> On Jul 14, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> The app store model also assumes that the app store operator acts as
> some sort of gate keeper, so there has to be some policy enforcement at
> this level, too. It is not sufficient to pass through just what the
> application developer aske
On Jul 14, 2017, at 11:30 AM, Richard Hughes wrote:
>
>> On 14 July 2017 at 19:12, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
>> As above, it could be the exact same sandbox technology with the same
>> portals and everything. The sandboxed program would just be files in
>> /usr instead of a Flatpak.
>
> How coul
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 19:30:18 +0100
Richard Hughes wrote:
> How could that work? The runtime gets mounted in /usr and the app gets
> mounted in /app in a different place.
> https://media.readthedocs.org/pdf/flatpak/latest/flatpak.pdf is a good
> read.
I just read that. I'm ignorant of flatpak ex
On 14 July 2017 at 20:28, Andreas Tunek wrote:
> Is this really more reliable than using dnf (for graphical packages
> like Recepies and Builder)?
It's hugely more reliable. You can't actually trust rpm to do anything
atomically, and this is the main reason we force upgrade to be offline
in the w
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 07:25:11PM +0100, Richard Hughes wrote:
> Maybe tangential to the proposal/discussion/ranting, but you can
> actually use gnome-software on the command line.
> /usr/libexec/gnome-software-cmd (no GTK parts get loaded) has got a
> bit cleverer in F26 and is set to get even cl
On 07/12/2017 06:26 AM, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> I kinda agree here (though I am a bit surprised, as I did not think you
> were a very big SELinux fan). We absolutely could be investing more in
> SELinux. But we have not been. Very few applications actually have
> SELinux profiles, and they ar
I'll take sphinx.
--
Ben Cotton
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 11:26:04PM -0500, mcatanz...@gnome.org wrote:
> But we have not been. Very few applications actually have SELinux profiles,
> and they are all maintained downstream rather than upstream. The volume of
> erroneous SELinux denials in Bugzilla is too high, and the response time
2017-07-14 19:05 GMT+02:00 Debarshi Ray :
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:44:18AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
>> > F29: packagers (of graphical applications) must create Flatpaks of
>> > their applications if possible. They *m
One major reason is that it enables us to move towards having the Atomic
Workstation
version be the primary one and maybe in the (very) long run be the only one.
A bit more detail about that can be found here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/AtomicWorkstation
Or this talk from FLOCK b
On 14 July 2017 at 19:12, Andrew Lutomirski wrote:
> As above, it could be the exact same sandbox technology with the same
> portals and everything. The sandboxed program would just be files in
> /usr instead of a Flatpak.
How could that work? The runtime gets mounted in /usr and the app gets
mo
On 14 July 2017 at 12:32, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> From what I read, only GNOME Software app supports Flatpaks and not
> everyone uses GNOME Software to install software.
Maybe tangential to the proposal/discussion/ranting, but you can
actually use gnome-software on the command lin
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:44:18AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
>> > F29: packagers (of graphical applications) must create Flatpaks of
>> > their applications if possi
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 1:27 PM Matthew Miller
> > How about reliable online updates of running applications as a
> > benefit?
>
> AND the ability to roll back, to choose beta or stable streams, etc.
>
These are reasonably good advantages but if there isn't a seamless
transition between them, it
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 05:05:23PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote:
> > At least we see where this is going.
> >
> > If RPMs of the graphical application work fine now, what on earth is
> > the point of forcing packagers to make Flatpaks? Sandboxing isn't one
> > of them - as already explained, sandbox
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2017-07-14)
===
Meeting started by jforbes at 16:00:06 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2017-07-14/fesco.2017-07-14-16.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
-
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:44:18AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > F29: packagers (of graphical applications) must create Flatpaks of
> > their applications if possible. They *may* keep standard RPM
> > packaging.
>
>
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:44:18AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > F29: packagers (of graphical applications) must create Flatpaks of
> > their applications if possible. They *may* keep standard RPM
> > packaging.
>
>
Missing expected images:
Atomic qcow2 x86_64
Workstation live i386
Server boot i386
Atomic raw-xz x86_64
Kde live i386
Failed openQA tests: 18/137 (x86_64), 2/18 (i386), 1/2 (arm)
New failures (same test did not fail in Rawhide-20170712.n.1):
ID: 120732 Test: x86_64 universal install_rescu
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 10:05 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Justin Forbes wrote:
>> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
>> FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
>> irc.freenode.net.
>>
>> To convert UTC to your local time,
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Petr Pisar wrote:
> On 2017-07-14, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
>> Fabio Valentini wrote on 07/14/2017 06:04 PM:
>>> Right now, I can't build updates or new packages, because "fedpkg
>>> new-sources" is getting stuck (for more than 15 minutes) without error
>>> message (o
Hello
After another testing it looks more like Intel HD Graphics (i915)
problem (xorg-x11-drv-intel or kernel).
I've tried add "video=DP-1:d" to grub boot line but it didn't help.
Screen went to black after cca 2.5 hour and after that laptop shutdown.
It is really hard to test it because crash
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 3:36 PM, Justin Forbes wrote:
> Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
> FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
> irc.freenode.net.
>
> To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
>
> or
On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 23:43 +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
> While I may be missing something, I don't think current Fedora package
> needs ruby cairo-gl bindings.
> Also, ruby-cairo gem does not have examples for cairo-gl surface nor have
> test suite for that, so I guess the ruby-cairo upstream doe
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017, at 07:53 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> When I see the plans that are floated around, the other stuff might also end
> up being containerized in a similar way, just using other technologies
> (e.g., Docker).
There are definitely apps today that are designed to run in standal
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-07-10 at 00:46 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > > = System Wide Change: Graphical Applications as Flatpaks =
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Graphical_Applications_as_Fl
> > > atpaks
>
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 03:32:03PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Owen Taylor wrote:
> > As for standard application RPMs, it's really going to be something
> > we figure out over time. My vision is something like:
> >
> > F27: packagers are *able* to create Flatpaks of their application.
> >
> If RPMs of the graphical application work fine now, what on earth is
> the point of forcing packagers to make Flatpaks? Sandboxing isn't one
> of them - as already explained, sandboxing is orthogonal to packaging.
+1, completely!
+1
___
devel mailin
* Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski [14/07/2017 13:32] :
>
> Is `dnf install foo' still going to work when foo is converted to a
> Flatpak and no longer built as a plain RPM?
I was unable to find Recipes (an application in the latest GNOME) either
by dnf or Gnome Software. Using Google, I found out t
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Friday at 16:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2017-07-14 16:00 UTC'
Links to all issues below ca
Owen Taylor wrote:
> As for standard application RPMs, it's really going to be something
> we figure out over time. My vision is something like:
>
> F27: packagers are *able* to create Flatpaks of their application.
> They must also maintain standard RPMs.
>
> F28: packagers (of graphical
On 2017-06-15, Jan Kurik wrote:
>= Proposed System Wide Change: perl Package to Install Core Modules =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/perl_Package_to_Install_Core_Modules
>
> Change owner(s):
> * Petr Písař
>
> dnf install perl will install all core Perl modules that come with
> Perl up
Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> If RPMs of the graphical application work fine now, what on earth is
> the point of forcing packagers to make Flatpaks? Sandboxing isn't one
> of them - as already explained, sandboxing is orthogonal to packaging.
+1, completely!
I think it is completely unacceptable
On Sat, Jul 8, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On 07-07-17 16:43, Sérgio Basto wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2017-07-07 at 08:14 -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
>>> wrote:
>>>
We want to make the default installatio
On 2017-07-14, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
> Fabio Valentini wrote on 07/14/2017 06:04 PM:
>> Right now, I can't build updates or new packages, because "fedpkg
>> new-sources" is getting stuck (for more than 15 minutes) without error
>> message (other than the bodhi deprecation warning) and it doesn't do
Hello:
Fabio Valentini wrote on 07/14/2017 06:04 PM:
Right now, I can't build updates or new packages, because "fedpkg
new-sources" is getting stuck (for more than 15 minutes) without error
message (other than the bodhi deprecation warning) and it doesn't do
anything until I kill it ...
I can't
On Friday, 14 July 2017 at 10:44, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> > F29: packagers (of graphical applications) must create Flatpaks of
> > their applications if possible. They *may* keep standard RPM
> > packaging.
>
> At leas
Looks like the problem has been fixed ->
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1470876#c6
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Rex, the 10.2.7-2 version is finally out (after 20h of building :/ )
I did a scratch build of the 'os-autoinst' package and it looks like it
does not complain about the missing symbols anymore:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=20519110
Did that solved the issue, or am I just lo
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 09:04:23AM +, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Right now, I can't build updates or new packages, because "fedpkg
> new-sources" is getting stuck (for more than 15 minutes) without error
> message (other than the bodhi deprecation warning) and it doesn't do
> anything until I kil
Hello,
I was able to successfully use 'fedpkg new-sources' (still from f25) right
now.
clime
On Fri, Jul 14, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Fabio Valentini
wrote:
> Right now, I can't build updates or new packages, because "fedpkg
> new-sources" is getting stuck (for more than 15 minutes) without error
> m
Right now, I can't build updates or new packages, because "fedpkg
new-sources" is getting stuck (for more than 15 minutes) without error
message (other than the bodhi deprecation warning) and it doesn't do
anything until I kill it ...
I can't pin down the exact date it stopped working (since I don
On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 03:31:30PM -0400, Owen Taylor wrote:
> F29: packagers (of graphical applications) must create Flatpaks of
> their applications if possible. They *may* keep standard RPM
> packaging.
At least we see where this is going.
If RPMs of the graphical application work
43 matches
Mail list logo
