Re: Suggestion: Use a unified kernel image by default in the future.

On Fri, Jul 01, 2022 at 06:39:41AM +1000, David Airlie wrote: > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 6:33 PM Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 08:54:51PM -, Sharpened Blade via devel wrote: > > > Use unified kernel images by default for new releases. This can allow > > > for the local in

Re: Support for Realtek RTL8811CU (WiFi)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2022, 23:50 Christopher Klooz, wrote: > It seems that Fedora does not support the Realtek RTL8811CU for WiFi. A > user at ask.Fedora just had the issue. `lsusb` classifies it just as > "Bus 001 Device 010: ID 0bda:c811 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. 802.11ac > NIC"; correspondingly, `

Support for Realtek RTL8811CU (WiFi)

It seems that Fedora does not support the Realtek RTL8811CU for WiFi. A user at ask.Fedora just had the issue. `lsusb` classifies it just as "Bus 001 Device 010: ID 0bda:c811 Realtek Semiconductor Corp. 802.11ac NIC"; correspondingly, `nmcli` does not recognize it at all. A bug report with som

Re: help needed on AskFedora: OpenSSLv3 error when connecting to Eduroam

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 03:23:34PM +, Alexander Sosedkin wrote: > Quoting Kevin Kofler via devel (2022-06-30 14:15:04) > > You are making two doubtful assumptions: > > > > 1. That the users will bother reporting their issues to the server > > administrators at all. I would expect them to just b

Re: Suggestion: Use a unified kernel image by default in the future.

On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 6:33 PM Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 19, 2022 at 08:54:51PM -, Sharpened Blade via devel wrote: > > Use unified kernel images by default for new releases. This can allow > > for the local installation to sign the kernel and the initrd, so the > > boot chain can

Soname bumps: flint, antic, eclib

Next week I plan to update the following packages to the indicated versions. flint: 2.9.0 antic: 0.2.5 arb: 2.23.0 eclib: 20220621 The flint, antic, and eclib updates come with bumped sonames. I will rebuild all dependent packages, namely: e-antic normaliz Singular polymake sagemath The sagema

Re: F37 proposal: Add -fno-omit-frame-pointer to default compilation flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

On 6/30/22 04:54, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > I am still strongly opposed to degrading performance and size for all users > just to help the handful users of poorly-designed profiling tools. I agree. My career experience has been that the performance impact of having an extra register for c

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

and the proprietary one could have a blacklist for very bad packages. The ability remains to filter if there is a package that is considered bad or malicous. The default is just changed to an allow list. Secondly if there is a malicious package, it will probably be faster to contact flathub and ha

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

> The Flathub remote is available to users who opt-in to enabling > third-party software repositories in either GNOME Initial Setup or > GNOME Software. A lot of flatpaks in Flathub have debatable quality, and are closed source. If we could wait until flathub separates open-source and proprietary

Re: Suggestion: Use a unified kernel image by default in the future.

Also, can it be fixed so adding the --uefi flag to dracut works with the default generation scripots ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: http

Re: Orphaning my packages

Hello Alfredo, Transferred. Thanks! :-) On Thu, 30 Jun 2022, Alfredo Moralejo Alonso wrote: > > I can take python-sysv_ipc if nobody did it already. -- Francisco J. Tsao Santín http://gattaca.es 1024D/71CF4D62 42 F1 53 35 EF 98 98 8A FC 6C 56 B3 4C A7 7D FB ___

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Charalampos Stratakis writes: > So I presume then that python2.7 in Debian works flawlessly with > OpenSSL 3.0.0, no regressions, no security issues and no ABI problems > right? I'm hearing hostility from you and I don't know why. From your sarcasm, I take it to mean that no, you haven't looked

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 01:52:34PM -0400, Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > On 6/30/22 13:11, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > > So I presume then that python2.7 in Debian works flawlessly with OpenSSL > > 3.0.0, no regressions, no security issues and no ABI problems right? > > What about stubbing out all

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 6/30/22 13:11, Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > So I presume then that python2.7 in Debian works flawlessly with OpenSSL > 3.0.0, no regressions, no security issues and no ABI problems right? What about stubbing out all networking in Python 2.7? I believe that the only users of Python 2.7 in Fedo

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

So I presume then that python2.7 in Debian works flawlessly with OpenSSL 3.0.0, no regressions, no security issues and no ABI problems right? On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 5:13 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > Charalampos Stratakis writes: > > > Unfortunately that effort is moot, it's really not possible t

Fedora-Rawhide-20220630.n.0 compose check report

Missing expected images: Minimal raw-xz armhfp Compose PASSES proposed Rawhide gating check! All required tests passed Failed openQA tests: 15/236 (x86_64), 20/165 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20220629.n.0): ID: 1311291 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install

Re: Orphaning my packages

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:00 PM Francisco J. Tsao Santín via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hello, I've been maintaining some packages, but I can't at this time > continue taking care of them. So, next Sunday I'll orphan them if nobody > ask me the transfer: > > * ascii > * netmas

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On 6/30/22 11:08, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 30/06/2022 17:47, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: If you do not understand this, talk to*your* lawyer (only your lawyer is responsible to you) and have them explain the details and distinctions and reasonings to you. Each court publishes the reasonin

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On 30/06/2022 17:47, Gary Buhrmaster wrote: If you do not understand this, talk to*your* lawyer (only your lawyer is responsible to you) and have them explain the details and distinctions and reasonings to you. Each court publishes the reasoning part of the decision. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zai

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Firefox Langpacks Subpackage (System-Wide Change)

How about a middle ground, by splitting langpacks into several larger groups (roman-alphabet+arabic&persian+far-eastern?, asian+european?). This way we wouldn't have to constantly twiddle with new packages and keep the number of packages sane. p On 6/30/22 06:32, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: O

Re: [HEADS UP] Sphinx 5 and docutils 0.18.1 coming to Rawhide on July 11th

Hi, On 6/30/22 17:44, Bob Mauchin wrote: > On Thu, 30 Jun 2022, 17:35 Karolina Surma, > wrote: > > Hello packagers, > > The new major version of the popular documentation framework Sphinx has > been recently released[0]. It brings many changes, among which

Re: Help needed: liquidctl and python3.11

On 30. 06. 22 15:13, Artur Frenszek-Iwicki wrote: Some time ago we've had python3.11 land in Rawhide, with a rebuild of dependent packages. One of my packages, liquidctl, fails to build with the new Python, and since my knowledge of the language stops at "I used it to rewrite some bash scripts"

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 3:33 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 30/06/2022 17:23, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > I do not expect Fedora Legal will likely come onto a public mailing list to > > debate liability with you. Hopefully it should be obvious why that's not a > > good idea. There's

Re: [HEADS UP] Sphinx 5 and docutils 0.18.1 coming to Rawhide on July 11th

On Thu, 30 Jun 2022, 17:35 Karolina Surma, wrote: > Hello packagers, > > The new major version of the popular documentation framework Sphinx has > been recently released[0]. It brings many changes, among which there is > support of docutils 0.18.1. We aim to update both packages together in > Fed

[HEADS UP] Sphinx 5 and docutils 0.18.1 coming to Rawhide on July 11th

Hello packagers, The new major version of the popular documentation framework Sphinx has been recently released[0]. It brings many changes, among which there is support of docutils 0.18.1. We aim to update both packages together in Fedora Rawhide on **July 11th**. As usual, an ongoing attempt to

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On 30/06/2022 17:23, Michael Catanzaro wrote: I do not expect Fedora Legal will likely come onto a public mailing list to debate liability with you. Hopefully it should be obvious why that's not a good idea. There's nothing more I can do except link you back to Matthew's post. Sorry. These are

Re: Fix aarch64 build on embree

On 2022-06-30 12:44 a.m., Peter Robinson wrote: On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 2:39 AM Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > > On 2022-06-29 01:24, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 3:15 AM Luya Tshimbalanga > wrote: > > Hello team, > > What is the way to disable `-mss2 for aarch64 build in em

Re: help needed on AskFedora: OpenSSLv3 error when connecting to Eduroam

Quoting Kevin Kofler via devel (2022-06-30 14:15:04) > You are making two doubtful assumptions: > > 1. That the users will bother reporting their issues to the server > administrators at all. I would expect them to just blame Fedora for it and > move to a different operating system that just works,

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 30 2022 at 05:02:35 PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: This is not a real answer. These are double standards. It's not a double standard: Matthew explained precisely why RPM Fusion is different and riskier than Flathub. I'm sorry it's not the answer that you wanted to hear

Re: Can we start changing License to SPDX now?

As I read it, the Change text strongly implies that package maintainers should wait for FPC to approve updated Licensing guidelines. That work seems to be in progress here: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1142 – Ben On Wed, Jun 29, 2022, at 3:47 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szme

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Charalampos Stratakis writes: > Unfortunately that effort is moot, it's really not possible to make > python2.7 compatible with OpenSSL 3.0.0, I mean even the latest Python > versions are not 100% compatible for various reasons. > > In trying to make it compatible there are also ABI changes intro

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

I agree (vigorously and in detail) with Fabio’s message. – Ben Beasley On Wed, Jun 29, 2022, at 12:42 PM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:46 PM Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 5:27 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: >>> >>> Please don't remove the devel package if

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 30 2022 at 02:20:58 PM +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: That would make a lot of sense indeed (though the default would still need to be agreed on). But unfortunately, asking for any kind of user preference to be added to a GNOME application is usually a lost cause. GNOME ha

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 30 2022 at 01:54:16 PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: Flathub is already preloaded and enabled by default, Actually it's NOT enabled by default, and we do not propose to change that. To get Flathub, users must either: * Press the Enable Third-Party Repositories button on

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On 30/06/2022 16:44, Michael Catanzaro wrote: You actually linked straight to the answer. Matthew's response there is not some passing speculation; that's the real answer based on discussion with Fedora Legal. This is not a real answer. These are double standards. RPM Fusion is a third-party

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On 30/06/2022 16:18, Artur Frenszek-Iwicki wrote: That's debatable. Does the*average user* even care? We're on the development mailing list, after all, so there's a lot of bias towards the power user side. True. Most users don't care, so they will get Flatpaks instead of RPMs. -- Sincerely,

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On 30/06/2022 16:23, Michael Catanzaro wrote: I take a pretty dim view towards arguments about "Flathub is untrusted" and "Flathub packaging is poor" since proponents of these arguments conveniently ignore the fact that traditional RPMs are totally unsandboxed. I would prefer a non-sandboxed a

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 30 2022 at 12:16:09 PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: They don't want to answer why they can't preload RPM Fusion: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/le...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/TCULL55CJGEAYKK5SLHNHZ4BGEUWM3KL/ You actually linked straight to the answer

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

Please remember that Flathub remains disabled by default even if this change proposal is fully implemented. It's gated behind the "enable third-party software?" switch. So if you only want free software from Fedora, you'll just leave that switch off and never see anything from Flathub. (In fact

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

> Too complicated for the average user. That's debatable. Does the *average user* even care? We're on the development mailing list, after all, so there's a lot of bias towards the power user side. > It should be visible when you click the "Install" button. I agree that the current placement makes

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On 30/06/2022 14:18, Artur Frenszek-Iwicki wrote: Once you open the app screen details, there is a drop-down for this, integrated into the top bar, next to the app name. Too complicated for the average user. It should be visible when you click the "Install" button. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zai

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On 30/06/2022 14:22, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: You are conveniently ignoring the drawbacks of the approach, see, e.g.: http://flatkill.org/ and that is by no means a complete list. See also: https://ludocode.com/blog/flatpak-is-not-the-future -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycodi

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

And I would very much prefer to remedy the issue of having packages still relying on python2 rather than thinking about removing OpenSSL 1.1.1 that's still supported upstream and many packages depend on it. On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 3:29 PM Charalampos Stratakis wrote: > Unfortunately that effort

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

Unfortunately that effort is moot, it's really not possible to make python2.7 compatible with OpenSSL 3.0.0, I mean even the latest Python versions are not 100% compatible for various reasons. In trying to make it compatible there are also ABI changes introduced, it's not only about having the tes

Help needed: liquidctl and python3.11

Some time ago we've had python3.11 land in Rawhide, with a rebuild of dependent packages. One of my packages, liquidctl, fails to build with the new Python, and since my knowledge of the language stops at "I used it to rewrite some bash scripts", I'd need some help. Strictly speaking, the packag

Re: F37 proposal: Deprecate openssl1.1 package (System-Wide Change)

On 29. 06. 22 17:45, Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote: OK, it's not a problem to deprecate the package in the sense of https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ But we still want to ge

Re: Orphaning my packages

On Thu, 30 Jun 2022, Didier FABERT wrote: > I'll take ascii if nobody wants it. > Done! :-) Thanks! -- Francisco J. Tsao Santín http://gattaca.es 1024D/71CF4D62 42 F1 53 35 EF 98 98 8A FC 6C 56 B3 4C A7 7D FB___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedo

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

Richard Hughes wrote: > As the person who's been driving AppStream to make desktop > applications easier to install on Linux for the last decade (!) I can > tell you that flatpaks are in almost all cases what users should be > using. By any metric (e.g. live updates, portals, sandboxing, > per-user

Re: Orphaning my packages

On Thu, 30 Jun 2022, Ali Erdinc Koroglu wrote: > I'll take reptyr and supervisor, thank you. Sorry, reptyr has already been taken by František Šumšal. But I transfered you supervisor :-) Thanks! -- Francisco J. Tsao Santín http://gattaca.es 1024D/71CF4D62 42 F1 53 35 EF 98 98 8A FC 6C 56 B3 4C

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

Artur Frenszek-Iwicki wrote: > That being said, what about allowing users to set this preference by > themselves? That would make a lot of sense indeed (though the default would still need to be agreed on). But unfortunately, asking for any kind of user preference to be added to a GNOME applicat

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

> I'd imagine a single slider (or drop-down menu or whatever) Once you open the app screen details, there is a drop-down for this, integrated into the top bar, next to the app name. A.FI. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubsc

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 8:11 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 12:42:07PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 30/06/2022 12:33, Artur Frenszek-Iwicki wrote: > > > That being said, what about allowing users to set this preference by > > > themselves? > > >

Re: help needed on AskFedora: OpenSSLv3 error when connecting to Eduroam

Thanks Clemens for commenting on the Ask Fedora post. Hopefully that'll help the user and others. I understand the idea behind deprecating things---otherwise they never improve---but I also note that while individual users may be pushed to update etc., the same does not apply to institutions. Whe

Re: help needed on AskFedora: OpenSSLv3 error when connecting to Eduroam

Alexander Sosedkin wrote: >> without having to jump through hoops. > > No, or nothing ever moves on, squarely because > >> Users want to be able to connect to their WPA* WiFi networks, >> view their HTTPS websites, etc. >> They do not care whether those use the latest, >> most secure versions of

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 12:42:07PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 30/06/2022 12:33, Artur Frenszek-Iwicki wrote: > > That being said, what about allowing users to set this preference by > > themselves? > > +1. Let's let users make choices, not choose for them. > > Gnome Software sho

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20220630.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20220629.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20220630.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:0 Dropped images: 3 Added packages: 8 Dropped packages:3 Upgraded packages: 86 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 12.09 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On 30/06/2022 12:40, Michael J Gruber wrote: Note that the proposal is not about enabling Flathub, only about its filtering. As far as I understand it remains off by default. Flathub is already preloaded and enabled by default, but filtered. Now they want to remove this filter. This will ma

Re: help needed on AskFedora: OpenSSLv3 error when connecting to Eduroam

Quoting Kevin Kofler via devel (2022-06-30 13:16:55) > Clemens Lang wrote: > > I hope you’re not suggesting we keep the defaults insecure because there > > are some institutions out there that don’t support modern standards. > > Sorry, but I am. > The defaults need to work out there in the real wor

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 at 10:41, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote: > ... *when* they are sandboxed ... > Unfortunately, in many cases, they aren't. I don't think that "some apps have lots of holes punched in the sandbox, but can be locked down easily using a GUI tool, where the majority are inde

Re: help needed on AskFedora: OpenSSLv3 error when connecting to Eduroam

Clemens Lang wrote: > I hope you’re not suggesting we keep the defaults insecure because there > are some institutions out there that don’t support modern standards. Sorry, but I am. The defaults need to work out there in the real world. If legacy standards are still widespread, they need to be s

Re: help needed on AskFedora: OpenSSLv3 error when connecting to Eduroam

Hi, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: If the default crypto policies fail with the world's largest WiFi network, then surely they are too strict to be useful in practice and need to be relaxed. It may be the world’s largest WiFi network, but authentication is delegated to the various institution

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On 30/06/2022 12:33, Artur Frenszek-Iwicki wrote: That being said, what about allowing users to set this preference by themselves? +1. Let's let users make choices, not choose for them. Gnome Software should explicitly ask the user to select a package source before starting installation. --

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 7:37 PM Vipul Siddharth > > Given that flathub provides similar / overlapping content compared to > RPMFusion (or often, even more "legally problematic" than what's > available from RPMFusion, i.e. prebuilt blobs), doesn't this same > reasoning also apply there? I.e. can

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On Thursday, 30 June 2022 at 09:52, Marc Pervaz Boocha via devel wrote: > On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 20:41 +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > > On 29/06/2022 20:25, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > > GNOME Software already has a hidden setting for this: > > > > Yes and it should be configured to "['R

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

> Users of RPM-based variants will expect the default package manager to > install RPMs, > not Flatpaks, or they would have chosen a Flatpak-based variant. Agree on that one. That being said, what about allowing users to set this preference by themselves? I also think that the repository informa

Re: help needed on AskFedora: OpenSSLv3 error when connecting to Eduroam

to, 2022-06-30 kello 11:54 +0200, Kevin Kofler via devel kirjoitti: > If the default crypto policies fail with the world's largest WiFi > network, > then surely they are too strict to be useful in practice and need to > be > relaxed. > I'm not a developer but I just wanted to chime in here and

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Firefox Langpacks Subpackage (System-Wide Change)

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 2:27 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On 29/06/2022 19:00, Vipul Siddharth wrote: > > Firefox langpacks, which have been bundled in the Fedora firefox base > > package until now, will be moved to a firefox-langpacks subpackage. > > +1. I

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On 30/06/2022 09:52, Marc Pervaz Boocha via devel wrote: Flatpak should come first as that what will be used in the long term. RPM is the main packaging format for Fedora. Can we investigate why is the case, its not like the packages in the repo cannot be package as flatpak. Fedora Flatpak

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On 30/06/2022 11:35, Fabio Valentini wrote: I.e. can Fedora enable the full rpmfusion repositories by default, as well, instead of only the separate ("filtered") repositories for the proprietary NVidia drivers and the Steam client? They don't want to answer why they can't preload RPM Fusion: ht

Re: help needed on AskFedora: OpenSSLv3 error when connecting to Eduroam

Ankur Sinha wrote: > Could someone with sufficient OpenSSL knowledge please take a look at > this post? > > https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/cannot-connect-to-eduroam-on-f36-due-to-openssl-error/23909 > > I'd managed to debug another one related to Eduroam and come up with a > workaround, but this

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

Michael Catanzaro wrote: > However, I believe Flatpaks built from Fedora RPMs should take > precedence over Flatpaks built from Flathub. Flathub should only be > preferred when there is no Fedora Flatpak available. That is not a solution, because Fedora Flatpaks are effectively an abandoned featu

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On Wednesday, 29 June 2022 at 20:25, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Wed, Jun 29 2022 at 08:06:28 PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel > wrote: > > 1. GNOME Software need to be patched to prefer RPMs over Flatpaks for > > non-ostree Fedora variants, because it will replace Fedora packages with > > Fla

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 7:37 PM Vipul Siddharth wrote: > > == Detailed Description == > > Fedora includes a flatpak repo definition for Flathub in the > fedora-flathub-remote package. So far, this remote > was filtered by an allowlist that only made a limited subset of > software from Flathub avai

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 29/06/2022 20:25, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> GNOME Software already has a hidden setting for this: > > Yes and it should be configured to "['RPM', 'flatpak']" for all > non-ostree Fedora variants (Workstation, Spins). +1. Native packages ought to be preferre

Fedora-Cloud-35-20220630.0 compose check report

No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20220629.0): ID: 1311274 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://op

Re: F37 proposal: Add -fno-omit-frame-pointer to default compilation flags (System-Wide Change proposal)

Daan De Meyer via devel wrote: > Which shows a smaller than 1% slowdown between the binary built with frame > pointers and the binary built without frame pointers. Still 1% too many just to work around broken debugging tools when DWARF unwinding has been available for years and is already support

Re: help needed on AskFedora: OpenSSLv3 error when connecting to Eduroam

Dear Ankur, Your solution looks like not a workaround but a recommended solution. You can find more information in Clemens Lang's blog post here: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/legacy-cryptography-fedora-36-and-red-hat-enterprise-linux-9 This blog post also contains links to two relevant bugs. Ho

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 08:41:51PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 29/06/2022 20:25, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > GNOME Software already has a hidden setting for this: > > Yes and it should be configured to "['RPM', 'flatpak']" for all non-ostree > Fedora variants (Workstation, Spins).

help needed on AskFedora: OpenSSLv3 error when connecting to Eduroam

Hi folks, Could someone with sufficient OpenSSL knowledge please take a look at this post? https://ask.fedoraproject.org/t/cannot-connect-to-eduroam-on-f36-due-to-openssl-error/23909 I'd managed to debug another one related to Eduroam and come up with a workaround, but this is a new one that I'm

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Unfiltered Flathub (System-Wide Change)

On Wed, 2022-06-29 at 20:41 +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 29/06/2022 20:25, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > > GNOME Software already has a hidden setting for this: > > Yes and it should be configured to "['RPM', 'flatpak']" for all > non-ostree Fedora variants (Workstation, Spins). Flatp

Re: Fix aarch64 build on embree

On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 2:39 AM Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > > On 2022-06-29 01:24, Peter Robinson wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 3:15 AM Luya Tshimbalanga > wrote: > > Hello team, > > What is the way to disable `-mss2 for aarch64 build in embree? > > I think you mean msse2, the build should be

Re: F37 Change Proposal: Firefox Langpacks Subpackage (System-Wide Change)

On 6/29/22 21:26, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: On 29/06/2022 19:00, Vipul Siddharth wrote: Firefox langpacks, which have been bundled in the Fedora firefox base package until now, will be moved to a firefox-langpacks subpackage. +1. It might be better to split it even more: firefox-langpack

Re: Unresponsive maintainer: Alex Chernyakhovsky

On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 09:23:10PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote: > On 29/06/2022 20:58, Miro Hrončok wrote: > > No, it isn't. It's great ;) > > Why? I doubt fighting maintainers is a good thing for Fedora. Why are you assuming the added EPEL maintainers want to fight the existing maintai

Re: Orphaning my packages

I'll take ascii if nobody wants it. thank you. Didier FABERT didier.fab...@gmail.com TZ Europe/Paris Le 29/06/2022 à 16:56, Francisco J. Tsao Santín via devel a écrit : Hello, I've been maintaining some packages, but I can't at this time continue taking care of them. So, next Sunday I'll orpha