Re: I need help with update.install_default_update_live _boot_to_anaconda module failed (Fedora 34 openssl update)

This is not OpenSSL related, probably just a minor glitch. I have restarted the test and it passed: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/993723# On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 11:57 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > Hello, > > I've created this Fedora 34 openssl update: > > https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/

Re: Fedora Jam switch to GNOME

Hi Erich, so today I spent some time in the recording session with the following settings and configurations: - The machine is 2x 12core Intel Xeon with an SSD drive and 32GB RAM - I know that this is a recording overkill and I am not sure how much the machine itself can influence the re

Re: Fedora Jam switch to GNOME

> > This is exactly the kind of feedback i'm looking for. Thanks! I do know > that under Plasma and Xfce I've seen < 2ms latency with the right > hardware (PCI cards, primarily). I've been able to push my Behringer > UMC404HD (a USB interface) under 10 before. I have yet to do any formal > testing

Re: Fedora Jam switch to GNOME

offering. That's less about GNOME vs KDE and more about PipeWire still > needing work to be broadly adopted. > > Well, does it mean that PipeWire is going to replace Jack? Because if not, then it is a non-issue for recording anyway. > > > -- > 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! > __

Re: Fedora Jam switch to GNOME

Hello, I am using Fedora Workstation with the stock kernel and Gnome Desktop for my recording attempts with Ardour. I am using the Focusrite Scarlett USB sound card and I can get down to 40ms latency without getting any xruns (a couple of releases back, it was an xrun hell). I am aware that the 40

Re: Anaconda RFE: change in default behaviour when adding users.

, 2020 at 3:15 PM Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > Hello, > today I have been doing some Anaconda testing and realized that there was > a change in default > behaviour of Anaconda when adding users to the system. > > Previously: > >1. The root account was not locked by default. >

Anaconda RFE: change in default behaviour when adding users.

Hello, today I have been doing some Anaconda testing and realized that there was a change in default behaviour of Anaconda when adding users to the system. Previously: 1. The root account was not locked by default. 2. The user account was not an admin account. Currently: 1. The root ac

Re: Change proposal discussion - Optimize SquashFS Size

Hello everybody, as I see it, we all want the same, but the priorities differ. My several cents (although I will repeat myself): *Let us properly curate the composes in terms of shipped applications (a.k.a essential applications)* Explanation: Our composes ship too many applications. By making a c

Re: Fedora 32 system-wide change proposal: reduce installation media size by improving the compression ratio of SquashFS filesystem

> > Why stacked images? Consider a single base.img that's maybe 1G, and > now you don't have to do separate composes for server, cloud, GNOME, > KDE, Cinnamon, LXQt, Astronomy that repeat a lot of the same steps, > including expensive steps like compressing the same things over and > over again. Ju

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

Either the strategy should be: > > "We offer alternate Perl versions for containers etc. they conflict with > the > default Perl version and with the non-modular apps. That is known and > accepted." > > Or the strategy should be: > > "We build all our Perl applications for all our Perl versions, so

Re: Modularity: The Official Complaint Thread

Again, no one forces you or any other packager to use modularity > tooling right now. > > As Fedora developer you have a choice to join the effort, bring your > input and use cases, try and test (and revert if it doesn't work) or > you can stay away from it and keep using same tools as before. > W

Re: Modularity and all the things

*There's a very large difference between feedback like "I think the user experience is suboptimal here, for this reason" and "I don't like the entire design, you should scrap it and start over".* Well, I can agree with that. > > In the first case, it's possible to incorporate that into an existi

Re: Modularity and all the things

On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:40 AM Igor Gnatenko < ignatenkobr...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > This basically makes modularity not useful for many things: > > 1. People will have to have different workflows between "default" > version (standard workflow, as we have today) and "modular" version. >

Re: Modularity and all the things

Are you proposing to _do_ those things, or proposing that someone else > oughta? > This is an unfair statement! I thought Fedora is a community of people. In the community, we have programmers, visionaries, idealists, testers, graphics ... and we also have users, that only know if they like or di

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

This is a policy choice, not a technical matter. If modules became more > popular, and the dependencies between modules grew, we'd need > to settle on similar rules, where bigger changes are done with a certain > cadence. This is why I think that the "independent lifecycles for modules" > are illus

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

> > > > This has been working quite fine so far, so it would be bad to loose this > capability, as the actual > users in question are definitely not power users and will not be able to > fix any of these issues > by themselves. > > +1, this was one of my points, too. I think that Fedora should be o

Re: Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal: Modules in Non-Modular Buildroot

3) We need to get the policy I described above written onto -stone > tablets- the Packaging Guidelines and then we need to go and make any > stream that isn't compliant with it a non-default stream. > Thank you. If we want to use default streams, then we indeed need a strict policy on how they are

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

This does not work for server components and is not generalizable. For > example, you cannot have multiple versions of Samba running on the same > system. You cannot have multiple versions of FreeIPA running on the same > system either. These server components have requirements beyond package > ins

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

Or, even better (or worse): Sombody installs GIMP via GNOME Software, > and under the hood, dnf does its magic and installs gimp from the > module, which might depend on another, even non-default module, etc. > But then, what will happen when that module is EOL, and the user has > never even intera

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

> > > I'm comfortable saying that most Fedora users are not installing the > distro > just to support one specific application, as one might with RHEL or > CentOS, > but to benefit from the Four Foundations of Fedora, in this case the most > important ones being Freedom, Features and First. > Exac

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

Thank you for clarifications. It's somewhat disheartening to hear responses that largely boil down to "If > you can't get it perfectly right, stop trying!". > I am sorry if this is what you feel about my comments. I never wanted to say that you should stop trying if you cannot get it perfectly ri

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

I don't think containers can replace modularity. They need to coexist. > If we want to create containers built on top of a distribution (no > randomly picked bits from the internet, reproducible builds, security, > ...), we need a way to distribute multiple versions of the software > (module stream

Re: Modularity and the system-upgrade path

> So despite providing zero feedback here, this was voted at the modularity > meeting: > > * Tagging Module Defaults into non-modular repo (sgallagh, 15:41:37) >* AGREED: We disagree with merging default streams into the main repo > as non-modular packages. Our approach is to implement a

Re: Getting .fc32 packages while trying to follow F31 branch ?

I totally agree with you. -- Lukáš Růžička FEDORA QE, RHCE Red Hat Purkyňova 115 612 45 Brno - Královo Pole lruzi...@redhat.com TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED. ___ devel mailing lis

Re: [Test-Announce] 2019-05-13 @ 15:00 UTC - Fedora QA Meeting

The meeting took place in #fedora-meeting as usual. Lukas On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 6:01 PM Silvia Sánchez wrote: > > Hello, > > In which channel? I couldn't find the meeting. > > Regards, > Silvia > FAS: Lailah > > > > > On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 12:26, Geoffrey Marr wrote: > >> Hey all, >> >> W

Re: Modularity UX Questions

Hello, please could you tell me if any decisions have been made on how this thread is going to be handled? Is it defined somewhere, where I could read, what the behaviour will be like? Thanks. On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 3:19 PM Adam Samalik wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 2:50 PM Stephen Gallag

Re: Basic graphics mode / 'nomodeset' testing request, round 2

I have a no boot, too. Reported in the Bugzilla. L. On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 6:41 PM Geoffrey Marr wrote: > Have tried two machines so far, a MacBook > > 02:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation Mobile GM965/GL960 > Integrated Graphics Controller (primary) (rev 03) > > and a Dell Prec

Re: Modularity UX Questions

=== A module does not have one or more of its profiles specified to be > the default. === > > Here, I would expect that DNF will finish with error, advising the user to select a profile specifically, such as using "dnf module install :/". === A module has explicitly set one or more of its streams

Re: Broken modules on rawhide

Why people disable the repo, I do not know. I might have a slight notion. However, you cannot upgrade from Fedora 29 to Fedora 30 with Modular repositories allowed. It fails with an error similar to what Mirek has reported. Disabling modular repositories fixed the problem and an upgrade was possib

Re: Disabled registration from a certain IP due to a limit.

Hub operates independantly i don't see a reason for your worry. > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018, 7:27 PM Lukas Ruzicka >> Hello, >> >> I would like to vote in this discussion, because I strongly disagree with >> Fedora related stuff moving out from Pagure (that Fedora own

Disabled registration from a certain IP due to a limit.

Hello, I would like to vote in this discussion, because I strongly disagree with Fedora related stuff moving out from Pagure (that Fedora owns and controls) to GitHub, which is proprietary (because controlled by Microsoft). The fact that I cannot log into the discussion nor create a new account b

Re: What does delaying F31 mean for packagers/users?

, I think Debarshi's approach would work just fine. Thanks for understanding, Lukas On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 10:20 AM Lukas Ruzicka wrote: > Hello, > I do not think that we should be taking the path towards Gnome being in > one module. This is not, what "modular" me

Re: What does delaying F31 mean for packagers/users?

Hello, I do not think that we should be taking the path towards Gnome being in one module. This is not, what "modular" means. In my understanding, modules should be smaller, rather independent units, that will help solve some user cases, but definitely not upgrading half of the system. Also, if we