /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 ++ dirname /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 + mkdir -p /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT + mkdir /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 + cd xtables-addons-kmod-3.9 + for kernel_version in 5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64___/usr/src/kernels/5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64 + export XA_ABSTOPSRCDIR=/tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILD/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9/_kmod_build_5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64 + XA_ABSTOPSRCDIR=/tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILD/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9/_kmod_build_5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64 + make -j32 V=1 -C /usr/src/kernels/5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64 M=/tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILD/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9/_kmod_build_5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64/extensions _emodinst_ INSTALL_MOD_PATH=/tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64/usr ext-mod-dir=/extra/xtables-addons/ + /usr/lib/rpm/check-buildroot + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-ldconfig + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-compress + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-strip /usr/bin/strip + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-strip-comment-note /usr/bin/strip /usr/bin/objdump + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-strip-static-archive /usr/bin/strip + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-python-bytecompile /usr/bin/python 1 0 + /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-hardlink + /usr/lib/rpm/redhat/brp-mangle-shebangs Processing files: kmod-xtables-addons-5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 error: Directory not found: /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/lib/modules/5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64/extra error: Directory not found: /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/lib/modules/5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64/extra/xtables-addons RPM build errors: us
Workspaces lost -
I removed a mysterious blank area on the panel and all my workspaces went with it. I have not been able to restore them with the Panel Preferences GUI. Changes there are ignored. Apparently it needs the workspaces restored first and I have no idea how to do that. This updated Fedora 32 using xfce, any siggestions welcome, Bob -- Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD FEDORA-32/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3 ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 32: Anyone have success building akmod-xtables-addons ?
On Thu, 28 May 2020 08:32:23 -0400 Bill Shirley wrote: > For years I've installed akmod-xtables-addons with no problems. Not > so with Fedora 32. It has a build error (excerpt): > [..] > Processing files: > kmod-xtables-addons-5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 error: > Directory not found: > /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/lib/modules/5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64/extra > error: Directory not found: > /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/lib/modules/5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64/extra/xtables-addons If you look in the /tmp directory, are there any akmodsbuild files there, perhaps under a different key? That is, is there a communication problem, it is built, just not where expected. > $ rpm -qa | grep -e kmod -e mock -e xtable | sort > akmods-0.5.6-25.fc32.noarch > akmod-xtables-addons-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 > kmod-27-1.fc32.x86_64 > kmod-libs-27-1.fc32.x86_64 > kmodtool-1-38.fc32.noarch > kmod-xtables-addons-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 > mock-2.3-1.fc32.noarch > mock-core-configs-32.6-1.fc32.noarch > xtables-addons-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 > > The trouble is I don't know if this is due to a akmods (Fedora) > problem or a akmod-xtables-addons (RPMfustion) problem Could this have anything to do with the change from iptables to nftables as backend in F32? ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 32: Anyone have success building akmod-xtables-addons ?
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 6:33 AM Bill Shirley wrote: > For years I've installed akmod-xtables-addons with no problems. Not so with > Fedora 32. > It has a build error (excerpt): I am not familiar with this particular akmod. However, there should be a build log in /var/cache/akmods somewhere. If you can attach that build log, we can see if it sheds light on the problem. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
2020-05-28 15:00 UTC+02:00, Ralf Corsepius : > Please do yourself a favor and check which packages and which packages > you talking about. As I wrote before, there are obvious patterns, but we > all know the people in charge are not interested. Wouldn't it be simpler if you told us, instead of sending all interested readers go chasing patterns? Andras ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
2020-05-28 13:30 UTC+02:00, Patrick O'Callaghan : > On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 18:08 +0930, Tim via users wrote: [...] >> Perhaps there should be an automated culling of participants. If you >> step up the plate to say you'll maintain a package, but don't, *you* >> get dumped from bugzilla. > > I was about to suggest something similar. Not necessarily dumping them > from BZ but removing the package's "maintained" status (or whatever the > terminology is). Clearly if bug reports are not being addressed, the > package is not being maintained in any meaningful sense. What if half of the reports are addressed, resulting in a lot of happy users? The same for maintainers: what if a maintainer addresses half of the issues he's supposed to? Should (s)he still get dumped? Andras ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
On 5/28/20 1:30 PM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 18:08 +0930, Tim via users wrote: Perhaps there should be an automated culling of participants. If you step up the plate to say you'll maintain a package, but don't, *you* get dumped from bugzilla. I was about to suggest something similar. Not necessarily dumping them from BZ but removing the package's "maintained" status (or whatever the terminology is). Clearly if bug reports are not being addressed, the package is not being maintained in any meaningful sense. Please do yourself a favor and check which packages and which packages you talking about. As I wrote before, there are obvious patterns, but we all know the people in charge are not interested. Ralf ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Multipart issues (WAS: Re: Restart F32 WiFi on ThinkPad P72)
On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 12:12 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 13:20 +0930, Tim via users wrote: > > On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 19:55 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > > > I don't know Evolution, but if it's presenting choices for > > > the multipart/alternative part, then that latter text/plain > > > part wouldn't be included as an option. > > > > When you have a mail with multiple parts, there should be some sane > > logic applied to handling it. If you have a multi-part alternative > > section, then you should get to see one of those parts by default, > > ignoring the alternatives. When you have another section tacked on > > that is NOT one of the alternatives, it should always be displayed. > > > > > > plain HTML > > text or text > > message message > > > >& > > > > PGP > > signatures > > > >& > > > > list > > footers > > > > Each of those blocks is a section. Only the first two are an OR > > situation, everything else is an AND. The ORed sections should be > > treated the same whether you're reading a message, or replying to it. > > > > Quite how his Evolution created a blank plain-text session I don't > > know, as I can't see an option for whether, or not, to also create a > > plain text section when you're creating a HTML message. > > > > I have noticed Evolution screw up when deleting parts of messages, > > before. Such as trying to trim out quotes. I'd noticed that if I > > tried to remove a few words, it'd often remove the entire quoted > > message. I'd have to copy the text to somewhere else, edit it, then > > paste it back in again. So it's message editor is a bit wacky, as far > > as I'm concerned. > > I'll try to take this up on the Evolution list, which (luckily) I > haven't done yet. > > poc This is what I got from one of the Evolution developers: Right, this is more likely. Having evolution run from a terminal, there could be seen some runtime warnings related to WebKit, coming either from Evolution itself or from a WebKitWebProcess (maybe it's still in the system journal). That would just show there happened something, but not necessarily what or why. The composer (the UI part) asks the editor (on the WebKitWebProcess side) for the content, once in HTML once in plain text (can be in opposite order). Failing to get it should result in a stop of the send operation, if I recall correctly. But it seems it was able to read the HTML part and failed only with the plain text part. Checking the message itself, the text/plain part is not completely empty, it contains CRLF encoded in base64. The HTML part doesn't look like anything complicated, just the opposite, pretty simple code, without special characters (unless I overlooked any). Obviously only Robert can check if there's anything in his journal to indicate an Evolution problem. poc ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora 32: Anyone have success building akmod-xtables-addons ?
For years I've installed akmod-xtables-addons with no problems. Not so with Fedora 32. It has a build error (excerpt): [..] Processing files: kmod-xtables-addons-5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 error: Directory not found: /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/lib/modules/5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64/extra error: Directory not found: /tmp/akmodsbuild.KP8gyCwB/BUILDROOT/xtables-addons-kmod-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64/usr/lib/modules/5.6.12-300.fc32.x86_64/extra/xtables-addons $ rpm -qa | grep -e kmod -e mock -e xtable | sort akmods-0.5.6-25.fc32.noarch akmod-xtables-addons-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 kmod-27-1.fc32.x86_64 kmod-libs-27-1.fc32.x86_64 kmodtool-1-38.fc32.noarch kmod-xtables-addons-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 mock-2.3-1.fc32.noarch mock-core-configs-32.6-1.fc32.noarch xtables-addons-3.9-1.fc32.x86_64 The trouble is I don't know if this is due to a akmods (Fedora) problem or a akmod-xtables-addons (RPMfustion) problem Bill ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 18:08 +0930, Tim via users wrote: > On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 10:00 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > There have always been components with a large number of bugzilla > > tickets without a response, but Fedora has turned it into a "man > > versus machine" competition. Which is unfortunate. First of all, > > those automated responses come _much_ too late. After months, most > > users have lost patience and have given up. And for the patient > > users, the second time somebody gets an automated response that only > > threatens with closing a ticket _again_, it will be a "WTF?" moment > > and raise motivation to look for a different OS. > > > > Automation is not a bad thing, but there ought to be a clear message > > that tells people about the expectations to get a response on the way > > to a potential fix or _how_ they could contribute. > > I too have had bugs that were ignored over several releases (and the > fault remained). The only activity seemed to have been waiting to see > if the next distro release fixed it. Not even questioning me to try > and find more information to fix things. It seemed like the package > maintainer was not really in a position to debug things. > > Only when I had been able to work out that a particular file was > missing, or some other thing where I could determine the fault, but not > actually do the repair, was anything done about the bug. > > Perhaps there should be an automated culling of participants. If you > step up the plate to say you'll maintain a package, but don't, *you* > get dumped from bugzilla. I was about to suggest something similar. Not necessarily dumping them from BZ but removing the package's "maintained" status (or whatever the terminology is). Clearly if bug reports are not being addressed, the package is not being maintained in any meaningful sense. poc ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Multipart issues (WAS: Re: Restart F32 WiFi on ThinkPad P72)
On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 13:20 +0930, Tim via users wrote: > On Wed, 2020-05-27 at 19:55 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote: > > I don't know Evolution, but if it's presenting choices for > > the multipart/alternative part, then that latter text/plain > > part wouldn't be included as an option. > > When you have a mail with multiple parts, there should be some sane > logic applied to handling it. If you have a multi-part alternative > section, then you should get to see one of those parts by default, > ignoring the alternatives. When you have another section tacked on > that is NOT one of the alternatives, it should always be displayed. > > > plain HTML > text or text > message message > >& > > PGP > signatures > >& > > list > footers > > Each of those blocks is a section. Only the first two are an OR > situation, everything else is an AND. The ORed sections should be > treated the same whether you're reading a message, or replying to it. > > Quite how his Evolution created a blank plain-text session I don't > know, as I can't see an option for whether, or not, to also create a > plain text section when you're creating a HTML message. > > I have noticed Evolution screw up when deleting parts of messages, > before. Such as trying to trim out quotes. I'd noticed that if I > tried to remove a few words, it'd often remove the entire quoted > message. I'd have to copy the text to somewhere else, edit it, then > paste it back in again. So it's message editor is a bit wacky, as far > as I'm concerned. I'll try to take this up on the Evolution list, which (luckily) I haven't done yet. poc ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Restart F32 WiFi on ThinkPad P72
On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 07:21 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > On 2020-05-28 06:34, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: > > After being corrected by Todd, I see what you mean by the blank line. > > But > > > 3. > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 > > Content-Disposition: inline > > (the base64 version of the text) > > Did you decode the block? When I decode it I see the standard footer applied > to all Fedora posts. No, I erroneously assumed it was the same text. So not in fact a third alternative as I thought. poc ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
f31 :: sd card not accesible
Hi! I have a very strange situaion with a sandisk extreme sd card: while in windows i can use it just fine in f31 i have the following: lsblk shows : NAMEMAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT mmcblk0 179:00 59.5G 0 disk dmesg says: [ 641.162507] blk_update_request: I/O error, dev mmcblk0, sector 0 op 0x0:(READ) flags 0x0 phys_seg 1 prio class 0 [ 641.367806] Buffer I/O error on dev mmcblk0, logical block 0, async page read [ 641.367869] ldm_validate_partition_table(): Disk read failed. and trying to make a part table: parted -s -a optimal /dev/mmcblk0 mklabel msdos Error: Input/output error during read on /dev/mmcblk0 Error: Input/output error during write on /dev/mmcblk0 so, anyone any idea what is going on? seriosly, linux cannot do what windows can??? Thank you! Adrian ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: how do I fix multiple open with the same thing?
On 2020-05-28 16:28, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: > On 2020-05-27 21:19, Ed Greshko wrote: >> On 2020-05-28 11:51, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: >>> Huh? >>> https://ibb.co/MnWJfMV >>> >>> Maybe you only had one program associated with .html >>> >>> Try a .txt file. That should have a lot of different >>> applicators associated with it >> >> Also, if you right-click on the file and pick "Properties" there is a box >> "File Type Options". >> >> If you bring that up it should show a list. Are the dups there? >> > > Perfect Thank you. I have been trying for years to > figure this one out > I had not seen this issue in years, so it took a bit of thinking to reach a solution. To follow up a bit, mostly due to boredom The "Open With" queries a collection of "mimeapps.list" to present options. The locations and names of the various files are defined, for one place, here https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/XDG_MIME_Applications#mimeapps.list The duplicates, no doubt, existed in one of those files in your directory. -- The key to getting good answers is to ask good questions. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
On Thu, 2020-05-28 at 10:00 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > There have always been components with a large number of bugzilla > tickets without a response, but Fedora has turned it into a "man > versus machine" competition. Which is unfortunate. First of all, > those automated responses come _much_ too late. After months, most > users have lost patience and have given up. And for the patient > users, the second time somebody gets an automated response that only > threatens with closing a ticket _again_, it will be a "WTF?" moment > and raise motivation to look for a different OS. > > Automation is not a bad thing, but there ought to be a clear message > that tells people about the expectations to get a response on the way > to a potential fix or _how_ they could contribute. I too have had bugs that were ignored over several releases (and the fault remained). The only activity seemed to have been waiting to see if the next distro release fixed it. Not even questioning me to try and find more information to fix things. It seemed like the package maintainer was not really in a position to debug things. Only when I had been able to work out that a particular file was missing, or some other thing where I could determine the fault, but not actually do the repair, was anything done about the bug. Perhaps there should be an automated culling of participants. If you step up the plate to say you'll maintain a package, but don't, *you* get dumped from bugzilla. -- uname -rsvp Linux 3.10.0-1127.8.2.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue May 12 16:57:42 UTC 2020 x86_64 Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted. I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: how do I fix multiple open with the same thing?
On 2020-05-27 21:19, Ed Greshko wrote: On 2020-05-28 11:51, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: Huh? https://ibb.co/MnWJfMV Maybe you only had one program associated with .html Try a .txt file. That should have a lot of different applicators associated with it Also, if you right-click on the file and pick "Properties" there is a box "File Type Options". If you bring that up it should show a list. Are the dups there? Perfect Thank you. I have been trying for years to figure this one out :-) ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: how do I fix multiple open with the same thing?
On 2020-05-27 22:20, Joe Zeff wrote: On 05/27/2020 11:04 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: On 2020-05-27 21:13, Joe Zeff wrote: On 05/27/2020 09:15 PM, ToddAndMargo via users wrote: I right click on the file->"open with" with any of my various file managers. I typically use Krusader Thunar is the default file manager for Xfce; what happens when you use it? Same thing. Thunar crashes a lot. OK, this might be a Fedora issue or it might be an Xfce issue. You might want to bring this up at the Xfce forum, https://forum.xfce.org/index.php and see if they have any ideas. Xfce said it wasn't them ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
On Thu, 28 May 2020 07:50:16 +, Suvayu Ali wrote: > It took so long, that the bug report became irrelevant. I have since > moved to a different country, with a different job, and don't have > access to the original machine. In fact, as mentioned in the bug, I > could reproduce a similar issue in similar hardware, with Fedora 31. There is more to it. Assuming you would have reassigned the ticket to Fedora 31 in response to the "MASS BUG UPDATE" notification on 2020-03-03, without any clear and concise reply you cannot tell whether you would be testing a potentially fixed kernel or just a random kernel rebase that may or may not fix it. Furthermore, you don't even know whether the reported problem is tracked anywhere where somebody would look at it _eventually_. The ticket status is entirely unclear. "Please test [...] and let us know [...]", but nobody has responded to the feedback. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
On Wed, 27 May 2020 15:42:39 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 3:23 PM Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > > The fundamental problem here is that it has taken a very long time for > > somebody to respond to the bug reporter. There has been no guidance and > > no hint whether anyone "somewhere" would be interested in looking into > > this issue. > > > Exactly. And growing the contributor community is how we can solve that > problem. > How? It seems to be you haven't even taken a brief look at the ticket at all. The bug reporter has contributed more than only dumping a kernel backtrace into bugzilla. The willingness to provide details or to test potential fixes has been demonstrated. And yet nobody has shown any willingness to comment on the actual problem or to point at external place that might be a suitable place where to discuss it and where interested kernel developers could give some guidance on how to proceed. There have always been components with a large number of bugzilla tickets without a response, but Fedora has turned it into a "man versus machine" competition. Which is unfortunate. First of all, those automated responses come _much_ too late. After months, most users have lost patience and have given up. And for the patient users, the second time somebody gets an automated response that only threatens with closing a ticket _again_, it will be a "WTF?" moment and raise motivation to look for a different OS. Automation is not a bad thing, but there ought to be a clear message that tells people about the expectations to get a response on the way to a potential fix or _how_ they could contribute. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 30 EOL
Hi Michael, Ben, On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 7:23 PM Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Wed, 27 May 2020 12:07:35 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 4:30 AM Suvayu Ali wrote: > > > > > > Lately all my bug reports tend to go like this. Are others having the > > > same experience? > > > > I understand the frustration. My bugs get closed EOL, too. For what > > it's worth, 3633 bugs were closed EOL for Fedora 30. This is > > considerably lower than Fedora 29 (4958) and Fedora 28 (4681). > > > > The Fedora Join SIG is here to help new contributors get started if > > you're interested: > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora-join/index.html > > That process would not have helped with this kernel bugzilla ticket > opened in 2019-08-18. But the response in March 2020 suggested reproducing > the issue with Fedora 31 and reassigning the ticket, if the issue is still > reproducible. That has not been done. > > The fundamental problem here is that it has taken a very long time for > somebody to respond to the bug reporter. There has been no guidance and > no hint whether anyone "somewhere" would be interested in looking into > this issue. It took so long, that the bug report became irrelevant. I have since moved to a different country, with a different job, and don't have access to the original machine. In fact, as mentioned in the bug, I could reproduce a similar issue in similar hardware, with Fedora 31. The old hardware was Ryzen 5 2400G, and the second one was Ryzen 7 PRO 3700U (a mobile CPU with similar design, don't get confused with the 2xxx vs 3xxx naming). No response. Even more importantly, this started as a regression bug that renders a system unbootable; my understanding of Fedora and Linux kernel policy says that's very high severity, and still I saw absolutely no response. Ironically, the bug on 3700U got almost resolved by a very recent Fedora 32 kernel update this month (that's 10 months, and 2 distro upgrades later). Given the apathy, I had not bothered any more to file a bug report specifically for the 3700U. This is not the first time, I had purchased the 2400G within the first month of its release back in Feb-Mar 2018. Understandably there were issues (system unbootable to a desktop), even then, my bug reports did not get a single response, me talking to myself, reporting back with my experiments and attempted workarounds. With the release of a new kernel series, about 2-3 months later, all issues were resolved. In the least, I could have helped test any bleeding edge kernels. I have been using Fedora for over a decade, have contributed to the distribution in many different ways (packaging, testing, etc). This is not a one off issue, I have had bugs open for many other packages, all have faced the same fate. If I can't participate in the community, when I'm competent, and willing, I will regrettably move, despite loving the distro; most likely to Arch. Cheers, -- Suvayu Open source is the future. It sets us free. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Restart F32 WiFi on ThinkPad P72
On 5/27/20 3:46 PM, Robert G (Doc) Savage via users wrote: Here's what "journalctl -b" tells me: May 27 16:48:50 tiger.protogeek.org rfkill[14554]: unblock set for all May 27 16:48:50 tiger.protogeek.org audit[1]: SERVICE_START pid=1 uid=0 auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295 subj=system_u:system_r:init_t:s0 msg='unit=systemd-rfkill comm="systemd" exe="/usr/lib/systemd/systemd" hostname=? addr=? terminal=? res=success' May 27 16:48:56 tiger.protogeek.org systemd[1]: systemd-rfkill.service: Succeeded. May 27 16:48:56 tiger.protogeek.org audit[1]: SERVICE_STOP pid=1 uid=0 auid=4294967295 ses=4294967295 subj=system_u:system_r:init_t:s0 msg='unit=systemd-rfkill comm="systemd" exe="/usr/lib/systemd/systemd" hostname=? addr=? terminal=? res=success' Is that the only references to rfkill? Did the log start at boot up? Try searching also for "KILL", it's likely in the wifi device initialization. What is the "lspci" line for your wifi device? It looks like every time the service tries to start wifi with rfkill, SOMETHING is turning it around and stopping it. As the rfkill list command shows, this denial will apparently be done on all wifi connections that are stored in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts: systemd-rfkill is a static service, it runs when called and then stops. # rfkill list 2: phy0: Wireless LAN Soft blocked: no Hard blocked: yes Since there is no hardware switch to enable/disable WiFi on the ThinkPad P72, there must be some configuration command I can give that turns "Hard blocked: yes" to "Hard blocked: no". No, that's the difference between a "hard" block and a "soft" block. You need to find out why rfkill thinks the hardware is blocked. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
