I like to have everything on my system in a package. So, I looked around and
found no recipe or rpm for Rstudio. This is really a shame because every
tutorial on R kinda tells you to install it. Even the Coursera classes in the
Data Science track make you install it and send a screenshot to prove it.
So, I spent some time getting it packaged and working. I am placing the spec
file and necessary patch here so that google finds it and saves other people the
trouble. I'm not wanting to submit the package to Fedora because its more work
than I have time for. If anyone else wants to take it from here and submit
and/or maintain it, feel free.
since last Monday or so, I have been able to run firefox over ssh
anymore. I thought it was my setup, but further investigation showed
that it is something specific to firefox.
My setup is a bit more convoluted than this, but I am able to do:
$ ssh -X localhost gnome-terminal
And it shows a terminal as expected
$ ssh -X localhost firefox
Without a firefox running will hang there forever, no output at all. I
tried doing strace of it, and see that is waiting for futexes. But
haven't been able to see what is happening.
Until last Tuesday or so (I am on F23) firefox worked over ssh without
any problems. I have been running it like that for something like a
Anyone has any suggestion? I tried also
$ ssh -Y localhost firefox
And it didn't helped at all (not that I am sure of the difference either).
PD. Really, what I normally do is run ssh to a virtual manchine in the
I just ran into this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309175
It's not a huge deal (and there are several workarounds, for git and for
other tools which default ot using 'gpg'), but it highlights the mismatch
between the default /usr/bin/gpg running gpg1, when other tools, like
gpg-agent, are tailored for gpg2.
RHEL/CentOS has shipped /usr/bin/gpg with gnupg2 since at least sometime in
I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to ship gnupg1, but can we at least
rename it, so gnupg package is version 2, and gnupg1 provides /usr/bin/gpg1
instead? This seems overdue. Is there any reason not to do this?
With the 4.5 kernel out and the merge window for 4.6 opened up, we had
to make a decision on what the release kernel for F24 would be. The
decision has been made to ship F24 with the 4.5 kernel with 4.6
available as an update once it is ready. Timing wise, 4.6 *should*
release just before the final freeze for F24, but that is cutting it
insanely close. Should Fedora move on as scheduled, and 4.6 have some
delay due to a bug that impacts users, that would be unfortunate.
This means we have a good bit of time to make sure that everything is
working as intended with 4.5 in Fedora. It also means that any
installer critical fixes will need to be backported to 4.5.
I'd like to package osgaudio, which is an OpenSceneGraph-like frontend
It is currently maintained by OpenSceneGraph's main author at:
It requires and contains openalpp, a C++ frontend for OpenAL.
We haven't shipped openalpp since Fedora 7.
The original project for openalpp hasn't been updated since 2005 or so.
I've searched for a better fork of openalpp and haven't found any.
My proposal is to install openalpp alongside osgaudio, in separate
subpackages with appropriate Requires. That way, we provide a choice
between a C++ interface to OpenAL or a SceneGraph approach to 3D
I believe this approach is not in violation of:
as osgaudio and openalpp would live in separate packages (built from
the same srpm), in effect both becoming system libraries.
Any comment very much welcome.
Over the past week, we've been dealing with a kernel bug that
prevents i686 machines from booting. Help was requested and given,
and it has been excellent and most welcome. This email has no
reflection on that, and is instead focused on the reality of where
i686 stands today.
In February we sent out an email highlighting that the kernel team
was not going to treat i686 bugs as a priority. Since that time, we
have held true to our word and have not focused on fixing i686 bugs at
all. It seems that the wider community is also treating i686
similarly. The kernel bug that was made automatic blocker because of
existing criteria was present in Fedora since the 4.1-rc6 kernel,
which was released May 31. It has been in every boot.iso created
since that date. Not a single person reported this issue until last
week. That is a timespan of two months.
The kernel team has autotesting for i686 kernels, but the environment
there does not utilize boot.iso so it did not detect this. The QA
team has automated testing for some of this, but nothing for the i686
architecture at all. It is not a priority there either.
Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
treat it as a release blocking architecture. This is not the same as
demotion to secondary architecture status. That has broader
implications in both buildsys and ecosystem. My suggestion is
narrowly focused so that builds still proceed as today, but if there
is something broken for i686 it does not block the release of whatever
milestone we are pursuing.
(To be clear, I would support a move to secondary arch status for
i686, but I am not suggesting it at this time.)
Making i686 non-release blocking would actually match reality. None
of the Fedora Editions appear at all concerned with i686. Cloud is
demoting i686 from its offering. Workstation has been fairly
ambivalent about it and recommends x86_64. Server does the same.
Given the lack of focus on it, and the fact that the broader community
is not testing the development releases for i686, I believe this would
be a good first step.
I'll be updating gsl to 2.1 in Rawhide on Monday and rebuilding
dependent packages. See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276893 for some tracking
info. A fair amount of work was done to get everything ready for this
update, but there may be a couple stragglers.
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion(a)cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com
I am in the process of splitting the 'tc' utility off from iproute
package. The motivation for this comes from two things:
1) Due to it's xt/ipt action, tc depends on iptables.
2) iproute is part of the 'Core' group.
These two in combination lead to iptables being pulled into Core as a
dependency although not strictly necessary - tc is not necessary for
basic system functionality and ip itself works fine without.
So far I added a new 'tc' subpackage to iproute.spec which will contain
tc, all related binaries and configs and relevant man pages. This
package depends on a version of iproute which is greater than the last
release before the split, which should prevent conflicts when updating.
For user convenience though, I would appreciate if an iproute package
update from a pre-split version would automatically pull the tc
subpackage as well. Is this possible without adding a dependency from
'iproute' to 'iproute-tc' (which would defeat the purpose, of course)?
my ThinkPad X220 runs Fedora 23 with automatic updates, Chromium and
Spotify Copr. Up until Friday night, it worked just fine.
Friday afternoon the new Kernel 4.4.5 was installed. It was only loaded
on Saturday when I started the machine in the afternoon. I suspended the
laptop to RAM and found that it did not woke up. I only got this strange
The error (sadly) is 100% reproducible. I then went on and started with
the earlier kernels, 4.4.4 and 4.4.3, which worked fine before Friday.
(Thanks for keeping three kernels by default!) The error is just the
same, it does not wake up.
Then I also started a Kubuntu 15.04 from USB and had a slightly
different error. The machine would start the fan and the power light
would turn on, but the wifi was still off and the screen was black.
Using Arch Linux 2016.03.01 I was able to reproduce the error with
Kernel 4.4.1. Therefore I think it is not about the software any more.
This might be somewhere in the hardware or UEFI firmware.
In the discussion about systemd mounting efiwars read-write I read about
some bricked laptops by deleting the efivars. Is it possible that some
recent change (like Friday or Saturday) did something that could
potentially interfere with the suspend-to-RAM? A frind of mine who wants
to switch to Fedora wants to wait a bit as he has the same laptops and
fears that his might break as well.
The laptop is four years old and has been used all the time, I use it as
my desktop on a docking-station. Warranty has experied a year ago, so I
have to fix it myself with help. What can I do to get the system to wake
up normally again?