NVIDIA Question
by David St.Clair
This may be a dumb question, but why can't Redhat distribute NVIDIA binary
drivers?
In NVIDIA's licence (http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html) it
says:
"2.1.2 Linux Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section
2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system
may be
copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not
modified in any
way (except for unzipping of compressed files)."
So, what's keeping RedHat from putting the drivers in the distribution? If
it's a GPL
thing, would it be easy to just download it during installation or at
least give the option to the user?
Thanks,
--
David St.Clair
dstclair(a)cs.wcu.edu
4 months, 1 week
Mouse goes crazy
by Jonathan Villa
Ok, I have had Yarrow working well for a while now, but yesterday I
started experiencing some odd issues with my mouse. All of a sudden it
stops working correctly. The only thing that seems to fix is to kill X
and run mouse-test, then restart.
Any ideas?
Also, I have FC 1 running on a desktop which is hooked up to a KVM
switch. Whenever I go to another PC, and return, the same thing
happens, the mouse goes crazy.
???
4 months, 1 week
Fedora Modular 27 compose report: 20171028.n.0 changes
by Fedora Branched Report
OLD: Fedora-Modular-27-20171028.n.0
NEW: Fedora-Modular-27-20171028.n.0
===== SUMMARY =====
Added images: 0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages: 0
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0.00 B
Size of dropped packages: 0.00 B
Size of upgraded packages: 0.00 B
Size of downgraded packages: 0.00 B
Size change of upgraded packages: 0.00 B
Size change of downgraded packages: 0.00 B
===== ADDED IMAGES =====
===== DROPPED IMAGES =====
===== ADDED PACKAGES =====
===== DROPPED PACKAGES =====
===== UPGRADED PACKAGES =====
===== DOWNGRADED PACKAGES =====
1 year, 6 months
Trying a upgrade from 29 to 30
by Ludovic Hirlimann
Hi all,
According to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/30/Schedule 30 has
been branched. So time for me to upgrade from 29 so I can report issue
with the way I use fedora.
I'm using https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade to upgrade.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'luminoso-Signal-Desktop', ignoring
this repo.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'athmane-gns3-extra', ignoring this
repo.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free-updates', ignoring
this repo.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-free', ignoring this repo.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree-updates',
ignoring this repo.
Failed to synchronize cache for repo 'rpmfusion-nonfree', ignoring this
repo.
Modular dependency problems:
Problem 1: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
avocado:stable:3020190213205848:a5b0195c-0.x86_64
Problem 2: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
bat:latest:3020190214090936:e50d0d19-0.x86_64
Problem 3: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
dwm:6.1:3020190213215420:a5b0195c-0.x86_64
Problem 4: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
exa:latest:3020190214120734:e50d0d19-0.x86_64
Problem 5: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
fish:3:3020190216163513:602da195-0.x86_64
Problem 6: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
gimp:2.10:20181223154246:a5b0195c-0.x86_64
Problem 7: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
libgit2:0.27:3020190128145600:a5b0195c-0.x86_64
Problem 8: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
meson:latest:3020190123223713:36245242-0.x86_64
Problem 9: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
ninja:latest:3020190131012415:a5b0195c-0.x86_64
Problem 10: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
ripgrep:latest:3020190214090003:a5b0195c-0.x86_64
Problem 11: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
standard-test-roles:3.0:3020190214144451:a5b0195c-0.x86_64
Problem 12: conflicting requests
- nothing provides module(platform:f30) needed by module
stratis:1:20181215204600:a5b0195c-0.x86_64
Error:
Problem 1: package libibcm-16.2-3.fc28.x86_64 requires
rdma-core(x86-64) = 16.2-3.fc28, but none of the providers can be installed
- rdma-core-16.2-3.fc28.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
- problem with installed package libibcm-16.2-3.fc28.x86_64
Problem 2: package libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
- package libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
- ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
- problem with installed package libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64
Problem 3: package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
- fedora-release-29-7.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
- problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-29-1.noarch
Problem 4: package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64 requires
libprotobuf-lite.so.15()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- protobuf-lite-3.5.0-8.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
- problem with installed package vlc-core-1:3.0.6-16.fc29.x86_64
Problem 5: package fedora-release-29-7.noarch requires fedora-repos(29)
>= 1, but none of the providers can be installed
- package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch requires
system-release(29), but none of the providers can be installed
- fedora-repos-29-2.noarch does not belong to a distupgrade repository
- problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-29-1.noarch
Problem 6: problem with installed package blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64
- package blender-1:2.79b-10.fc30.x86_64 requires
libboost_locale.so.1.66.0()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
- boost-locale-1.66.0-14.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
- blender-1:2.79b-9.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
Problem 7: problem with installed package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64
- package darktable-2.6.0-2.fc30.x86_64 requires
libexiv2.so.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
- exiv2-libs-0.26-12.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
- darktable-2.6.0-2.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
Problem 8: problem with installed package pgp-tools-2.7-3.fc29.x86_64
- package pgp-tools-2.7-3.fc29.x86_64 requires /usr/bin/pgpring, but
none of the providers can be installed
- mutt-5:1.10.1-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade repository
Problem 9: problem with installed package gns3-server-2.1.11-1.fc29.x86_64
- package gns3-server-2.1.11-2.fc30.x86_64 requires
python3.7dist(prompt-toolkit) = 1.0.15, but none of the providers can be
installed
- python3-prompt_toolkit-1.0.15-1.fc29.noarch does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
- gns3-server-2.1.11-1.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a distupgrade
repository
Problem 10: problem with installed package
ImageMagick-c++-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
- package ImageMagick-c++-1:6.9.10.27-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
- package ImageMagick-c++-1:6.9.10.27-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
- package ImageMagick-c++-1:6.9.10.27-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
ImageMagick-libs(x86-64) = 1:6.9.10.27-1.fc30, but none of the providers
can be installed
- cannot install both ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.10.27-1.fc30.x86_64 and
ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
- package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
- package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
- ImageMagick-c++-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
- problem with installed package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64
Problem 11: problem with installed package
ImageMagick-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
- package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.27-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
- package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.27-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.6()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
- package ImageMagick-1:6.9.10.27-1.fc30.x86_64 requires
ImageMagick-libs(x86-64) = 1:6.9.10.27-1.fc30, but none of the providers
can be installed
- cannot install both ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.10.27-1.fc30.x86_64 and
ImageMagick-libs-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64
- package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libMagickCore-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
- package python3-libopenshot-0.2.2-1.fc29.x86_64 requires
libMagickWand-6.Q16.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be
installed
- package openshot-2.4.3-2.fc29.noarch requires python3-libopenshot >=
0.2.2, but none of the providers can be installed
- ImageMagick-1:6.9.9.38-3.fc29.x86_64 does not belong to a
distupgrade repository
- problem with installed package openshot-2.4.3-2.fc29.noarch
Wondring if there is anything here worth filling has bugs ( the vlc one
for instance is not worth filling as it comes from fusion and fusion as
not branched yet).
Ludo
1 year, 6 months
Re: Criteria / validation proposal: drop Xen
by Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2017-07-06 at 15:13 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 11:59:01AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hi, folks! A while ago, Xen virtualization functionality was added to
> > the criteria and the validation test case set, on the understanding
> > that Oracle would provide testing for it (and help fix bugs as they
> > arose).
> >
> > For the last couple of releases we really have not had any such testing
>
> We had been doing the testing, it just that we (or rather me and
> Dariof) seem to get a wind of this at the last minute. Not sure exactly
> how to fix that thought.
Well, I mean, every few *days* a compose gets nominated for validation
testing, and a mail is sent to test-announce. Just check your test-
announce archives for mails with "nominated for testing" in their
subject lines, and you'll see dozens. Is this not sufficient
notification?
> > from Oracle. On that basis, I'm proposing we remove this Final
> > criterion:
>
> s/Oracle/Xen Project/ I believe?
Perhaps, it's just that it always seemed to be you doing the testing,
so they got a bit conflated :)
> > "The release must boot successfully as Xen DomU with releases providing
> > a functional, supported Xen Dom0 and widely used cloud providers
> > utilizing Xen."
> >
> > and change the 'milestone' for the test case -
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_Boot_Methods_Xen_Para_Virt -
> > from Final to Optional.
> >
> > Thoughts? Comments? Thanks!
>
> I would prefer for it to remain as it is.
This is only practical if it's going to be tested, and tested regularly
- not *only* on the final release candidate, right before we sign off
on the release. It needs to be tested regularly throughout the release
cycle, on the composes that are "nominated for testing".
Thanks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
3 years
Self-introduction: Zubin
by zubin choudhary
Hi, I'm Zubin. I'm 19 years old. Using Linux for a while now wanted to
contribute back to the community, Fedora is a great community to be part
of. I have some experience in python scripting and on Web Programming.
Looking forward to being a part of this community Zubin
3 years, 1 month
"Basic graphics mode" feature and criterion discussion
by Adam Williamson
Hi folks!
So at last week's Fedora 30 Beta Go/No-Go meeting, it was decided that
the Basic release criterion:
"Boot menu contents
The boot menu for all supported installer and live images should
include an entry which causes both installation and the installed
system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such as
'vesa'). This mechanism should work correctly, launching the installer
or desktop and attempting to use the generic driver."
should no longer apply to Beta - i.e. that it should no longer be a
Basic or Beta criterion.
The justification for this is, I hope I am correctly representing all
views here (please say so if not), that this mechanism is both less
necessary (due to a general reduction in the amount of 'weird' graphics
hardware out there, and general improvement in the reliability and
coverage of the major drivers for the major graphics hardware
manufacturers) and inherently less likely to work (due to the general
trend of work on kernel modesetting and Wayland) than it used to be.
For context, it is worth noting that the *feature* predates the
introduction of both kernel modesetting *and* Wayland to Fedora. What
the feature initially did was tell anaconda to write an X config file
specifying the 'vesa' driver (instead of working out the correct
'native' driver for the adapter and writing a config file specifying
that). After KMS was introduced in Fedora 10, the mechanism was tweaked
to also pass the 'nomodeset' kernel parameter to disable KMS. Around
2012 (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858270) we noticed
that the X config file mechanism was a bit superfluous as 'nomodeset'
alone could basically be relied on to force some sort of 'fallback
mechanism', and so the feature was simplified to *only* specify the
'nomodeset' kernel parameter (this is all it does now).
The *criterion* dates to 2010, in the Fedora 15 release cycle: it
appears in the Fedora 15 Alpha criteria but not the Fedora 14 Alpha
criteria. It was added on 2010-08-16:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Fedora_15_Alpha_Release_Crite...
The group at the meeting did not, however, make any further decisions,
so this leaves us with some open questions:
0) Do we generally agree with the decision made at the meeting? If
anyone (especially a subject matter expert) strongly believes the
decision was wrong and this should still be a Basic/Beta requirement,
please say so.
1) Should the criterion be modified somehow, but some requirement in
relation to some kind of fallback graphical mode be kept at Basic or
Beta?
2) Should the criterion be moved to Final, unchanged or changed
somehow?
3) Should the requirement just basically be dropped entirely as no
longer useful?
4) (This one mainly for ajax and airlied) to what extent does the
concept of a 'fallback option' for our supported desktop environments
and graphical servers still actually make sense? Could a different
implementation of the same basic idea be envisaged, and would it be
useful? If so, should we do that, and what would be the consequences
for the criteria?
I realize this is quite a big and fuzzy topic, but I'm hoping the
responses to this mail will clarify our path :) So if you have any kind
of useful information or strong opinions on the general area here,
please do contribute them, and hopefully a clearer way forward will
emerge.
Thanks everyone!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
3 years, 1 month
dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=30 errors
by Felix Miata
Output messages (partial, typed):
[]
Preparing:
Traceback (most recent call last):
file /usr/lib/python3.7/site-packages/dnf/yum/rpmtrans.py, line 260 in callback
self._elemProgress(key,amount)
...line 303, in _elemProgress
transaction_list=self._extract_cbkey(key)
...line 244, in _extract_cbkey
raise RuntimeError("TransactionItem not found for key: %s % cbkey)
RuntimeError: Transaction not found for key: rtkit
Complete!
Download complete! Use 'dnf system-upgrade reboot' to start the upgrade....
[/]
dnf system-upgrade reboot seems to be proceeding normally. :-p
install 9
upgrade 655
downgrade 9
Total size: 724M...
--
Evolution as taught in public schools is religion, not science.
Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!
Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
3 years, 1 month
Blocking criteria proposal for F30+: Printing
by Stephen Gallagher
There was a bug[1] filed recently that indicated that printing was
broken on certain printers. As a result of that discussion, it became
apparent that there was no criteria for printing to work at all, which
seems like an oversight.
I discussed this briefly with Matthias Clasen this morning and he
agreed that this should be treated as blocking for Workstation.
I'd like to propose that we add the following criteria to Beta for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer available to Fedora QA.
"Work" is defined as the output from the device matching a preview
shown on the GNOME print preview display. (Note that differences in
color reproduction are not considered "non-working".)
and this to Final for Fedora 30+:
* Printing must work on at least one printer using each of the
following drivers:
(I don't know which ones to specify here, but we ought to try to
figure out a cross-section that covers a large swath of our expected
user base).
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1628255
3 years, 1 month
