GDM dropped support for running X11 sessions in F42 without a Change?

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

Hello!

It has been mentioned in various places [1][2] that GDM has dropped
support for running X11 session in F42. However, I cannot find the
corresponding Change in the F42 Change list [3]. Has this been done
without raising a Change? If yes, I'd argue that it should be reverted
and done in F43 with a proper Change.

[1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]/...
[2] https://lists.pagure.io/archives/list/[e-mail]/message/...
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/42/ChangeSet

Regards,
Dominik

[Kevin Kofler]

Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski via devel wrote:
> It has been mentioned in various places [1][2] that GDM has dropped
> support for running X11 session in F42. However, I cannot find the
> corresponding Change in the F42 Change list [3]. Has this been done
> without raising a Change? If yes, I'd argue that it should be reverted
> and done in F43 with a proper Change.

Note that this was a DOWNSTREAM Fedora change, upstream GDM still supports 
X11 sessions!

This crusade against X11 in Fedora needs to stop NOW!

Kevin Kofler

[Jared K. Smith]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 12:59 PM Kevin Kofler via devel <
[e-mail]> wrote:
> This crusade against X11 in Fedora needs to stop NOW!

I'm not involved in this change -- but I take exception to your language
here.  I don't see this as a "crusade" (to use your word), I see this as
the GDM maintainers making a choice to support one way of doing things
instead of two.  Calling it a "crusade" (and the implications that word
brings) doesn't help foster friendly communications or trust within Fedora.

-Jared

[Nishant Mishra]

Hey Kevin ,

Do you know you still can use X11 sessions on Gnome on Fedora by installing
the X Packages? This does not mean that X11 support has completely been
dropped !

Regards

Nishant Mishra

On Wed, 9 Apr, 2025, 10:50 pm Jared K. Smith, 
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 12:59 PM Kevin Kofler via devel <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > This crusade against X11 in Fedora needs to stop NOW!
>
> I'm not involved in this change -- but I take exception to your language
> here.  I don't see this as a "crusade" (to use your word), I see this as
> the GDM maintainers making a choice to support one way of doing things
> instead of two.  Calling it a "crusade" (and the implications that word
> brings) doesn't help foster friendly communications or trust within Fedora.
> -Jared
>
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Kevin Kofler]

Nishant Mishra wrote:
> Do you know you still can use X11 sessions on Gnome on Fedora by
> installing the X Packages? This does not mean that X11 support has
> completely been dropped !

Only by using an alternate display manager, and GNOME is known for not 
supporting some functionality if GDM is not the display manager being used 
(which is another issue, but not a new one, and not Fedora's fault).

Kevin Kofler

[Kevin Kofler]

Jared K. Smith wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 12:59 PM Kevin Kofler via devel <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
> > This crusade against X11 in Fedora needs to stop NOW!
>
> I'm not involved in this change -- but I take exception to your language
> here.  I don't see this as a "crusade" (to use your word), I see this as
> the GDM maintainers making a choice to support one way of doing things
> instead of two.  Calling it a "crusade" (and the implications that word
> brings) doesn't help foster friendly communications or trust within
> Fedora.

Maybe my choice of words was suboptimal. Please keep in mind that I am not a 
native English speaker. (But yes, it is true that I tend to use unfriendly 
wording when I get angry, and I apologize for that.)

The point I was trying to make is: The problem is that this is not just one 
package making a choice. It is part of a greater scheme. See the removal of 
X11 support from KDE Plasma (which I then reintroduced as packages built 
from separate SRPMs, something I am also suggesting people do for GDM), the 
constant messaging that "X11 is deprecated" (partly by the same people both 
for the KDE and GNOME changes), etc. The goal of the effort is clearly to 
force people to use Wayland instead of X11 because it is the personal 
preference of some packagers and some upstreams. And that is what I 
perceived as a "crusade".

Sorry if my use of that term has offended anybody here.

Kevin Kofler

[Nishant Mishra]

Kevin,

It's all good but then in Plasma also you can install X11 session

On Wed, 9 Apr, 2025, 11:08 pm Kevin Kofler via devel, <
[e-mail]> wrote:
> Jared K. Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2025 at 12:59 PM Kevin Kofler via devel <
> > [e-mail]> wrote:
> > > This crusade against X11 in Fedora needs to stop NOW!
> >
> > I'm not involved in this change -- but I take exception to your language
> > here.  I don't see this as a "crusade" (to use your word), I see this as
> > the GDM maintainers making a choice to support one way of doing things
> > instead of two.  Calling it a "crusade" (and the implications that word
> > brings) doesn't help foster friendly communications or trust within
> > Fedora.
>
> Maybe my choice of words was suboptimal. Please keep in mind that I am not
> a
> native English speaker. (But yes, it is true that I tend to use unfriendly
> wording when I get angry, and I apologize for that.)
>
> The point I was trying to make is: The problem is that this is not just
> one
> package making a choice. It is part of a greater scheme. See the removal
> of
> X11 support from KDE Plasma (which I then reintroduced as packages built
> from separate SRPMs, something I am also suggesting people do for GDM),
> the
> constant messaging that "X11 is deprecated" (partly by the same people
> both
> for the KDE and GNOME changes), etc. The goal of the effort is clearly to
> force people to use Wayland instead of X11 because it is the personal
> preference of some packagers and some upstreams. And that is what I
> perceived as a "crusade".
>
> Sorry if my use of that term has offended anybody here.
>     Kevin Kofler
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Kevin Kofler]

Nishant Mishra wrote:
> It's all good but then in Plasma also you can install X11 session

Yes, but only because *I* packaged kwin-x11 and plasma-workspace-x11 
separately and went through a long argument in the FESCo issue tracker with 
the KDE SIG trying to block me from introducing those 2 packages (despite 
previous public statements claiming they would not attempt to prevent that). 
Someone (a third party, not a KDE SIG member) even (unsuccessfully) tried 
appealing FESCo's decision to allow the packages (under some conditions) to 
the Council. I believe that these packages would not exist in Fedora today 
if it were not for me and my perseverance over this issue.

Kevin Kofler

[Marc Deop i Argemí]

On Wednesday, 9 April 2025 19:48:33 Central European Summer Time Kevin Kofler 
via devel wrote:
> Yes, but only because *I* packaged kwin-x11 and plasma-workspace-x11
> separately and went through a long argument in the FESCo issue tracker with
> the KDE SIG trying to block me from introducing those 2 packages (despite
> previous public statements claiming they would not attempt to prevent that).
> Someone (a third party, not a KDE SIG member) even (unsuccessfully) tried
> appealing FESCo's decision to allow the packages (under some conditions) to
> the Council. I believe that these packages would not exist in Fedora today
> if it were not for me and my perseverance over this issue.

Please, just stop. Your message definitely does not follow the Fedora Code of 
Conduct on different points.

You could have stopped at "Yes, but only because *I* packaged kwin-x11 and 
plasma-workspace-x11 separately" and you would have conveyed all the 
information that was needed.

Everything else is uncalled for.

[Peter Boy Uni]

> Am 24.04.2025 um 11:27 schrieb Marc Deop i Argemí :
>
> On Wednesday, 9 April 2025 19:48:33 Central European Summer Time Kevin Kofler 
> via devel wrote:
> > Yes, but only because *I* packaged kwin-x11 and plasma-workspace-x11
> > separately and went through a long argument in the FESCo issue tracker with
> > the KDE SIG trying to block me from introducing those 2 packages (despite
> > previous public statements claiming they would not attempt to prevent that).
> > Someone (a third party, not a KDE SIG member) even (unsuccessfully) tried
> > appealing FESCo's decision to allow the packages (under some conditions) to
> > the Council. I believe that these packages would not exist in Fedora today
> > if it were not for me and my perseverance over this issue.
>
> Please, just stop. Your message definitely does not follow the Fedora Code of 
> Conduct on different points.
>
> You could have stopped at "Yes, but only because *I* packaged kwin-x11 and 
> plasma-workspace-x11 separately" and you would have conveyed all the 
> information that was needed.
>
> Everything else is uncalled for.

Interesting. Could you perhaps elaborate on which of our standards (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/#_our_standards) this post violates?

--
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
[e-mail]

Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)

Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast

[Marc Deop i Argemí]

On Thursday, 24 April 2025 15:12:42 Central European Summer Time Peter Boy Uni 
wrote:
> Interesting. Could you perhaps elaborate on which of our standards
> (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/#_our_standar
> ds) this post violates?

- Not being kind to the KDE SIG
- Not being respectful to other viewpoints ( KDE SIG and others)
- Not focusing on what is best for the community ( this has already been dealt 
with, he and another contributor take every opportunity to bring this topic up 
)
-  Bringing controversy _again_ for an already dealt with topic
-  Repeatedly instigating conflict, and baiting people into arguments

While I understand 1 or 2 of the points my be subjective, others are very 
clear.

This thread was about an issue regarding GDM and X11 sessions. There is no 
need to bring up the topic of X11 support on KDE Fedora.

Funnily enough, I agree with the request to bring the X11 Gnome session as 
removing it should have been part of a change proposal.

Best regards,

[Neal Gompa]

On Thu, Apr 24, 2025 at 12:14 PM Marc Deop i Argemí
 wrote:
> On Thursday, 24 April 2025 15:12:42 Central European Summer Time Peter Boy Uni
> wrote:
> > Interesting. Could you perhaps elaborate on which of our standards
> > (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/#_our_standar
> > ds) this post violates?
> Not being kind to the KDE SIG
> Not being respectful to other viewpoints ( KDE SIG and others)
> Not focusing on what is best for the community ( this has already been dealt
>
> with, he and another contributor take every opportunity to bring this topic up
> )
> Bringing controversy _again_ for an already dealt with topic
> Repeatedly instigating conflict, and baiting people into arguments
>
> While I understand 1 or 2 of the points my be subjective, others are very
> clear.
>
> This thread was about an issue regarding GDM and X11 sessions. There is no
> need to bring up the topic of X11 support on KDE Fedora.
>
> Funnily enough, I agree with the request to bring the X11 Gnome session as
> removing it should have been part of a change proposal.

It was already restored as an update to F42:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-36e1759b84

[Peter Boy Uni]

> Am 09.04.2025 um 19:19 schrieb Jared K. Smith :
>
> but I take exception to your language here.  I don't see this as a "crusade" (to use your word), I see this as the GDM maintainers making a choice to support one way of doing things instead of two.  Calling it a "crusade" (and the implications that word brings) doesn't help foster friendly communications or trust within Fedora.

I'm not even involved in Fedora Desktops. I gave up on Fedora and Gnome years ago.

But I followed that discussion with interest. And there was in large parts nothing, absolutely nothing, of “friendly communication” or “trust within Fedora”. If I remember correctly, people from the SIG were excluded by majority vote. The term “crusade” is a fitting one. It was kind of “proselytizing”.

And fortunately I can sit back and watch the Fedora desktop drama unfold.

--
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
[e-mail]

Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)

Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast

[Nishant Mishra]

Kevin it's for GDM and I have used GDM with X11

On Thu, 10 Apr, 2025, 12:00 am Peter Boy Uni,  wrote:
> > Am 09.04.2025 um 19:19 schrieb Jared K. Smith <[e-mail]
> > :
> >
> > but I take exception to your language here.  I don't see this as a
>
> "crusade" (to use your word), I see this as the GDM maintainers making a
> choice to support one way of doing things instead of two.  Calling it a
> "crusade" (and the implications that word brings) doesn't help foster
> friendly communications or trust within Fedora.
>
> I'm not even involved in Fedora Desktops. I gave up on Fedora and Gnome
> years ago.
>
> But I followed that discussion with interest. And there was in large parts
> nothing, absolutely nothing, of “friendly communication” or “trust within
> Fedora”. If I remember correctly, people from the SIG were excluded by
> majority vote. The term “crusade” is a fitting one. It was kind of
> “proselytizing”.
>
> And fortunately I can sit back and watch the Fedora desktop drama unfold.
>
> --
> Peter Boy
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
> [e-mail]
>
> Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
>
> Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
> Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
> Java developer and enthusiast
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Nishant Mishra]

Peter Boy ,

In this case you are wrong 😒

I have been a Fedora Contributor since Last 3 years

On Thu, 10 Apr, 2025, 12:48 am Nishant Mishra, 
wrote:
> Kevin it's for GDM and I have used GDM with X11
>
> On Thu, 10 Apr, 2025, 12:00 am Peter Boy Uni,  wrote:
> > > Am 09.04.2025 um 19:19 schrieb Jared K. Smith <[e-mail]
> > > :
> > >
> > > but I take exception to your language here.  I don't see this as a
> >
> > "crusade" (to use your word), I see this as the GDM maintainers making a
> > choice to support one way of doing things instead of two.  Calling it a
> > "crusade" (and the implications that word brings) doesn't help foster
> > friendly communications or trust within Fedora.
> >
> > I'm not even involved in Fedora Desktops. I gave up on Fedora and Gnome
> > years ago.
> >
> > But I followed that discussion with interest. And there was in large
> > parts nothing, absolutely nothing, of “friendly communication” or “trust
> > within Fedora”. If I remember correctly, people from the SIG were excluded
> > by majority vote. The term “crusade” is a fitting one. It was kind of
> > “proselytizing”.
> >
> > And fortunately I can sit back and watch the Fedora desktop drama unfold.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Boy
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
> > [e-mail]
> >
> > Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
> >
> > Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
> > Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
> > Java developer and enthusiast
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > Do not reply to spam, report it:
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Eduard Lucena]

Can we go ahead in time and let kevin to create the gdm-x11 package? We
already know how this is going to be:

- The SIG is going to say they don't have bandwidth, hands or time to
support tickets with problems for x11
- Kevin and a lot of us that still use X11 are going to say that this
change is Fedora specific not upstream
- The SIG is going to say that they don't block
- The whole conversation is going too FESCo
- FESCo is going to rule that the SIG can't block anyone to do what FLOSS
is supposed to be.
- Packages are going to be done and added.

I can't understand what anyone's problem with X11 is. If you don't like it,
fine, don't use it, but stop trying to put it out of Fedora when there are
still people out there using it. Like us in the i3 SIG.

Best regards,

El mié, 9 abr 2025 a las 15:21, Nishant Mishra ()
escribió:
> Peter Boy ,
>
> In this case you are wrong 😒
>
> I have been a Fedora Contributor since Last 3 years
>
> On Thu, 10 Apr, 2025, 12:48 am Nishant Mishra, 
> wrote:
> > Kevin it's for GDM and I have used GDM with X11
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Apr, 2025, 12:00 am Peter Boy Uni,  wrote:
> > > > Am 09.04.2025 um 19:19 schrieb Jared K. Smith <
> > >
> > > [e-mail]>:
> > > > but I take exception to your language here.  I don't see this as a
> > >
> > > "crusade" (to use your word), I see this as the GDM maintainers making a
> > > choice to support one way of doing things instead of two.  Calling it a
> > > "crusade" (and the implications that word brings) doesn't help foster
> > > friendly communications or trust within Fedora.
> > >
> > > I'm not even involved in Fedora Desktops. I gave up on Fedora and Gnome
> > > years ago.
> > >
> > > But I followed that discussion with interest. And there was in large
> > > parts nothing, absolutely nothing, of “friendly communication” or “trust
> > > within Fedora”. If I remember correctly, people from the SIG were excluded
> > > by majority vote. The term “crusade” is a fitting one. It was kind of
> > > “proselytizing”.
> > >
> > > And fortunately I can sit back and watch the Fedora desktop drama
> > > unfold.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Boy
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
> > > [e-mail]
> > >
> > > Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
> > >
> > > Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
> > > Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
> > > Java developer and enthusiast
> > >
> > > --
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > > List Archives:
> > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > > Do not reply to spam, report it:
> > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> >
> > --
>
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 03:35:06PM -0400, Eduard Lucena wrote:
> Can we go ahead in time and let kevin to create the gdm-x11 package? We

Sure, if he wants to?

But I'll note that as far as I know, upstream plans to remove this in
the upcoming gnome cycle, so you would need to re-add it back and
maintain it.

Additionally, IMHO, this would only be very useful for X11 gnome
sessions, which... will increasingly be difficult I suspect.

If you aren't using gnome and want X11 sessions, you should have
switched to another display manager long ago. When gdm switched to
being a gnome session in the greeter... I'm not sure how many years ago
that was now.
> already know how this is going to be:
> The SIG is going to say they don't have bandwidth, hands or time to
>
> support tickets with problems for x11
> Kevin and a lot of us that still use X11 are going to say that this
>
> change is Fedora specific not upstream
> The SIG is going to say that they don't block
> The whole conversation is going too FESCo
> FESCo is going to rule that the SIG can't block anyone to do what FLOSS
>
> is supposed to be.
> Packages are going to be done and added.
>
> I can't understand what anyone's problem with X11 is. If you don't like it,
> fine, don't use it, but stop trying to put it out of Fedora when there are
> still people out there using it. Like us in the i3 SIG.

i3 uses lightdm, no? Just like Xfce does...

You're welcome to keep using X11 as long as folks are maintaining the
things you need, but if upstreams have made a technical decision to no
longer maintain something, your choices are to convince them to keep it
(I think we are long past that with X), fork things you need and
maintain them yourself, or move on.

I agree this could have been a change to raise awareness.

I'll note this change was made in september of last year in rawhide
from what I can see.

kevin

[Kevin Kofler]

Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 03:35:06PM -0400, Eduard Lucena wrote:
> > Can we go ahead in time and let kevin to create the gdm-x11 package? We
>
> Sure, if he wants to?

I do not currently have plans to introduce that package, though I would 
encourage people who care enough about GNOME to want that package to just go 
ahead and package it.
> I'll note this change was made in september of last year in rawhide
> from what I can see.

Well, the users who run Rawhide are typically early adopters eager to try 
out the latest&greatest bleeding edge, whereas the users who want to stick 
to X11 are typically the late adopters or non-adopters who just want to 
stick to what works and not be bothered with any unnecessary changes 
whatsoever. It is not surprising that the overlap is vanishingly small.

Kevin Kofler

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Wed, Apr 9 2025 at 05:51:00 PM -07:00:00, Kevin Fenzi 
 wrote:
> If you aren't using gnome and want X11 sessions, you should have
> switched to another display manager long ago. When gdm switched to
> being a gnome session in the greeter... I'm not sure how many years 
> ago
> that was now.

I think that would have been GNOME 3.2, so 14 years ago (before GNOME 
had any Wayland support).

[Eduard Lucena]

El mié, 9 abr 2025 a las 20:51, Kevin Fenzi () escribió:
> i3 uses lightdm, no? Just like Xfce does...

Yes, we do. Hopfully lightdm will continue supporting X11. <joke>Sadly
enough it's developed by cannonical</joke>

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Apr 09, 2025 at 03:35:06PM -0400, Eduard Lucena wrote:
> Can we go ahead in time and let kevin to create the gdm-x11 package? We
> already know how this is going to be:
> The SIG is going to say they don't have bandwidth, hands or time to
>
> support tickets with problems for x11
> Kevin and a lot of us that still use X11 are going to say that this
>
> change is Fedora specific not upstream
> The SIG is going to say that they don't block
> The whole conversation is going too FESCo
> FESCo is going to rule that the SIG can't block anyone to do what FLOSS
>
> is supposed to be.
> Packages are going to be done and added.

Yes, that sounds like an accurate description of how things would have gone,
had somebody started the process! But it seems that this window has
closed already, because of the decision to release F42 on Thursday. Reverting
the changes in Gnome would have required a respinning of the release
images and a delay of the release. I don't think we'd want to do that.
But even apart from that, even if this was raised sooner,
I would be against such a big change so late in the process anyway.

Two options have been floated:
- a separate gdm-x11 package: certainly an option, but a bit of work,
  and upstream might drop the X11 code anyway.
- switching to a different login manager. I think this option is better
  and has better long-term prospects. Folks who use X11 should make
  a recommendation what to switch to.

Zbyszek

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Fri, Apr 11, 2025 at 08:01:02AM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
...snip...
> Two options have been floated:
> a separate gdm-x11 package: certainly an option, but a bit of work,
> and upstream might drop the X11 code anyway.

I think thats a 's/might/will' ie, they are definitely saying they will.
> switching to a different login manager. I think this option is better
> and has better long-term prospects. Folks who use X11 should make
> a recommendation what to switch to.

If you want a gnome X11 session, you can use lightdm or the like, but
note that some functionality may be missing if you do. In particular in
the past (but I have not tested at all recently), screen locking may not
work (since it depended on the 'gdm' session being there).

kevin

[Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski]

On Friday, 11 April 2025 at 10:01, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
[...]
> Yes, that sounds like an accurate description of how things would have gone,
> had somebody started the process! But it seems that this window has
> closed already, because of the decision to release F42 on Thursday. Reverting
> the changes in Gnome would have required a respinning of the release
> images and a delay of the release. I don't think we'd want to do that.

An unapproved major change was done and yes, that is what should be
done.
> But even apart from that, even if this was raised sooner,
> I would be against such a big change so late in the process anyway.

Wait, what?! The unapproved change must be reverted as soon as possible.
Otherwise the Change process becomes a joke. The big change was done
without approval, so it doesn't matter if it was noticed late or not.
> Two options have been floated:
> a separate gdm-x11 package: certainly an option, but a bit of work,
> and upstream might drop the X11 code anyway.
> switching to a different login manager. I think this option is better
> and has better long-term prospects. Folks who use X11 should make
> a recommendation what to switch to.

No and no. GDM maintainer must take responsibility, even if applying the
unapproved change was unintentional, and revert it now.

Regards,
Dominik

[Frantisek Zatloukal]

I've opened a PR which restores gdm/X11 support at:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdm/pull-request/28#

It builds, I'll be able to test it in a few hours, but anybody is free and
welcome to give it a try once the scratch build finishes.

On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 10:22 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski via devel <
[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Friday, 11 April 2025 at 10:01, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> [...]
> > Yes, that sounds like an accurate description of how things would have
>
> gone,
> > had somebody started the process! But it seems that this window has
> > closed already, because of the decision to release F42 on Thursday.
>
> Reverting
> > the changes in Gnome would have required a respinning of the release
> > images and a delay of the release. I don't think we'd want to do that.
>
> An unapproved major change was done and yes, that is what should be
> done.
> > But even apart from that, even if this was raised sooner,
> > I would be against such a big change so late in the process anyway.
>
> Wait, what?! The unapproved change must be reverted as soon as possible.
> Otherwise the Change process becomes a joke. The big change was done
> without approval, so it doesn't matter if it was noticed late or not.
> > Two options have been floated:
> > a separate gdm-x11 package: certainly an option, but a bit of work,
> > and upstream might drop the X11 code anyway.
> > switching to a different login manager. I think this option is better
> > and has better long-term prospects. Folks who use X11 should make
> > a recommendation what to switch to.
>
> No and no. GDM maintainer must take responsibility, even if applying the
> unapproved change was unintentional, and revert it now.
>
> Regards,
> Dominik
> --
> Fedora   https://fedoraproject.org
> Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical universe
> that
> makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.
>         -- from "The Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Sérgio Basto]

On Tue, 2025-04-15 at 00:23 +0200, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
> I've opened a PR which restores gdm/X11 support
> at: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdm/pull-request/28#
>
> It builds, I'll be able to test it in a few hours, but anybody is
> free and welcome to give it a try once the scratch build finishes.

IMHO ,  that is the way that should work , revert the deletes, if
someone ask to and will maintain that , even if we have an approved
change request.

i.e. if someone want keep something in Fedora should be allowed to him
maintain it as long he maintain it (don't give the work to others) .

If we look to gtk , Fedora have gtk+ (1), gtk2 , becuase when we
propose to orphan that , someone step up and maintain them .
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 10:22 PM Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski via
> devel  wrote:
> > On Friday, 11 April 2025 at 10:01, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > wrote:
> > [...]
> > > Yes, that sounds like an accurate description of how things would
> > > have gone,
> > > had somebody started the process! But it seems that this window
> > > has
> > > closed already, because of the decision to release F42 on
> > > Thursday. Reverting
> > > the changes in Gnome would have required a respinning of the
> > > release
> > > images and a delay of the release. I don't think we'd want to do
> > > that.
> >
> > An unapproved major change was done and yes, that is what should be
> > done.
> > > But even apart from that, even if this was raised sooner,
> > > I would be against such a big change so late in the process
> > > anyway.
> >
> > Wait, what?! The unapproved change must be reverted as soon as
> > possible.
> > Otherwise the Change process becomes a joke. The big change was
> > done
> > without approval, so it doesn't matter if it was noticed late or
> > not.
> > > Two options have been floated:
> > > a separate gdm-x11 package: certainly an option, but a bit of
> > >
> > > work,
> > >    and upstream might drop the X11 code anyway.
> > > switching to a different login manager. I think this option is
> > >
> > > better
> > >    and has better long-term prospects. Folks who use X11 should
> > > make
> > >    a recommendation what to switch to.
> >
> > No and no. GDM maintainer must take responsibility, even if
> > applying the
> > unapproved change was unintentional, and revert it now.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dominik
> > -- 
> > Fedora   https://fedoraproject.org
> > Deep in the human unconscious is a pervasive need for a logical
> > universe that
> > makes sense. But the real universe is always one step beyond logic.
> >         -- from "The Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan

[Michael Catanzaro]

On Tue, Apr 15 2025 at 12:23:06 AM +02:00:00, Frantisek Zatloukal 
 wrote:
> I've opened a PR which restores gdm/X11 support at: 
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gdm/pull-request/28#
>
> It builds, I'll be able to test it in a few hours, but anybody is 
> free and welcome to give it a try once the scratch build finishes.

Workstation Working Group has agreed to accept this pull request. Note 
it is only targeting F42.

We will create a change proposal to justify the X11 removal in rawhide. 
I expect GNOME will remove the X11 support soon regardless of what 
Fedora chooses.

Michael

[Peter Boy Uni]

> Am 09.04.2025 um 21:20 schrieb Nishant Mishra :
>
> Peter Boy , 
> In this case you are wrong 😒 
> I have been a Fedora Contributor since Last 3 years

Sorry if my wording was imprecise. I wasn't referring to you or anyone in particular. I was referring to various discussions, mostly on Devel List. And I know Kevin's position on the subject (and some other controversies). And I sympathize with his pragmatic and including stance.

--
Peter Boy
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
[e-mail]

Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)

Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
Java developer and enthusiast

[Frantisek Zatloukal]

Proposed as F42 blocker to discuss more widely before releasing the
upcoming Fedora: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2358741

Thanks for raising and mentioning this!

[Nishant Mishra]

Hey Peter ,

What I meant is personally I haven't had any such issues with Fedora Board
which you have mentioned in my 3 years as a contributor. I totally
understand your point of view as well

Regards

On Thu, 10 Apr, 2025, 1:15 am Peter Boy Uni,  wrote:
> > Am 09.04.2025 um 21:20 schrieb Nishant Mishra :
> >
> > Peter Boy ,
> > In this case you are wrong 😒
> > I have been a Fedora Contributor since Last 3 years
>
> Sorry if my wording was imprecise. I wasn't referring to you or anyone in
> particular. I was referring to various discussions, mostly on Devel List.
> And I know Kevin's position on the subject (and some other controversies).
> And I sympathize with his pragmatic and including stance.
>
> --
> Peter Boy
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
> [e-mail]
>
> Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
>
> Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
> Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
> Java developer and enthusiast
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Luis Correia]

An unimportant opinion from a User:

Wayland does not work reliably for me, using what I need to use (nVidia
binary drivers).
I'm feeling forced into something that I don't understand why and am
seriously thinking of just stop using Fedora.

I also understand that the world keeps moving forward and there's little I
can do to keep working things, well, working.

my 0.02€

Luis

On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 03:57, Nishant Mishra  wrote:
> Hey Peter ,
>
> What I meant is personally I haven't had any such issues with Fedora Board
> which you have mentioned in my 3 years as a contributor. I totally
> understand your point of view as well
>
> Regards
>
> On Thu, 10 Apr, 2025, 1:15 am Peter Boy Uni,  wrote:
> > > Am 09.04.2025 um 21:20 schrieb Nishant Mishra :
> > >
> > > Peter Boy ,
> > > In this case you are wrong 😒
> > > I have been a Fedora Contributor since Last 3 years
> >
> > Sorry if my wording was imprecise. I wasn't referring to you or anyone in
> > particular. I was referring to various discussions, mostly on Devel List.
> > And I know Kevin's position on the subject (and some other controversies).
> > And I sympathize with his pragmatic and including stance.
> >
> > --
> > Peter Boy
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
> > [e-mail]
> >
> > Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
> >
> > Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
> > Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
> > Java developer and enthusiast
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > Do not reply to spam, report it:
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Nishant Mishra]

Hey Luis ,

You can make Nvidia Work with Wayland you just need to dabble in terminal
and config files

On Thu, 10 Apr, 2025, 1:49 pm Luis Correia, 
wrote:
> An unimportant opinion from a User:
>
> Wayland does not work reliably for me, using what I need to use (nVidia
> binary drivers).
> I'm feeling forced into something that I don't understand why and am
> seriously thinking of just stop using Fedora.
>
> I also understand that the world keeps moving forward and there's little I
> can do to keep working things, well, working.
>
> my 0.02€
>
> Luis
>
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 03:57, Nishant Mishra 
> wrote:
> > Hey Peter ,
> >
> > What I meant is personally I haven't had any such issues with Fedora
> > Board which you have mentioned in my 3 years as a contributor. I totally
> > understand your point of view as well
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Apr, 2025, 1:15 am Peter Boy Uni,  wrote:
> > > > Am 09.04.2025 um 21:20 schrieb Nishant Mishra :
> > > >
> > > > Peter Boy ,
> > > > In this case you are wrong 😒
> > > > I have been a Fedora Contributor since Last 3 years
> > >
> > > Sorry if my wording was imprecise. I wasn't referring to you or anyone
> > > in particular. I was referring to various discussions, mostly on Devel
> > > List. And I know Kevin's position on the subject (and some other
> > > controversies). And I sympathize with his pragmatic and including stance.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Peter Boy
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
> > > [e-mail]
> > >
> > > Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
> > >
> > > Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
> > > Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
> > > Java developer and enthusiast
> > >
> > > --
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > > List Archives:
> > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > > Do not reply to spam, report it:
> > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > Do not reply to spam, report it:
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Luis Correia]

I've tired

but then I can't share screen with Teams, and get a lot of black areas when
doing a lot of stuff.

so, I gave up, no time to tinker with stuff that should just work, you
know, like X11 does

On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 14:22, Nishant Mishra  wrote:
> Hey Luis ,
>
> You can make Nvidia Work with Wayland you just need to dabble in terminal
> and config files
>
> On Thu, 10 Apr, 2025, 1:49 pm Luis Correia, 
> wrote:
> > An unimportant opinion from a User:
> >
> > Wayland does not work reliably for me, using what I need to use (nVidia
> > binary drivers).
> > I'm feeling forced into something that I don't understand why and am
> > seriously thinking of just stop using Fedora.
> >
> > I also understand that the world keeps moving forward and there's little
> > I can do to keep working things, well, working.
> >
> > my 0.02€
> >
> > Luis
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 03:57, Nishant Mishra 
> > wrote:
> > > Hey Peter ,
> > >
> > > What I meant is personally I haven't had any such issues with Fedora
> > > Board which you have mentioned in my 3 years as a contributor. I totally
> > > understand your point of view as well
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > On Thu, 10 Apr, 2025, 1:15 am Peter Boy Uni,  wrote:
> > > > > Am 09.04.2025 um 21:20 schrieb Nishant Mishra <[e-mail]
> > > > > :
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter Boy ,
> > > > > In this case you are wrong 😒
> > > > > I have been a Fedora Contributor since Last 3 years
> > > >
> > > > Sorry if my wording was imprecise. I wasn't referring to you or anyone
> > > > in particular. I was referring to various discussions, mostly on Devel
> > > > List. And I know Kevin's position on the subject (and some other
> > > > controversies). And I sympathize with his pragmatic and including stance.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Peter Boy
> > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Pboy
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > >
> > > > Timezone: CET (UTC+1) / CEST (UTC+2)
> > > >
> > > > Fedora Server Edition Working Group member
> > > > Fedora Docs team contributor and board member
> > > > Java developer and enthusiast
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > > > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > > > List Archives:
> > > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > > > Do not reply to spam, report it:
> > > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> > >
> > > --
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > > List Archives:
> > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > > Do not reply to spam, report it:
> > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > Do not reply to spam, report it:
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Michael Catanzaro]

So on the one hand, it seems a little petty for Fedora to disable X11 
support in gdm before upstream does. It's notably still enabled by 
default in upstream GNOME 48 and in git master.

On the other hand, if we're confident upstream is likely going to 
remove the X11 support relatively soon, then it seems reasonable to do 
this in Fedora first. I'm not sure that upstream actually has a 
concrete plan for this, though!

I suppose I don't have a very strong opinion here. If you're using 
GNOME on X11, that's surely going to stop working sooner or later 
regardless, and it's long past time for you to figure out a path 
forward. GNOME and Fedora Workstation both switched to Wayland by 
default in 2016; it's been 9 years now, a *really* long time to not be 
ready for this.

Michael

[Luis Correia]

A 'thing' existing for about 9 years only makes it 9 years old, doesn't
make it a good thing.

I would be ok of Fedora dropping it when upstream does it, not before!
no matter how much I like bleeding edge, this isn't the way to do it.

and I'll shut up now, I'm meaningless to this discussion
sorry all

On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 21:59, Michael Catanzaro 
wrote:
> So on the one hand, it seems a little petty for Fedora to disable X11
> support in gdm before upstream does. It's notably still enabled by
> default in upstream GNOME 48 and in git master.
>
> On the other hand, if we're confident upstream is likely going to
> remove the X11 support relatively soon, then it seems reasonable to do
> this in Fedora first. I'm not sure that upstream actually has a
> concrete plan for this, though!
>
> I suppose I don't have a very strong opinion here. If you're using
> GNOME on X11, that's surely going to stop working sooner or later
> regardless, and it's long past time for you to figure out a path
> forward. GNOME and Fedora Workstation both switched to Wayland by
> default in 2016; it's been 9 years now, a *really* long time to not be
> ready for this.
>
> Michael
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Nishant Mishra]

Hey Luis

Please let me know which Nvidia GPU are you using ?

Regards

Nishant

On Fri, 11 Apr, 2025, 2:45 am Luis Correia, 
wrote:
> A 'thing' existing for about 9 years only makes it 9 years old, doesn't
> make it a good thing.
>
> I would be ok of Fedora dropping it when upstream does it, not before!
> no matter how much I like bleeding edge, this isn't the way to do it.
>
> and I'll shut up now, I'm meaningless to this discussion
> sorry all
>
> On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 21:59, Michael Catanzaro 
> wrote:
> > So on the one hand, it seems a little petty for Fedora to disable X11
> > support in gdm before upstream does. It's notably still enabled by
> > default in upstream GNOME 48 and in git master.
> >
> > On the other hand, if we're confident upstream is likely going to
> > remove the X11 support relatively soon, then it seems reasonable to do
> > this in Fedora first. I'm not sure that upstream actually has a
> > concrete plan for this, though!
> >
> > I suppose I don't have a very strong opinion here. If you're using
> > GNOME on X11, that's surely going to stop working sooner or later
> > regardless, and it's long past time for you to figure out a path
> > forward. GNOME and Fedora Workstation both switched to Wayland by
> > default in 2016; it's been 9 years now, a *really* long time to not be
> > ready for this.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > Do not reply to spam, report it:
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Luis Correia]

Nishant,

it's a RTX3060

nvidia-smi
Thu Apr 10 22:24:00 2025
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| NVIDIA-SMI 570.133.07             Driver Version: 570.133.07     CUDA
Version: 12.8     |
|-----------------------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+
| GPU  Name                 Persistence-M | Bus-Id          Disp.A |
Volatile Uncorr. ECC |
| Fan  Temp   Perf          Pwr:Usage/Cap |           Memory-Usage |
GPU-Util  Compute M. |
|                                         |                        |
        MIG M. |
|=========================================+========================+======================|
|   0  NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3060        Off |   00000000:01:00.0  On |
           N/A |
|  0%   48C    P8             20W /  170W |     939MiB /  12288MiB |
25%      Default |
|                                         |                        |
           N/A |
+-----------------------------------------+------------------------+----------------------+

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Processes:
               |
|  GPU   GI   CI              PID   Type   Process name
   GPU Memory |
|        ID   ID
    Usage      |
|=========================================================================================|
|    0   N/A  N/A            2659      G   /usr/libexec/Xorg
        276MiB |
|    0   N/A  N/A            2823      G   /usr/bin/gnome-shell
        88MiB |
|    0   N/A  N/A            2993      G   /usr/bin/nextcloud
         2MiB |
|    0   N/A  N/A            3067      G   /usr/lib64/firefox/firefox
       321MiB |
|    0   N/A  N/A            3881      G   ...and --variations-seed-version
        78MiB |
|    0   N/A  N/A            5243      G   /app/extra/slack
        39MiB |
|    0   N/A  N/A           76746    C+G   /usr/bin/nautilus
         16MiB |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 22:16, Nishant Mishra  wrote:
> Hey Luis
>
> Please let me know which Nvidia GPU are you using ?
>
> Regards
>
> Nishant
>
> On Fri, 11 Apr, 2025, 2:45 am Luis Correia, 
> wrote:
> > A 'thing' existing for about 9 years only makes it 9 years old, doesn't
> > make it a good thing.
> >
> > I would be ok of Fedora dropping it when upstream does it, not before!
> > no matter how much I like bleeding edge, this isn't the way to do it.
> >
> > and I'll shut up now, I'm meaningless to this discussion
> > sorry all
> >
> > On Thu, 10 Apr 2025 at 21:59, Michael Catanzaro 
> > wrote:
> > > So on the one hand, it seems a little petty for Fedora to disable X11
> > > support in gdm before upstream does. It's notably still enabled by
> > > default in upstream GNOME 48 and in git master.
> > >
> > > On the other hand, if we're confident upstream is likely going to
> > > remove the X11 support relatively soon, then it seems reasonable to do
> > > this in Fedora first. I'm not sure that upstream actually has a
> > > concrete plan for this, though!
> > >
> > > I suppose I don't have a very strong opinion here. If you're using
> > > GNOME on X11, that's surely going to stop working sooner or later
> > > regardless, and it's long past time for you to figure out a path
> > > forward. GNOME and Fedora Workstation both switched to Wayland by
> > > default in 2016; it's been 9 years now, a *really* long time to not be
> > > ready for this.
> > >
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > --
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > > List Archives:
> > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > > Do not reply to spam, report it:
> > > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
> >
> > --
> > _______________________________________________
> > devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> > Do not reply to spam, report it:
> > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [e-mail]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
> Do not reply to spam, report it:
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Chris Murphy]

On Thu, Apr 10, 2025, at 5:14 PM, Luis Correia wrote:
> A 'thing' existing for about 9 years only makes it 9 years old, doesn't make it a good thing.
>
> I would be ok of Fedora dropping it when upstream does it, not before!
> no matter how much I like bleeding edge, this isn't the way to do it.

I don't know that the deprecation is imminent. But it is planned, and originally was going to happen in Fedora and upstream concurrently but it was delayed upstream.

https://gitlab.gnome.org/Teams/Releng/freeze-breaks/-/issues/195

--
Chris Murphy