On Wed, 2022-09-07 at 08:41 +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 06/09/2022 23:14, Jonathan Wright wrote:
> > Fedora must be looked at as more than just a "hobby project" even though
> > it is a hobby for some.
>
> There are many casual maintainers who maintain one or two packages. We
> s
On 06/09/2022 20:28, Ben Cotton wrote:
We will be creating the packages nodejs-16, nodejs-18 and (in April)
nodejs-20. These packages will be parallel-installable (with the
exception of the -devel subpackages) and provide
`/usr/bin/node-$MAJOR`. We will also take advantage of the
`alternatives` s
On 06/09/2022 23:14, Jonathan Wright wrote:
Fedora must be looked at as more than just a "hobby project" even though
it is a hobby for some.
There are many casual maintainers who maintain one or two packages. We
shouldn't force them to leave Fedora.
It's an OS that many rely on and $25 is a
On 07/09/2022 05:54, Maxwell G via devel wrote:
As has already been said, that's not true. Google Authenticator is far from
the only software that supports the TOTP standard.
This is not about simple TOTP, but about FIDO2.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 04:14:52PM -0500, Jonathan Wright via devel wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 3:52 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> > On 06/09/2022 19:49, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > > Of course, hardware authenticators would be even more secure, and
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > mobile device
>
> Requires proprietary Google services.
As has already been said, that's not true. Google Authenticator is far from
the only software that supports the TOTP standard.
--
Maxwell G (@gotmax23)
Pronouns: He/Him/His
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> Currently I do not have any 2FA enabled
> on my Fedora account
I have 2FA set up on my account and it works okay. You'd use `fkinit` instead
of `kinit` that requires special setup[1] to work with 2FA. It doesn't work
with the GOA kerberos
On Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> If
> you want to enforce such a policy, find sponsors and buy devices for all
> Fedora contributors.
I kind of agree with this. See what PyPi is doing[1]. I don't think anyone who
maintains one package should get one, but perhaps pro
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 2:22 PM Mark E. Fuller wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Can someone point me to a good resource on how (if permitted) I can make
> appropriate compat(?) packages to allow for two major versions of the
> same package to be available?
> Is this allowed for EPEL?
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Mark
According to the schedule [1], Fedora 37 Candidate Beta-1.5 is now
available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation
testing! For more information on release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan
Test coverage information for the cu
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 02:28:39PM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
== Benefit to Fedora ==
=== Packager Benefits ===
* No more modules to maintain.
* Availability of multiple Node.js versions in the buildroot means
that other `nodejs-*` packages can test against multiple supported
options.
== Scope ==
Jonathan,
Your perspective on costs seems extremely developed-country-centric, and
I'd like to suggest you check your (financial) privilege. I don't know
where you're from; I'm from the US, but I am well aware of the reality
of many open source contributors from countries where the exchange rate
a
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 14:28 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> == Scope ==
> * Proposal owners:
>
> DNF5 is still in the development and some of the features or options
> are not yet available. We still have to finish the implementation of
> Modularity, storing internal data related to History and Syst
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 3:52 PM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 06/09/2022 19:49, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> > Of course, hardware authenticators would be even more secure, and it
> > sure seems pretty reasonable to expect that people with commit access to
> >
On 06/09/2022 19:49, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
Of course, hardware authenticators would be even more secure, and it
sure seems pretty reasonable to expect that people with commit access to
Fedora packages are able to purchase a $25 or 30€ security key [1][2].
Having to pay even $25 for a hobby
On 06/09/2022 20:28, Ben Cotton wrote:
The new DNF5 will provide a symlink to `/usr/bin/dnf` therefore users
will see the replacement as an upgrade of DNF with limited but
documented syntax changes. The DNF5 will provide some compatible
aliases of commands and options to improve adoption of the D
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 11:09 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 9/2/22 17:31, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > rpm 4.18 is on the horizon and includes a new OpenPGP backend based on
> > Sequoia PGP.
> >
> >https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0
> >https://sequoia-pgp.org/
> >
> >
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 07:37:19PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 06/09/2022 18:36, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > For an OTP generating app? I don't see why it would...
>
> No, for FIDO2 authentication.
https://github.com/ellerh/softfido
But not sure how usable it is. ;)
Also:
https://b
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ReplaceDnfWithDnf5
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Commi
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/NodejsRepackaging
This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes
process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive
community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved
by the Fedora Engineering Steering Commit
On ti, 06 syys 2022, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 16:47 +, Tommy Nguyen wrote:
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 18:18 +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 06/09/2022 17:00, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > mobile device
>
> Requires proprietary Google services.
>
> > computer
>
> Requi
On Tue, Sep 6 2022 at 10:11:54 AM -0700, Adam Williamson
wrote:
i.e. it was specifically about moving away from allowing "simple
TOTP/HOTP" 2FA, as it is phishable, and requiring webauthn, of which
Vitaly's points are I believe accurate.
Yes indeed.
That said, I *think* it could be done entir
Il 03/09/22 02:56, l...@fedoraproject.org ha scritto:
>
> On 2022-09-02 10:49 a.m., Mattia Verga via devel
> wrote:
>> Here we go again: thunderbird 102 update was submitted to F36.
>>
>> This new version was known to bring incompatible changes to several
>> addons, yet it has been submitted to a
On 06/09/2022 18:36, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
For an OTP generating app? I don't see why it would...
No, for FIDO2 authentication.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe
On 06. 09. 22 16:52, Michael J Gruber wrote:
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 2:01 PM Sandro
The current py packaging guidelines recommend the opt-in dependency generator
(which uses pyproject.toml) unless EPEL 8 or non-current Fedoras are used.
Should this caveat be extended to F36 and EPEL 9, or am I
On 06. 09. 22 19:06, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 09:04 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
Unrelated to your question, but FWIW PatchNNN is not required, all
patches can be merely "Patch: filename" and they'll get applied
in the order they are listed in the spec.
🤯🤯🤯
See
ht
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 16:47 +, Tommy Nguyen wrote:
> On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 18:18 +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > On 06/09/2022 17:00, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > > mobile device
> >
> > Requires proprietary Google services.
> >
> > > computer
> >
> > Requires proprietary TPM 2.0 ch
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 09:04 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> Unrelated to your question, but FWIW PatchNNN is not required, all
> patches can be merely "Patch: filename" and they'll get applied
> in the order they are listed in the spec.
🤯🤯🤯
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA
IRC: adamw | Twitter
I can take package `colm`
FAS id: lorbus
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
Li
On Tue, 2022-09-06 at 18:18 +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 06/09/2022 17:00, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > mobile device
>
> Requires proprietary Google services.
>
> > computer
>
> Requires proprietary TPM 2.0 chip.
Hi,
Neither of this is true. For example, I use Raivo on my iOS dev
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 06:18:17PM +0200, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 06/09/2022 17:00, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
> > mobile device
>
> Requires proprietary Google services.
For an OTP generating app? I don't see why it would...
https://search.f-droid.org/?q=otp&lang=en
are all open sour
On 06/09/2022 17:00, Gary Buhrmaster wrote:
mobile device
Requires proprietary Google services.
computer
Requires proprietary TPM 2.0 chip.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject
I'm happy to help maintain the python packages.
FAS: jonathanspw
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 11:00 AM Ankur Sinha wrote:
> I've taken a few more (a few for the neuro-sig):
>
> > Depending on: mcpanel (1), status change: 2022-08-30 (0 weeks ago)
> > eegview (maintained by: aekoroglu, ankursinha
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 8:40 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 06/09/2022 10:26, Ondrej Mosnáček wrote:
> > This is just not true. Anyone with an Android or iOS device can set up
> > a software token via FreeOTP [1].
>
> I'm OK with software 2FA authenticators, but they want to force everyo
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 2:01 PM Sandro
>
> pyproject does not work well, and is not backwards compatible. This is
> particularly a problem for EPEL ports from Fedora. Personally, I'd
> like to see it fixed for EPEL before relying on it for anything in
> Fedora.
The current py packaging guideli
OLD: Fedora-37-20220905.n.0
NEW: Fedora-37-20220906.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:0
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:27
Upgraded packages: 0
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:82.59 MiB
Size of
On Sat, Aug 27, 2022 at 9:14 AM Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> (2) Switching the default vs. improving the default.
>
A third option (or maybe it's an improvement to the default?), since
the choice of allocators seems to come up consistently, could be to
consider seriously (and is likely not a trivial
W dniu 3.09.2022 o 10:47, Demi Marie Obenour pisze:
On 9/3/22 04:42, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
W dniu 3.09.2022 o 02:56, l...@fedoraproject.org pisze:
Which addons are incompatible? Additionally, use "Addon Compatibility
Check" for the purpose. The best practice is to contact these addons
dev
Fabio Valentini wrote on 2022/09/06 18:45:
Hi all,
Since the Pantheon desktop will not be available on Fedora 37+ for the
foreseeable future (libsoup3pocalypse etc.), I am no longer interested
in maintaining some of its dependencies or "shared" components that
are still used by existing applicat
On Tue, Sep 6, 2022 at 11:47 AM Fabio Valentini
wrote:
> I expect that editorconfig, graphite2, libcloudproviders to be picked
> up by GNOME package maintainers, since they're dependencies of core
> GNOME or Fedora Workstation components (CC @kalev).
>
Thanks! I picked up those 3.
--
Kalev
___
Hi all,
Since the Pantheon desktop will not be available on Fedora 37+ for the
foreseeable future (libsoup3pocalypse etc.), I am no longer interested
in maintaining some of its dependencies or "shared" components that
are still used by existing applications and some other GObject
libraries, and ha
Hi guys,
Thank you so much for the feedback.
Let's wrap it up...
1) We will not rename the current "minizip-compat" to "minizip".
2) The Obsolete in the "minizip-ng" package will look like this:
"Obsoletes: minizip < 3.0.3"
It shouldn't affect the "minizip-compat" because we won't rename that (
On 05. 09. 22 21:58, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 09:56:58PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Monday, 05 September 2022 at 21:42, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I have a downstream patch[0] which -- I don't really understand why --
breaks riscv64 builds but is nec
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 09:56:58PM +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
> wrote:
>
> There are 26 patches so that's a bit of a PITA. Is there not an
> easier way?
>
> Rich.
Try using autopatch.
# Apply patches up to #1000 from this spec.
%autopatch -M1000 -p1
https://pkgs.rpmfusion.org/cg
On 06/09/2022 10:26, Ondrej Mosnáček wrote:
This is just not true. Anyone with an Android or iOS device can set up
a software token via FreeOTP [1].
I'm OK with software 2FA authenticators, but they want to force everyone
to use Fido2 compatible hardware tokens. $50/each.
--
Sincerely,
Vit
On Sun, Sep 4, 2022 at 7:30 PM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> And anybody who isn't
> willing to buy a security key wouldn't be able to contribute to Fedora
> at all.
This is just not true. Anyone with an Android or iOS device can set up
a software token via FreeOTP [1]. Sure, security-wise it's not
On 9/2/22 17:31, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
Hi all,
rpm 4.18 is on the horizon and includes a new OpenPGP backend based on
Sequoia PGP.
https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.18.0
https://sequoia-pgp.org/
Thanks to Fabio Valentini (decathorpe) for packaging not only
rpm-sequoia, but all of the Seq
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 08:42:34PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I have a downstream patch[0] which -- I don't really understand why --
> breaks riscv64 builds but is necessary for primary Fedora arches. Is
> it correct to do:
>
> %ifnarch riscv64
> Patch123: downstream.patch
> %endif
Dne 06. 09. 22 v 9:20 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):
Dne 06. 09. 22 v 0:25 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 12:13:26PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 05. 09. 22 11:07, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Apart from that, I don't think that the pseudo-users or group
ownership
would work. I saw a good am
Dne 06. 09. 22 v 0:25 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 12:13:26PM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 05. 09. 22 11:07, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Apart from that, I don't think that the pseudo-users or group ownership
would work. I saw a good amount of people giving the packages to some
group
50 matches
Mail list logo
