So at this week's blocker review meeting, the fact that we don't have
explicit networking requirements in the release criteria really started
to bite us. In the past we have squeezed networking-related issues in
under other criteria, but for some issues that's really difficult,
notably VPN issues. So, we agreed we should draft some explicit
This turns out to be a big area and quite hard to cover (who'd've
thought!), but here is at least a first draft for us to start from. My
proposal would be to add this to the Basic criteria. I have left out
some wikitext stuff from the proposal for clarity; I'd add it back in
on actually applying the proposed changes. It's just formatting stuff,
nothing that'd change the meaning. Anyone have thoughts, complaints,
alternative approaches, supplements? Thanks!
=== Network requirements ===
Each of these requirements apply to both installer and installed system
environments. For any given installer environment, the 'default network
configuration tools' are considered to be those the installer documents
as supported ways to configure networking (e.g. for anaconda-based
environments, configuration via kernel command line options, a
kickstart, or interactively in anaconda itself are included).
==== Basic networking ====
It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections
using DHCP and static addressing. The default network configuration
tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops must work well
enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations
without major workarounds. Standard network functions such as address
resolution and connections with common protocols such as ping, HTTP and
ssh must work as expected.
Footnote titled "Supported hardware": Supported network hardware is
hardware for which the Fedora kernel includes drivers and, where
necessary, for which a firmware package is available. If support for a
commonly-used piece or type of network hardware that would usually be
present is omitted, that may constitute a violation of this criterion,
after consideration of the [[Blocker_Bug_FAQ|hardware-dependent-
issues|normal factors for hardware-dependent issues]]. Similarly,
violations of this criteria that are hardware or configuration
dependent are, as usual, subject to consideration of those factors when
determining whether they are release-blocking
==== VPN connections ====
Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for
release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working
connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc-supported
VNC servers with typical configurations.
Footnote title "Supported servers and configurations": As there are
many different VPN server applications and configurations, blocker
reviewers must use their best judgment in determining whether
violations of this criterion are likely to be encountered commonly
enough to block a release, and if so, at which milestone. As a general
principle, the more people are likely to use affected servers and the
less complicated the configuration required to hit the bug, the more
likely it is to be a blocker.
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
I have the yarrow's iso files on my HD in a RH9 system. Let's say I want
to upgrade selected packages using an "apt-get install" pointing to my
iso-mounted files, how do I do it?
i.e I mount the iso into some /mnt/yarrow1, /mnt/yarrow 2 etc..
Then what is the complete procedure to make my apt look into my own HD to
upgrade packages. Can anybody redirect me to the correct
resource or some literature hanging on the web? Thanks.
Assume also that I do not wish to burn CDs! I do not want to use
With kind regards,
Singapore Synchrotron Light Source (SSLS)
5 Research Link,
Email: slsbdfc at nus dot edu dot sg \or\
didierbe at sps dot nus dot edu dot sg
== Summary ==
Make iptables-nft the preferred iptables variant.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:psutter| Phil Sutter]]
* Email: psutter(a)redhat.com
== Detailed Description ==
<code>iptables-nft</code> package provides alternative implementations of
iptables, ip6tables, ebtables and arptables and associated save and restore
commands. These use nftables internally while providing the same look'n'feel as
the original tools. Users may choose between both implementations using
Upstream considers the traditional implementations legacy and therefore renamed
the binaries adding '-legacy' suffix. In Fedora, same has been done to
<code>arptables</code> and <code>ebtables</code> packages, namely renaming them
to <code>arptables-legacy</code> and <code>ebtables-legacy</code>. Legacy
<code>iptables</code> and <code>ip6tables</code> remain in
<code>iptables</code> package, which in fact is the only one other packages
To change the status quo, two measures are planned:
=== Raise priority of nft-variants in <code>alternatives</code> ===
Currently, legacy variants are installed with priority 10 and nft
variants with priority 5. This must be changed as otherwise installing
<code>iptables-legacy</code> in a system with
<code>iptables-nft</code> installed would change the active
alternative (since they are in automatic mode by default).
On the other hand, existing systems using legacy variants should not
be changed by a system update. Therefore nft variants' priorities
should be chosen to match legacy ones.
=== Rename <code>iptables</code> package ===
New name should be <code>iptables-legacy</code> which aligns with
ebtables and arptables and reflects upstream status. To resolve
dependencies, <code>Provides: iptables</code> statement will be added
to <code>iptables-nft</code> package. This should automatically change
the default variant to nft.
== Benefit to Fedora ==
* RHEL8 ships nft-variants exclusively, make Fedora align with that by
default while still providing the option to fall back to legacy tools.
* New features and improvements are likely to hit nft-variants due to
the possibility nftables backend allows for. Although at this point
some legacy features (e.g. ebtables among match) are still missing,
others are already there (like, e.g. xtables-monitor tool) or are
being upstreamed right now (improved tool performance when dealing
with large rulesets).
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
Changes are rather simple: Rename <code>iptables</code> package, add
<code>Provides:</code> line to <code>iptables-nft</code> package,
change priorities used when calling <code>alternatives</code>.
* Other developers: N/A
The changed tools may cause regressions among packages using them and
it affects only new installations (or those manually switched over).
So while no explicit effort is required from them, they should be made
aware of the change so they take a possible regression in iptables
into account, quickly test against legacy variant and file a ticket
(or complain to the right person) if that fixes the problem.
* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8934 #8934]
* Policies and guidelines: No change required
* Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change)
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
Due to the package rename and <code>Provides:</code> line, upgrades will pull
in <code>iptables-nft</code> package. But due to the equal alternatives
priorities, existing choices won't be changed and so existing installations
shouldn't be harmed (apart from forced installation of
Sadly, there are a few known issues, like e.g. missing support for ebtables
broute table or among match and a few iptables targets/matches. Users depending
on such features are advised to install <code>iptables-legacy</code> package
and switch variants using <code>alternatives</code>.
== How To Test ==
Any users of iptables/ebtables/arptables should switch to nft-variants using
alternatives tool (if necessary) and check that everything works as before. Any
issues should be reported despite the known compatibility issues described
above since knowledge about who uses the missing features is valuable
information for both up- and downstream.
== User Experience ==
Ideally look'n'feel shouldn't change. Since iptables-nft does not need a lock
file anymore, no problems with stale xtables-lock or parallel iptables calls in
different mount namespaces are expected anymore. Given the changes currently
being upstreamed, users dealing with large rulesets should see a performance
increase when manipulating the ruleset (lower run-times of iptables or
iptables-restore, packet processing speed should not really change).
== Dependencies ==
Other packages depending on iptables:
Since nft-variants are supposed to be drop-in replacements, no outside
contribution is needed in order to perform this change.
== Contingency Plan ==
* Contingency mechanism: Nothing needs to be done, the change should
* Contingency deadline: N/A
* Blocks release? No
== Documentation ==
* Man pages:
** [http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/xtables-nft.8.html xtables-nft.8]
** [http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/xtables-legacy.8.html xtables-legacy.8]
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
There is a proposal in upstream GlusterFS to drop 32-bit arches.
The original proposal was to drop 32-bit with GlusterFS-7. GlusterFS-7 will
land in Fedora 31/rawhide soon. More than likely though it will not be
official until GlusterFS-8, which will probably land, accordingly, after
Fedora 31 GA in Fedora 32/rawhide.
This past weekend I finally decided to jump off the cliff and attempt
to re-launch the Java SIG. It seems there's some interest in keeping
the Java stack maintained, it's just not focused or organized right
What we did when starting the Stewardship SIG seems to have worked out
pretty well, so I'm trying to follow in those footsteps here:
- new proper FAS / pkgdb group: java-maint-sig ("java-sig" is occupied
by an old, unused bot account)
- new private mailing list: java-maint-sig (for RHBZ bugs - so,
possibly, also CVEs - hence, private)
- tracking project on pagure: https://pagure.io/java-maint-sig (for
maintenance scripts, tracking tickets, awesome package dashboards,
There's already a public fedora mailing list for Java (java-devel),
and and IRC channel (#fedora-java on freenode.net), which we will
continue to use. Sadly, the existing wiki page for the Java SIG is
hopelessly outdated, so I'm tempted to just scrap it and point readers
to the pagure tracking project once it's set up beyond a basic README
Major upcoming projects for the "new" Java Package Maintainers group include:
- managing OpenJDK 11 / Java 11 transition for hundreds of Java
packages in fedora 33
- starting to transition well-maintained Java packages from the
Stewardship SIG back into Java SIG
- possibly porting packages from gradle to maven to fix build issues
and broken dependencies
- transitioning from old java.net / JavaEE projects to the new ones
now under the eclipse-ee4j umbrella
I know that - among others - the PKI team, Neuro SIG, and Eclipse
maintainers depend on parts of the java stack for their packages, so I
hope that we can work together with them on these things, as well.
So, if you're interested, please consider joining this group effort.
I'll get new members set up with the FAS group / pagure project / mailing list.
Let's make this happen.
I just git a "broken dependencies" notice for a package that I maintain.
The reason is that "pdftk" got retired just the other day.
I may have missed a corresponding post on fedora-devel, but I think a
heads up notice to maintainers of depending packages may be in order
before you retire a package, as a general idea.
You see, unretiring a package is so much more work than changing
As for pdftk: I see 2 failed builds for version 1.45 and none for the
current version 2.02 (which probably breaks the api anyways). What are
the plans? Retire pdftk completely? Start fresh with pdftk2?
pdflabs, the maker of pdftk, provide binary as well as source rpms for
pdftk 2.02, by the way. I might even look into packaging it but don't
want to duplicate any existing efforts.
I plan to update assimp from 3.3.1 to the latest release (5.0.1) in
rawhide this week. The following packages will be affected:
I will take care of the rebuilds and any fallout/updates that need to
Given Hans proposal  introduced systemd/grub2/Gnome upstream changes
it beg the question if now would not be the time to stop supporting
booting in legacy bios mode and move to uefi only supported boot which
has been available on any common intel based x86 platform since atleast
Now in 2017 Intel's technical marketing engineer Brian Richardson
revealed in a presentation that the company will require UEFI Class 3
and above as in it would remove legacy BIOS support from its client and
datacenter platforms by 2020 and one might expect AMD to follow Intel in
So Intel platforms produced this year presumably will be unable to run
32-bit operating systems, unable to use related software (at least
natively), and unable to use older hardware, such as RAID HBAs (and
therefore older hard drives that are connected to those HBAs), network
cards, and even graphics cards that lack UEFI-compatible vBIOS (launched
before 2012 – 2013) etc.
This post is just to gather feed back why Fedora should still continue
to support legacy BIOS boot as opposed to stop supporting it and
potentially drop grub2 and use sd-boot instead.
Share your thoughts and comments on how such move might affect you so
feedback can be collected for the future on why such a change might be
bad, how it might affect the distribution and scope of such change can
be determined for potential system wide proposal.