Hi all,
Regarding the inclusion of the fedora-workstation-repositories package in
F28, is there currently a policy in place against including it as a
dependency? From what I understand from the recent fedora magazine article
<https://fedoramagazine.org/third-party-repositories-fedora/> and the policy
wiki page
<https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Third_party_software_policies?rd…>,
the purpose of distributing the third-party repositories an rpm is to
ensure that a user must enable them explicitly.
Is there some some preventative measure in place to protect users from the
package being pulled in silently as a dependency? If repository-enabling
rpms are to become acceptable cases for package submissions, what
considerations are being taken to ensure such submissions are tracked and
handled similarly?
Apologies if this has been addressed before, but I haven't been able to
find any documentation on the subject.
Thanks,
DB
Hi,
I'm upgrading libicu to 61.1 for rawhide, which as usual comes with
a soname bump. I requested a side target f29-icu for the builds, I'll
ask Pete Walter (who already did it for 60.1) to help with rebuilding
the dependent packages, or another proven packager if he's not
available.
Eike
--
LibreOffice Calc developer. Number formatter stricken i18n transpositionizer.
GPG key 0x6A6CD5B765632D3A - 2265 D7F3 A7B0 95CC 3918 630B 6A6C D5B7 6563 2D3A
Care about Free Software, support the FSFE https://fsfe.org/support/?erack
I was recently surprised that `dnf install boost` brings in python2.
It is like that because boost brings in bost-python and that is python2
ATM. I've reported it as a bug, because it bugs me :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1569483
However Jonathan Wakely (the boost maintainer) says this needs broader
audience.
So I'm asking here on devel:
Should the 'boost' metapackage install boost-python at all? If so, what
versions?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
= Proposed Self Contained Change: Stop building 389-ds-base on i686 =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/389-ds-base-remove-686
Owner(s):
* Mark Reynolds <mreynolds at redhat dot com>
389-ds-base does not work properly on i686 hardware in regards to atomic types.
== Detailed description ==
389-ds project have found an issue which causes system instability on
all versions of 1.4.x of the server on i686 platform. This is a
hardware limitation of the platform related to how we consume atomic
types. This may lead to thread unsafety and other issues.
- FreeIPA server will not be available on i686 due to this
- slapi-nis set of plugins will not be available on i686 due to this
- Upgrade of i686 instance of Fedora with FreeIPA server will not be
possible without fully uninstalling FreeIPA replica
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
This only requires a change to spec file to exclude i686
* Other developers:
N/A (not a System Wide Change)
* Release engineering:
#6894: https://pagure.io/releng/issues/6894
** List of deliverables:
N/A (not a System Wide Change)
* Policies and guidelines:
N/A (not a System Wide Change)
* Trademark approval:
N/A (not needed for this Change)
--
Jan Kuřík
Platform & Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic
Hi all,
just wanted to let you know about trivial experiment [1] with systemd in
container. Non-privileged systemd can now pretty fine run in docker
container (tested on Fedora 27 box).
Could we support this under fedora-kickstarts, or as a layered image?
[1] https://github.com/praiskup/systemd-container
Pavel
Hi All,
I'm sending this to the fedora-kernel and -devel lists
both to get the kernel team aware of this and because it
is not entirely clear to me how to best deal with this.
I guess we should get this added to the release-notes /
common-bugs page for F28, but I'm not sure what the
procedure is for that ?
I've just become aware that at least for some users
the use of SATA LPM in F28 causes the Lenovo 50
series laptops (confirmed X250, T450s G50-80) freeze/
hang hard under certain conditions when using SATA
LPM, independent of the disk used (*).
This is currently being tracked in:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1571330
A known workaround is to add: "ahci.mobile_lpm_policy=0"
to the kernel boot command line.
Can someone help me to get this documented? Once we've
figured out what is going on I hope to be able to fix this
with a kernel update, but people may still need the
workaround to install Fedora 28.
Also if people are using Fedora 28 on a 50 series Lenovo
laptop without issues, please let me know. 3 independent
reports points to a common problem, but maybe there is
some other factor in play.
Regards,
Hans
*) So blacklisting disks by their model string which
is the normal way to workaround LPM issues does
not work.