1:53 p.m.
When a new Fedora is released, I immediately fetch the Live Xfce
Spin .iso. As a Gnome hater, I want to avoid that entrapment.
I've always found Xfce perfectly suited for me.
This crucial piece of the release is missing at all the mirror sites
I've visited and, indeed, the file that lists checksums for all the
Spins omits mention of the Xfce-Live version. I've been hoping and
expecting this omission to be corrected, but it's been over a week.
I did find one place:
https://spins.fedoraproject.org/xfce/download/index.html
that offers to "Download Fedora 29 Xfce Desktop", and I have done so.
However, there's no checksum that I've been able to discover.
This webpage has a frightening all-black notice:
Although this spin failed to compose for the final release, this
test compose contains fixes over the final content to allow for a
successful compose and should meet most users' needs. You can verify
the test compose image with a dedicated CHECKSUM file for 64-bit and
32-bit images.
I would be grateful for someone to translate this into plain English.
I think it means that there's something wrong with this .iso image,
but I can use it, maybe.
So, what's the story? When can we expect the official F29 Live Xfce .iso
image to become available? I do hope this is not an ominous portent of
things to come, a la KDE. If I had the power, the Live Xfce Spin would
be a release blocker, but I don't.
I realize there's a powerful faction at Redhat that insists that Gnome
is the One True Way. They're wrong.
--
David A. De Graaf DATIX, Inc. Hendersonville, NC
dad(a)datix.us www.datix.us
2:21 p.m.
On 11/7/18 11:53 AM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
When a new Fedora is released, I immediately fetch the Live Xfce
Spin .iso. As a Gnome hater, I want to avoid that entrapment.
I've always found Xfce perfectly suited for me.
This crucial piece of the release is missing at all the mirror sites
I've visited and, indeed, the file that lists checksums for all the
Spins omits mention of the Xfce-Live version. I've been hoping and
expecting this omission to be corrected, but it's been over a week.
I did find one place:
https://spins.fedoraproject.org/xfce/download/index.html
that offers to "Download Fedora 29 Xfce Desktop", and I have done so.
However, there's no checksum that I've been able to discover.
If you had clicked on the download bar, then there's a button that shows
up that says "Verify 64 bit". If you click on that, a text file pops up
showing the checksums. Pretty obvious if you ask me.
This webpage has a frightening all-black notice:
Although this spin failed to compose for the final release, this
test compose contains fixes over the final content to allow for a
successful compose and should meet most users' needs. You can verify
the test compose image with a dedicated CHECKSUM file for 64-bit and
32-bit images.
I would be grateful for someone to translate this into plain English.
It means exactly what it says...it didn't compose properly before the
release occurred. It's possible that there was an upstream package that
hadn't been updated in time or some such thing.
I think it means that there's something wrong with this .iso
image,
but I can use it, maybe.
It works. I have it installed in a VM and a friend has installed it on
his main box. There will be issues as there are with any new release
(there have been problems with dnf for example--which has nothing to do
directly with the desktop). If you're going to use F29, I'd wait for the
dust to settle a bit. I never update to a new release for a couple of
weeks at least.
Red Hat is deeply engrossed in Gnome (yes, I farking hate it as well),
so (IMHO) it is what releases (as far as desktops) are based on. Xfce,
KDE, LXQT, Mate, all of them are dependent on some upstream stuff that
Red Hat doesn't have any control (or much direct influence) over. If
they're tardy in getting some component to Fedora in time, the compose
doesn't work.
So, what's the story? When can we expect the official F29 Live
Xfce .iso
image to become available? I do hope this is not an ominous portent of
things to come, a la KDE. If I had the power, the Live Xfce Spin would
be a release blocker, but I don't.
And you won't. There are a lot of things that Red Hat/Fedora do that
irritate the hell out of me as well. I also made the point on the
developer's list that ANY spin they offer that doesn't compose should be
a blocker, but was met with deafening silence.
I realize there's a powerful faction at Redhat that insists that
Gnome
is the One True Way. They're wrong.
At least you do have other options with Fedora. Not so easy with, say,
Ubuntu. Switching desktops on it is a bit more convoluted. I've never
tried it myself, but I've heard stories.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks(a)alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- Time: Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once. -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
2:36 p.m.
On 11/7/18 12:21 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 11/7/18 11:53 AM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
> When a new Fedora is released, I immediately fetch the Live Xfce
> Spin .iso. As a Gnome hater, I want to avoid that entrapment.
> I've always found Xfce perfectly suited for me.
>
> This crucial piece of the release is missing at all the mirror sites
> I've visited and, indeed, the file that lists checksums for all the
> Spins omits mention of the Xfce-Live version. I've been hoping and
> expecting this omission to be corrected, but it's been over a week.
>
> I did find one place:
> https://spins.fedoraproject.org/xfce/download/index.html
> that offers to "Download Fedora 29 Xfce Desktop", and I have done so.
> However, there's no checksum that I've been able to discover.
If you had clicked on the download bar, then there's a button that shows
up that says "Verify 64 bit". If you click on that, a text file pops up
showing the checksums. Pretty obvious if you ask me.
I have to eat my words. The signature for the Xfce spin isn't in that
text file. It appears there are signatures for most of the other spins,
but Xfce is conspicuously absent. Sheesh!
My apologies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks(a)alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- Real Time, adj.: Here and now, as opposed to fake time, which only -
- occurs there and then -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
3:02 p.m.
On 11/7/18 3:21 PM, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 11/7/18 11:53 AM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
> I did find one place:
> https://spins.fedoraproject.org/xfce/download/index.html
> that offers to "Download Fedora 29 Xfce Desktop", and I have done so.
> However, there's no checksum that I've been able to discover.
If you had clicked on the download bar, then there's a button that shows
up that says "Verify 64 bit". If you click on that, a text file pops up
showing the checksums. Pretty obvious if you ask me.
Yes, Rick, I tried that. But
that click regurgitates the "official" file of
checksums - for Cinnamon, KDE, LXDE, Mate_Compiz, SoaS.
But NOT Xfce!
> This webpage has a frightening all-black notice:
> Although this spin failed to compose for the final release, this
> test compose contains fixes over the final content to allow for a
> successful compose and should meet most users' needs. You can verify
> the test compose image with a dedicated CHECKSUM file for 64-bit and
> 32-bit images.
>
> I would be grateful for someone to translate this into plain English.
It means exactly what it says...it didn't compose properly before the
release occurred. It's possible that there was an upstream package that
hadn't been updated in time or some such thing.
It would have been helpful for
the writer to have written a bit more
and described what the actual problem is.
> I think it means that there's something wrong with this .iso
image,
> but I can use it, maybe.
It works. I have it installed in a VM and a friend has installed it on
his main box. There will be issues as there are with any new release
(there have been problems with dnf for example--which has nothing to do
directly with the desktop). If you're going to use F29, I'd wait for the
dust to settle a bit. I never update to a new release for a couple of
weeks at least.
I, too, have installed this unofficial Xfce spin on a laptop, and
it seems
to be quite functional. I have noticed that some icons styles are missing,
but nothing else serious, so far.
Red Hat is deeply engrossed in Gnome (yes, I farking hate it as well),
so (IMHO) it is what releases (as far as desktops) are based on. Xfce,
KDE, LXQT, Mate, all of them are dependent on some upstream stuff that
Red Hat doesn't have any control (or much direct influence) over. If
they're tardy in getting some component to Fedora in time, the compose
doesn't work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigital ricks(a)alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2 ICQ: 226437340 Yahoo: origrps2 -
- -
- Time: Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once. -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--
David A. De Graaf DATIX, Inc. Hendersonville, NC
dad(a)datix.us www.datix.us
3:03 p.m.
On Wed, 2018-11-07 at 20:21 +0000, Rick Stevens wrote:
> > I did find one place:
> > https://spins.fedoraproject.org/xfce/download/index.html
> > that offers to "Download Fedora 29 Xfce Desktop", and I have done
> > so.
> > However, there's no checksum that I've been able to discover.
> If you had clicked on the download bar, then there's
a button that
> shows
> up that says "Verify 64 bit". If you click on that, a text file pops
> up
> showing the checksums. Pretty obvious if you ask me.
Obvious yes. But the text file does not contain the sha256sum for XFCE!
AV
7:31 p.m.
Rick Stevens writes:
At least you do have other options with Fedora. Not so easy with,
say,
Ubuntu. Switching desktops on it is a bit more convoluted. I've never
tried it myself, but I've heard stories.......
My work laptop runs Ubuntu, and I switched it to the XFCE desktop. I do not
remember the exact details any more, but it was "apt-get" something or
other, and then the XFCE desktop option became available on the X login
screen. That was mostly a boring non-event, hence why I don't remember it.
5:38 a.m.
On Wed, 2018-11-07 at 20:31 -0500, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Rick Stevens writes:
> At least you do have other options with Fedora. Not so easy with, say,
> Ubuntu. Switching desktops on it is a bit more convoluted. I've never
> tried it myself, but I've heard stories.......
My work laptop runs Ubuntu, and I switched it to the XFCE desktop. I do not
remember the exact details any more, but it was "apt-get" something or
other, and then the XFCE desktop option became available on the X login
screen. That was mostly a boring non-event, hence why I don't remember it.
The same would be true on Fedora of course. Just not as a Live version,
which is what the OP is complaining about.
poc
6:06 a.m.
On Wed, Nov 7, 2018 at 10:37 PM Rick Stevens <ricks(a)alldigital.com> wrote:
On 11/7/18 11:53 AM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
>
> I realize there's a powerful faction at Redhat that insists that Gnome
> is the One True Way. They're wrong.
At least you do have other options with Fedora. Not so easy with, say,
Ubuntu. Switching desktops on it is a bit more convoluted. I've never
tried it myself, but I've heard stories.
The stories that you've heard are just that, nonsensical stories.
I'd expect all distributions to have a simple way of installing the
DEs that they support.
On Debian, it's "apt-get install xfce4" or "apt-get install
task-xfce-desktop" (the latter pulls in more dependencies).
On Funtoo, it's "epro mix-ins +xfce ; emerge xfce4-meta".
On Gentoo, it's "emerge xfce4-meta".
On Ubuntu, it's "apt-get install xfce4" for a vanilla xfce, "apt-get
install xubuntu-core" for a minimal ubuntu-fied xfce, "apt-get install
xubuntu-desktop" for an ubuntu-fied xfce.
These are the distributions that I know (I had to check the Funtoo
wiki for the "epro" syntax). On Arch, there must be a simple pacman
invocation and, on OpenSUSE, a simple zypper one.
2:23 p.m.
On 11/7/18 11:53 AM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
This crucial piece of the release is missing at all the mirror sites
I've visited and, indeed, the file that lists checksums for all the
Spins omits mention of the Xfce-Live version.
What I did was to run the ISO as a CDROM from one of my virtual
machines, then at boot time, run the self check. It passed so
I made my own check sum
$ sha256sum Fedora-Xfce-Live-x86_64-29-20181029.1.iso >
Fedora-Xfce-Live-x86_64-29-20181029.1.sha256sum
569761a6f20ab2c619d7888fb1738253a264a844653d097f28903a6e2d1ee670
Fedora-Xfce-Live-x86_64-29-20181029.1.iso
4:07 p.m.
On Wed, 2018-11-07 at 14:53 -0500, David A. De Graaf wrote:
When a new Fedora is released, I immediately fetch the Live Xfce
Spin .iso. As a Gnome hater, I want to avoid that entrapment.
I've always found Xfce perfectly suited for me.
This crucial piece of the release is missing at all the mirror sites
I've visited and, indeed, the file that lists checksums for all the
Spins omits mention of the Xfce-Live version. I've been hoping and
expecting this omission to be corrected, but it's been over a week.
I did find one place:
https://spins.fedoraproject.org/xfce/download/index.html
that offers to "Download Fedora 29 Xfce Desktop", and I have done so.
However, there's no checksum that I've been able to discover.
https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/unofficial/releases/29/x86_64/Fedora...
Found by copying the url into the address bar and removing the file
part of it.
FWIW, it matches the checksum provided by ToddAndMargo elsewhere in
this thread.
Jonathan
7:11 p.m.
On 11/7/18 11:53 AM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
When a new Fedora is released, I immediately fetch the Live Xfce
Spin .iso. As a Gnome hater, I want to avoid that entrapment.
I've always found Xfce perfectly suited for me.
This crucial piece of the release is missing at all the mirror sites
I've visited and, indeed, the file that lists checksums for all the
Spins omits mention of the Xfce-Live version. I've been hoping and
expecting this omission to be corrected, but it's been over a week.
I did find one place:
https://spins.fedoraproject.org/xfce/download/index.html
that offers to "Download Fedora 29 Xfce Desktop", and I have done so.
However, there's no checksum that I've been able to discover.
It's in the same directory as the image(s) (as noted downthread now).
This webpage has a frightening all-black notice:
Although this spin failed to compose for the final release, this
test compose contains fixes over the final content to allow for a
successful compose and should meet most users' needs. You can verify
the test compose image with a dedicated CHECKSUM file for 64-bit and
32-bit images.
I would be grateful for someone to translate this into plain English.
The way Fedora does composes for releases is that everything is composed
at the same time from a common set of inputs. This means all the
deliverables use the same packages, the same groups, etc. Some
deliverables are "blocking", which means that Fedora QA folks test those
against release critera. If there's a release critera breaking bug in a
blocking deliverable, the release doesn't happen, and instead everyone
waits for a fix, the fix is added and then a new compose if fired off
and the cycle repeats. If there's non release blocking bug fixes they
can petition to be added into the next compose as well via a Freeze
break process, but if there's no blocking bugs the release happens and
those things that still had non release blocking bugs are just out of luck.
What happened with F29 is that the release candidate compose did not
have several non release blocking items (Xfce, LXQT, Astronomy spin,
etc). In the case of Xfce it was a package that had broken dependencies
and needed to be rebuilt. There were however no blocking bugs in
blocking deliverables, so that compose was shipped as the release.
In order to avoid not shipping those things at all, release engineering
worked out the fixes for them, and recreated them from the release
candidate compose + whatever fix they needed. So, the Xfce image there
has a newer ibus package than all the rest of the release does. It
should work fine, it just wasn't produced in the same way as normal with
the rest of the compose.
I think it means that there's something wrong with this .iso
image,
but I can use it, maybe.
Yes, you should be able to use it just fine.
So, what's the story? When can we expect the official F29 Live
Xfce .iso
image to become available? I do hope this is not an ominous portent of
things to come, a la KDE. If I had the power, the Live Xfce Spin would
be a release blocker, but I don't.
There will never be a official F29 release Xfce. The ship has sailed.
You can use the unofficial respun one, or make your own, or even install
f28 and upgrade.
I realize there's a powerful faction at Redhat that insists that Gnome
is the One True Way. They're wrong.
I think people should use whatever they like best. I can get my work
done in Xfce or Gnome just fine.
kevin
11:11 a.m.
On 11/7/18 8:11 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On 11/7/18 11:53 AM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
> When a new Fedora is released, I immediately fetch the Live Xfce
> Spin .iso. As a Gnome hater, I want to avoid that entrapment.
> I've always found Xfce perfectly suited for me.
>
> This crucial piece of the release is missing at all the mirror sites
> I've visited and, indeed, the file that lists checksums for all the
> Spins omits mention of the Xfce-Live version. I've been hoping and
> expecting this omission to be corrected, but it's been over a week.
>
> I did find one place:
> https://spins.fedoraproject.org/xfce/download/index.html
> that offers to "Download Fedora 29 Xfce Desktop", and I have done so.
> However, there's no checksum that I've been able to discover.
It's in the same directory as the image(s) (as noted downthread now).
Thank you, Jonathan Dieter, for discovering and advertising this location
of the official "checksum for unofficial F29 Live Xfce".
> This webpage has a frightening all-black notice:
> Although this spin failed to compose for the final release, this
> test compose contains fixes over the final content to allow for a
> successful compose and should meet most users' needs. You can verify
> the test compose image with a dedicated CHECKSUM file for 64-bit and
> 32-bit images.
>
> I would be grateful for someone to translate this into plain English.
The way Fedora does composes for releases is that everything is composed
at the same time from a common set of inputs. This means all the
deliverables use the same packages, the same groups, etc. Some
deliverables are "blocking", which means that Fedora QA folks test those
against release critera. If there's a release critera breaking bug in a
blocking deliverable, the release doesn't happen, and instead everyone
waits for a fix, the fix is added and then a new compose if fired off
and the cycle repeats. If there's non release blocking bug fixes they
can petition to be added into the next compose as well via a Freeze
break process, but if there's no blocking bugs the release happens and
those things that still had non release blocking bugs are just out of luck.
What happened with F29 is that the release candidate compose did not
have several non release blocking items (Xfce, LXQT, Astronomy spin,
etc). In the case of Xfce it was a package that had broken dependencies
and needed to be rebuilt. There were however no blocking bugs in
blocking deliverables, so that compose was shipped as the release.
In order to avoid not shipping those things at all, release engineering
worked out the fixes for them, and recreated them from the release
candidate compose + whatever fix they needed. So, the Xfce image there
has a newer ibus package than all the rest of the release does. It
should work fine, it just wasn't produced in the same way as normal with
the rest of the compose.
Thank you, Kevin Fenzi, for this expanded and more
informative
explanation. It is exactly what I was looking for.
I do hope, though, that next time around F30 will include a Live Xfce
spin in the distribution tree, even if it has to be an "unofficial" version.
I and many others depend entirely on this component of a release.
> I think it means that there's something wrong with this .iso image,
> but I can use it, maybe.
Yes, you should be able to use it just fine.
I will proceed to use this .iso on all
my machines with greater confidence.
--
David A. De Graaf DATIX, Inc. Hendersonville, NC
dad(a)datix.us www.datix.us
2:15 p.m.
On 11/9/18 9:11 AM, David A. De Graaf wrote:
Thank you, Kevin Fenzi, for this expanded and more informative
explanation. It is exactly what I was looking for.
I do hope, though, that next time around F30 will include a Live Xfce
spin in the distribution tree, even if it has to be an "unofficial"
version.
I hope so too.
I and many others depend entirely on this component of a release.
Perhaps you would be willing to help us test Beta and Final Xfce images?
more people testing the better we are. :)
kevin
1998
days inactive
2002
days old
12 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
AV -
David A. De Graaf -
Jonathan Dieter -
Kevin Fenzi -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Rick Stevens -
Sam Varshavchik -
ToddAndMargo -
Tom H