On Wed, Oct 1, 2025 at 9:23 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> With three kernels at any given time (plus the rescue image), a
> conservative estimate of 300MiB per generic initramfs makes 1.5GB very tight.
> We probably do want to bump /boot to 2GB. And all our disk images need
> similar adjustments unfortu
On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 12:52 PM Alexander Ploumistos
wrote:
> The newer kernel cannot get installed and the rpm transaction fails.
There was a (anecdotal?) report that there
was a case where some part of the install
failed but no error was propagated/detected,
resulting in the new kernel/initram
On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 6:51 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> OK it looks like sloppy mode was added and made default around this time,
> though I'm not understanding how to match the tags in the git repo with the
> versions I'm seeing in Fedora.
>
hostonly-mode was introduced with 107,
and dracut was
On Thu, Sep 11, 2025 at 8:05 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 11 2025 at 09:07:36 PM +02:00:00, Marcin Juszkiewicz
> wrote:
> > Well.
> > https://test-videos.co.uk/vids/jellyfish/mp4/h264/1080/Jellyfish_1080_10s_1MB.mp4
> > plays fine in Firefox.
> >
> > Videos from https://videorx.com
On Wed, Sep 10, 2025 at 9:01 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> I think the expectation was for dracut 108 and systemd 258 to be used in
> tandem.
The changes for dracut 108 are significant, and
clearly could break something in F43, but I think
getting it into F43 would be for the best rather
than waiting
On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 10:00 AM Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
> OpenSSL upstream has started development of the version OpenSSL 4.0
> It will imply soname bump, removing ENGINE support, etc.
I seem to recall someone stating that currently
Fedora itself uses the engine support for some
infrastructure
On Mon, Sep 8, 2025 at 12:38 PM Kamil Paral wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 3:39 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
>>
>> If someone can go
>> through the effort to grab a patched Proton, they can load a kernel
>> module.
>
>
> Hmm, can a user-space program load a kernel module during runtime, without
>
On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 1:38 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> As said elsewhere in the change, this kernel module has been enabled
> since 6.14 kernels when it was first upstream. The idea that we
> should *load* this module by default on every system is absolutely the
> wrong way to go.
+1 (to this
On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 10:27 PM Maxwell G wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I don't use Gmail, but I've heard about this problem before, so it'd be
> good to try and workaround it. Would it be helpful if I sent a separate
> email that only had the affected maintainers BCCed and sent another one
> to the
On Wed, Jul 30, 2025 at 8:51 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> If the system doesn't handle this scenario sensibly:
>
> * Submit a PR to libfoo that bumps its soname
> * Submit a PR to bar-app to rebuild it against the new libfoo soname
> * ???
> * Profit
>
> then it cannot be viable for Fedora. Broadl
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 4:58 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I'm all for documenting this better, but where?
>
> We could perhaps add something to the reminder about the mass rebuild
> coming up (which is supposed to be a week before I think?).
We get an email when the mass rebuild
has started (and fini
On Tue, Jul 29, 2025 at 3:08 AM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> It's the same question as Chris asked, effectively. If you can identify
> the packages to revert them, you could just as easily skip them
> instead. The answer is 'maybe, but it's not trivial'.
>
> Note the correct requirement is not just
On Mon, Jul 28, 2025 at 6:46 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> Hey folks! I figured a wider heads-up about this might be useful.
>
> The owner of the "Dropping of cert.pem file" Change[0] committed the
> change to dist-git but did not build it, instead leaving it to be built
> as part of the mass rebu
libcbor will be updated to 0.12.0 in rawhide in the
next week or so (sooner if the rebuilds are complete),
which includes a soname bump.
The list of affected packages in rawhide are:
libfido2
fwupd
qemu (I missed this the previous attempt, my bad).
I have tested the update using the mass pre-bui
On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 11:24 PM Simo Sorce wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2025-07-17 at 15:26 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2025-07-17 at 15:18 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > In my opinion the situation is simple, as already several courts
> > > hinted, the output of an AI cannot be copyrighted,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 11:41 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> FYI, the council has been working on a policy...
>
> https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/ai-policy-in-fedora-wip/144297/20
>
The most interesting thing is that at this point
the only approach is "it's complicated". That
is both exciting,
I have a (somewhat?) strange situation
(or at least strange for me, maybe others
have this on a regular basis), that I wish
to understand how to proceed.
I have a library (libcbor, if it matters)
which has a new version with a soname
bump. It will require rebuilding of three
packages in a side ta
On Fri, Jul 11, 2025 at 10:33 AM Richard Hughes via devel
wrote:
> That's exactly what Microsoft want to ask from vendors in the future, but I
> really wish them luck because when I asked them for the new PCR0 "golden
> hashes" for LVFS updates only one vendor complied, and and only for a few
On Wed, Jul 9, 2025 at 7:52 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> We should probibly put this info into onboarding docs, it's just been a
> long time since it changed.
...
> I tried to announce things to devel-announce (which also cc to this
> list).
>
> Open to ideas on how to better announce things.
I think
On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 9:27 AM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
> The problem is that isn't a few big netblocks from big AI companies, as
> they are relatively easy to deal with
And many (not all) of the big companies
actually respect the various directives as
to where to (not) crawl, and to throttle
On Fri, Jul 4, 2025 at 4:27 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> If you're not going to use something like Cloudflare or Anubis
> sometimes you do *have* to do this just to keep the site up - we have
> blocked the entirety of Brazil from Fedora infra a couple of times so
> far (since, as Jelle noted, for
On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 8:18 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Leigh Scott wrote:
> > Why isn't fedora infra using Anubis to block LLM scrappers?
>
> Why should they? Anubis is a scourge that wastes massive energy for all
> legitimate browsers, breaks search engines, and if configured in a
> par
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:47 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> It doesn't, though. It still means we have to maintain all the weird
> infrastructure for putting i686 packages in x86_64 repos, and any other
> work we want to do on infrastructure or testing has to account for that
> weirdness. That, to
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 1:45 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> If we only want to build a small subset of packages as i686, then
> rather than doing it as an architecture in koji, IMHO, we could
> consider doing it as cross-compiled target, creating sub-RPMs
> from the native x86_64 package, as we d
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 10:07 AM Aoife Moloney via devel-announce
wrote:
> By dropping completely the i686 architecture, Fedora will decrease the
> burden on package maintainers, release engineering, infrastructure,
> and users.
A completely out-of-the-box alternative
to reducing package maintai
On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 4:02 PM Chris Adams wrote:
> Yeah, that's the catch. Has anybody tried talking to somebody at Valve
> (if they can be found)? This isn't a Fedora-exclusive issue; Ubuntu and
> SuSE (and all the downstreams of each) are probably looking at the same
> thing at some point.
"Review Request: faad2 - Library and frontend for decoding MPEG2/4 AAC"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2370973
Was this reviewed by Fedora Legal (I did not see
it in the email list archives, but I might have used
the wrong search criteria). Last I recall, some of
the patents for
On Wed, Jun 11, 2025 at 10:49 PM Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, in the US, there are claimed patents affecting parts of
> H.264 who's expirations are as far out as late 2030. It's not clear
> which versions/profiles of H.264 are affected by which patents, so not
> sure when parts of H.264
On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 10:56 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 6:53 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > I'm a bit confused here tho, as my understanding is that upstream does
> > indeed plan to remove this in the upcoming cycle, so the gnome version
> > thats included in f43 (which this
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 9:10 PM Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> Unless there's anything glaringly obvious that I'm too silly to notice
Are you using systemd-networkd or NetworkManager?
You have to enable the correct -wait service.
--
___
devel mailing list
On Wed, Apr 23, 2025 at 12:13 PM Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
> This *sort-of* worked: systemd-networkd-wait-online took about two
> minutes before it failed with a timeout. However, that was long enough
> to hold back network-online.target, and by extension sendmail.service,
> so that the latter foun
On Mon, Apr 21, 2025 at 3:17 PM Gabriel L. Somlo wrote:
>
> Adding `After=networ-online.target` to `sendmail.service` does *not*
> seem to help.
As I recall, the network is considered
"online" a lot earlier than you might
think (after the loopback is up?)
without additional requirements. If
you
On Wed, Apr 16, 2025 at 12:52 AM Ian Laurie via devel
wrote:
> Reinstalling filesystem doesn't provide messaging relating to the merge
> script.
As I recall (someone else posted this)
you need to do a:
dnf reinstall filesystem -y | cat
to get the essential messages
about the why. Perhaps o
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 11:26 PM Ian Laurie via devel
wrote:
>
> Thanks guys. Seems in may case more that just a couple:
>
...
I *think* all those are part of the iptables-nft package
if you want to try to remove that package, and see
if the merge can be completed.
--
_
On Tue, Apr 15, 2025 at 4:10 PM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Can we just stop building for i686 in Fedora in general, instead of burning
> maintainer time figuring out deps problems like this... ? What's the
> blocker and how much longer do we have to put up with its burden in Fedora ?
Was there
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 3:26 AM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
>
> I accidentally did not specify a side-tag target,
> so this build will break rawhide. Sorry for my
> mistake.
Looks like the gating status failed ("Yah!"),
and I have explicitly unpushed it. I will
try to be more
On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 8:19 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
> If you're not using sysusers, you're supposed/required to add the
> necessary provides manually.
So, for those that what want a common RPM
spec file that supports *all* current releases,
one should specify a:
Provides: user(mysql)
Provides
On Thu, Mar 20, 2025 at 6:15 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> As a side note: if this sort of thing happens and you need something
> untagged for some reason, please file a releng ticket.
> ( https://pagure.io/releng )
> Thats likely to be seen/acted on much quicker than an list post.
Fair enough. I was
I accidentally did not specify a side-tag target,
so this build will break rawhide. Sorry for my
mistake.
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Condu
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 9:10 AM Richard Hughes wrote:
> I tried this, but got "GenericError: Build already exists" -- I'm using
> %autorelease in the spec file -- do I have to disable that for the side tag
> and then re-enable it for the next rebase? Thanks.
As I understand it (from notes I ke
libcbor will be updated to 0.12.0 in rawhide in the
next week or so, which includes a soname bump.
The list of affected packages in rawhide are:
libfido2
fwupd
I have rebuilt libfido2. For fwupd, I will need the
assistance of the fwupd maintainers (CC'ed),
Please use the side tag f43-build-sid
On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 9:35 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Those are some high profile and/or important pieces of Fedora functionality
> that seemingly depend on OpenSSL engines, and would (possibly[1]) need fixing
> unless OpenSSL 3 is going to be kept in Fedora as a compat package in parallel
On Mon, Feb 3, 2025 at 2:13 PM Björn 'besser82' Esser
wrote:
> Python <= 3.12 is still building the crypt module, which links
> libcrypt.so; thus those packages should express an explicit BR in libxcrypt.
I never bothered to follow all the details
of the issue, but is there not a problem
where l
On Sun, Jan 26, 2025 at 6:26 PM Björn Persson wrote:
> If I correct a typo in a comment, I should bump the release and cause
> churn on build servers and mirrors, even though nothing at all changes
> in the binary package?
I do worry about server/storage usage, but in
my more innocent years I ha
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 11:28 PM Frank Crawford
wrote:
>
> Folks,
>
> Do we have any documentation or policies on how to convert an existing
> package (in this case logwatch) from using cron to using systemd
> timers?
>
> While it isn't too hard to fix up the spec file, the main thing I'm
> worrie
On Sat, Jan 25, 2025 at 11:05 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> Updated diff:
> Zbyszek
I have a preference for seeing packages follow
the current packaging guidelines (that I can find)
that say:
Create a .sysusers file with the user definition and
add it to the specfile as a sourc
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 10:44 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> So if you see packages that *change* (either their dependencies, or
> their contents - but ignoring codegen differences with new compiler
> versions etc.) between the last build before the mass rebuild and the
> build performed during the
On Wed, Jan 8, 2025 at 2:13 PM Chuck Anderson wrote:
> The policy as written also says to check the vacation calendar, so if you had
> marked yourself "away" on the calendar that would have perhaps avoided
> getting to the next step:
It can be a very bad idea to publicly document
when you are
On Sun, Dec 29, 2024 at 11:13 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 16/12/2024 21:43, Aoife Moloney via devel-announce wrote:
> >> removed support for GPU Generations prior to the
> >> 12th Gen GPUs. This effectively means that any hardware released
> >> befor
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 9:08 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Let me be clear - FESCo is *not* usurping CoC responsibilities.
From the currently available public information,
I disagree(*), but I trust the Council will
eventually review and clarify (as they seem to
have agreed to do).
Gary
(*) T
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 10:03 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2024-12-16 at 15:42 -0500, David Cantrell wrote:
> > We neglected to make available the facts behind our decision quickly (In
> > some cases we were dealing with situations where reporters wanted to remain
> > anonymous
>
> This
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 9:17 PM Leigh Scott wrote:
>
> I have already withdrawn my FESCo election votes as I don't think any of the
> candidates are fit to rule.
> --
Until we have an independent review of
what individuals knew, and when did they
know it, and what actions they took (or
did not t
On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 7:28 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
> I'm not sure today of everything we need to do to make things right, but the
> Council will work this week on immediate actions before the holiday, and
> then longer-term in January.
Thank you for the update. I was especially
concerned abo
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 10:18 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> In "the spirit of transparency":
> FESCo agreed that a public ticket with a summary of the discussion in
> the private ticket should be filed, it just hasn't happened yet.
It is unclear, from that statement, whether it was
intended to cre
On Mon, Dec 16, 2024 at 2:27 PM ttys3 wrote:
>
> MariaDB 11.6.2 is a Stable (GA) release.
> https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb-11-6-2-release-notes/
>
It is also a short term rolling release, with no
future fixes available, and you are expected to
upgrade to the next rolling 11.7 release (whic
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 1:33 AM Josh Stone wrote:
On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 1:33 AM Josh Stone wrote:
> As a result of more than a month of debate in the latest
> private FESCo ticket on his conduct, the Committee voted – seven in
> favor, two against – to remove Peter from the provenpackager gr
On Wed, Nov 27, 2024 at 12:43 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> Does anyone have a preference here, or other comments on this plan?
Separate source package, given all the ways
qemu dependencies seem to be entwined all
over the place.
I am not sure I love the macro names, but
a rose is still a rose
On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 12:41 AM Ryan Bach via devel
wrote:
>
> https://release-monitoring.org/project/1887/
> 11.7.1
11.5, 11.6, and 11.7 are rolling/development
releases.
11.4(.4) is an LTS release, and would likely
be the next alternative version target for some
future package.
I would expec
On Sun, Nov 10, 2024 at 3:19 PM Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
> For updates, the term "karma" is used as the sum of all karma|feedback
> submitted by users, so I plan to rename this to "rating".
I dislike the term rating. Maybe just remove
the term karma, and simply count the thumbs
(stable by
On Fri, Sep 13, 2024 at 3:40 PM Ron Olson wrote:
>
> Hey all, I think I remember that I’d get an email when a build submitted to
> koji completed, regardless of whether it was scratch or not. Am I remembering
> that correctly and if so, is it still possible to get them?
>
> Thanks for any info!
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 3:34 PM Petr Pisar wrote:
> You want to contact xorg-x11-util-macros component owner.
xorg-x11-util-macros was in CRB in EL9, but is
no longer available in (future) EL10. The OP
will need to open a bugzilla to request an
EPEL10 branch and build for the package
by the pac
On Mon, Sep 2, 2024 at 10:21 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> In case you hit dependency issues, please report it against the appropriate
> package.
The only problem I get is:
Error:
Problem: package python3-fb-re2-1.0.7-18.fc41.x86_64 from fedora
requires libre2.so.9()(64bit), but none of the prov
On Sat, Aug 10, 2024 at 10:42 PM Carl George wrote:
>
> Happy packaging!
>
I have noted that some dependencies for some
of my packages are (apparently) no longer
going to be shipped in EL10 (they were in
EL9).
Before I request the branches and builds
in EPEL10, I would like to make sure those
p
On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 8:36 AM Frank R Dana Jr. wrote:
>
> Also, a yea/nay on whether I've correctly understood this point:
>
> > So, does that mean that remote keyrings should be listed at their source
> > URL,
> > BUT the `gpgkey-` file at that URL should be manually downloaded and
> > `git ad
On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 8:26 AM Frank R Dana Jr. wrote:
> I'd be happy to. (Believe me, the Edit button is _always_
> my first choice.) But the issue here is, unless we
> want to tell packagers to use Seahorse to retrieve
> upstream keys (and I'm assuming we don't), I don't
> know what to tell th
On Sun, Aug 25, 2024 at 1:46 AM Frank R Dana Jr. wrote:
> But a Seahorse-based graphical search and import isn't really
> practical for packager workflows in general, and holy smokes
> was the documentation almost no help at all in actually
> guiding me to the finish line here.
I would agree tha
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 6:18 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> For what it's worth, I don't believe that this process will work well.
> I'm all for democracy, but direct democracy without compulsory voting
> inevitably leads to "grievance-based voting", where the majority of
> folks ignore the discus
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:38 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> And this one is yet another case of FESCo rubberstamping a change without
> even any dissenting vote despite loads of negative mailing list feedback.
How can one determine "loads"? Since the
feedback itself is opt-in, no statistic
On Wed, Jul 24, 2024 at 12:23 AM Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
> I believe qt5-qtwebkit uses python3 for builds
> (I believe the qt4 variant does use python2,
> but a quick repoquery indicates no fedora
> package depends on qtwebkit-devel, although
> I admit the query may have been wrong
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 10:30 PM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
>
> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > #3244 Change: Retire Python 2.7
> > https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3244
> > APPROVED (+8, 0, 0)
>
> This is going to break the build of a whole bunch of compatibility packages,
> which will in
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 8:55 AM Clemens Lang wrote:
> However, we should still consider the effect this will have on developers
> that build software on Fedora — they will also have to specify
> -DOPENSSL_NO_ENGINE now or see failing builds, and we don’t really see that
> impact until 41 relea
On Mon, Jul 22, 2024 at 11:35 AM Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
> So I wonder if it's worth changing the engine deprecation mechanism in
> Fedora to the one we have in CentOS and if yes, what is the mechanism
> for such a change.
I think you are free to submit a (very) late change
request, but changin
On Sat, Jul 6, 2024 at 7:03 PM Marc Deop i Argemí
wrote:
> Most users will just click on "Yes" without really comprehending what they
> are doing. And you _know_ this.
With no default provided, the most likely
response may very well depend on the
exact phrasing of the prompt (as few
would be ex
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 2:22 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
> I would prefer this one since I can use open source applications to
> generate these codes. I can't find any FIDO2 implementations that are
> completely open source which doesn't require proprietary technologies
> like TPM or SGX.
On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 5:48 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> If we decide that this is a good idea, we might be able to get funding to
> distribute these to all proven packagers (and perhaps more).
>
FD: I am *strongly* in favor of FIDO2 support.
As I recall from a previous query, there are
(aroun
On Mon, Jun 24, 2024 at 6:02 PM Alexander Bokovoy wrote:
> BTW, the cheapest and verified to work with Fedora USB token I was able
> to find is T2F2-NFC-Slim from Token2.eu:
> https://www.token2.eu/shop/product/token2-t2f2-nfc-slim-fido2-u2f-and-totp-security-key
When I was looking for "cheap",
On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 11:51 AM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> If you mean Extended Page Table here
Yes, I used a shorthand term, since I am apparently
too steeped in the architectural details.
> I don't know any way to tell if my Cedar View Atom D2550 CPU from 2012
> supports it or n
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 8:39 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
> * I suspect more of the hardware that don't support -v2 have failed
> out of use naturally
Due to product line feature differentiation there
are more recent -v1 hardware than the aforementioned
roughly 2008 date, but the one pre-nehalem -v1 sys
On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 3:52 PM Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Stephen Gallagher said:
> > three) and recommend creation of a Fedora "Hardware Life Extension"
> > Remix that can provide rebuilds of (a subset of) Fedora that they want
> > to run on ancient hardware.
>
> TBH I feel that a
On Wed, Jun 19, 2024, 11:33 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
Another option is to package the nvidia-kmod-open module into Fedora and
> sign it with Fedora key.
>
> Starting with version 555, nvidia-kmod-open will be the default option.
>
As I recall, only the defa
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 1:35 AM Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
> But it is the ONLY approach that is compatible with Fedora policies, and as
> such should be required. ESPECIALLY for a package like QEMU that many people
> are using.
Please provide your audited (by a 3rd party) data that shows
tha
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 6:08 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> But it
> would at least buy us some time so that we don't end up with the
> "surprise, you can't use this release on your hardware if you want to
> use QEMU!" situation.
Since we don't have complete instrumentation, we
really don't know ho
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 3:50 PM Ben Cotton wrote:
> Neither "Functional" nor "eFficient" are in the Fedora Foundations,
> but in general, I think we should prefer the former over the latter.
> It's better for the project overall to be a little less efficient than
> it could be than to surprise pe
On Sun, May 26, 2024 at 8:15 AM Byoungchan Lee via devel
wrote:
>
> While this is okay
> for Google, as they likely have a license agreement with other patent
> holders
>
While I do not think it has ever been officially
confirmed, it has been widely conjectured that
Google just pays the maxi
On Fri, May 3, 2024 at 9:40 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> The current change
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_4
>
> is planned to be the last one. At the end of this phase - scheduled to
> 2024-08-06 - we plan to mark this conversion as "done". My estimation is that
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 6:11 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
> Just eyeballing the prediction graph in the Google doc, it looks like the
> linear approximation is distorted by the big drop in "non-trivial" last
> September. And, the slope for "converted" is pretty steep before that, but
> significantly f
On Thu, May 2, 2024 at 6:14 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
> I don't believe GNOME Software enforces this. (There was some debate about
> whether doing two updates in a row was really useful, if I remember.) That
> may be a big source of pain.
As I recall, *much* of the time it does not matter, but
if
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 4:38 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
> Both of my LLVM dependent packages: iwyu and pocl. On every LLVM major
> release they break and I have to wait for the upstream to release a new
> version.
I would hope that there are more examples than O(1),
as processes should n
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:25 PM Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho
wrote:
> Considering that LLVM releases usually happen very late in Fedora's
> development cycle, if the default LLVM version is changed, packages may
> start to FTBFS very late in the development cycle if they buildrequire
> the de
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:44 AM Fabio Valentini wrote:
> No, this will make a Release like 2.1.fc40 - which is not what's
> needed (which would be 1.fc40.1).
> So it doesn't work because -e adds a component *before* the dist-tag,
> *and* because the main number is still incremented.
Since [.min
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 11:35 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 10:27:26AM +0200, Julian Sikorski wrote:
>
> > I know this is just a cosmetic issue, but choices made by the
> > primary maintainers should be respected IMO.
>
> I agree in general, but sometimes if you're makin
On Mon, Apr 22, 2024 at 12:15 PM Josef Řídký wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> this is in advance notice about the upcoming rebase of the openexr package in
> Fedora Rawhide and f40.
>
I note that there is a patent clause which
allows DreamWorks to revoke the patent
grants under some conditions for the
l
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 9:41 PM Adam Williamson
wrote:
>
> Michel Lind just prompted me to notice that the 'network' service
> appears to have been removed from initscripts in Fedora 40+.
> Should this have been a Change? How worried are we about it going out
> in Fedora 40 without having b
On Fri, Apr 12, 2024 at 4:05 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, if FESCo decided we wanted to enforce 2fa for provenpackagers or
> whatever, right now that would require some work on some scripting,
> which I guess would remove people without otp? But then there would
> still be a window when the user w
On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 8:44 AM Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I sometimes think how hard it would be to explain all of this to my
> mother. I don't understand why 2FA needs to be so obscure and clumsy
> to use.
FIDO2 (Apple branded[0] as "passkeys") is
not that hard to use, or explain. The probl
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 1:10 AM Kilian Hanich via devel
wrote:
> 2FA in a lot of cases is just access to a different account (e.g. email
> or even SMS) and these normally aren't unique. Sure, there are other
> ways like FIDO2, but these are not necessarily used (or liked, quite
> frankly I know a
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 2:26 PM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
>
> On 08/04/2024 14:47, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> > It is already supposed to be default / preferred since this Fedora 38
> > Change:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
>
> I find that quite interesting be
On Sun, Apr 7, 2024 at 3:23 PM Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 07. 04. 24 v 5:15 odp. Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek napsal(a):
>
> I think it's time to switch to rpmautospec completely.
>
> -1 from me.
>
> While I enjoy simplicity of rpmautospec in some of my packages.
>
> I have bunch of packages whe
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:12 PM Dmitry Belyavskiy wrote:
> Third-party engines may be a problem but as we don't break ABI, it's not a
> problem of the moment.
The fact you are removing the headers means it is
a problem for 3rd party engines who build from
source (and everyone should at least occ
On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 9:17 PM Matthew Miller wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 01, 2024 at 05:47:10PM +, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > It does bring up a potential point that perhaps
> > Fedora should have an additional repo (let's
> > call it "emergency fixes") tha
1 - 100 of 408 matches
Mail list logo
