On Sunday, 13 July 2025 at 20:46, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> mingw-libgusb @gnome-sig, rhughes
I fixed this one and submitted builds. Thanks for the poke!
Richard.
--
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Friday, 11 July 2025 at 07:44, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> It is also possible to (a) calculate the new PCR measurements
> beforehand
That's exactly what Microsoft want to ask from vendors in the future, but I
really wish them luck because when I asked them for the new PCR0 "golden
hashes" for L
On Wednesday, 9 July 2025 at 15:51, Chris Adams wrote:
> How can I tell what my systems have (ideally from within Linux)?
If you need to script it "fwupdmgr get-devices --json" assuming you have fwupd
>= 2.0.12 -- or just use gnome-firmware if you want something with a UI.
Richard.
--
__
On Wednesday, 9 July 2025 at 09:52, Daniel P. Berrangé
wrote:
> Historically fwupd wasn't able to cope with this, but recent releases
> have been enhanced to handle the updates that Linux users will need
> to see, which should mitigate the worst of the impact. There's a
> reasonable overview of t
On Tuesday, 24 June 2025 at 14:19, Chris Adams wrote:
> anybody can fork something and make a bunch of commits.
For the sake of all of our sanity, I'd really appreciate if FESCo could decide
on this one really quickly (e.g. putting out a statement) and avoid what could
be a most unpleasant flam
On Wednesday, 11 June 2025 at 12:28, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> We want to unretire efitools because it's the only software that
> allows dealing with detached signatures for authvars.
Out of interest, what are you trying to do? There's some support for this in
fwupd, although it's mo
On Monday, 17 March 2025 at 17:21, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> It looks like libfido2 was rebuilt before libcbor 0.12 was in the buildroot.
> So it will need to be rebuilt again, this time with libcbor 0.12
> present, preferably :)
Ack, indeed :) Yell when you want me to do the fwupd build.
Richard
On Monday, 17 March 2025 at 16:45, Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
> git commit —allow-empty -m 'Rebuild for foolib 3.14'
Yes, I guess that works -- thanks. On doing so, I got:
DEBUG util.py:459: Problem: package git-core-2.48.1-3.fc43.x86_64 from build
requires openssh-clients, but none of the provid
On Monday, 17 March 2025 at 02:51, Gary Buhrmaster
wrote:
> I have rebuilt libfido2. For fwupd, I will need the
> assistance of the fwupd maintainers (CC'ed),
> Please use the side tag f43-build-side-108004
> (fedpkg build --target=f43-build-side-108004)
Hi Gary,
I tried this, but got "GenericE
On Monday, 24 February 2025 at 09:30, Petr Pisar wrote:
> > Has anyone else seen this? Frustratingly I can't reproduce locally.
> Last time we saw and fixed this issue was 4 years ago.
Hmm, it's certainly something in the latest release.
> A reproducer is welcome because the mistake probably hap
Hi all,
My CI has been failing for the last 24h with:
[ 4/48] Installing fwupd-0:2.0.7-0.1alpha.fc41.x86_64 100% | 39.9 MiB
terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::length_error'
what(): basic_string::_M_replace_aux
contrib/ci/fedora-test.sh: line 3: 7 Aborted
On Thursday, 19 December 2024 at 09:51, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> PP should lead by example IMHO. And and this is not any different!
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/python-tiktoken/c/66a5632ba66ed27b6d1d633592724d6be612d638
I guess I'm also as bad as Peter then:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpm
On Monday, 16 December 2024 at 22:03, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> > We neglected to make available the facts behind our decision quickly
> Why should there be a right to anonymity in this process?
I'm really not sure what FESCo is thinking; what a way to destroy trust from a
community. Fedora Engi
On Monday, 16 December 2024 at 16:25, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> This process does make me worry that I might get suddenly de-pp'ed at
> some point too.
I'm in the same boat; I know I've been guilty of pushing minor build fixes
without asking. I've also touched hundreds of packages over the years
Hi all,
I've just built fwupd 2.0.0 into rawhide, which bumps the libfwupd soname from
libfwupd.so.2 to libfwupd.so.3. I've rebuilt gnome-firmware, gnome-software and
plasma-discover in the f42-build-side-97511 side tag with no issue, and have
created a bodhi update with all 4 builds here:
htt
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 10:40, Aoife Moloney wrote:
> Switch the default desktop experience for Workstation to KDE Plasma.
> The GNOME desktop is moved to a separate spin / edition, retaining
> release-blocking status.
If this is an April fools joke -- it's a weird one, and a day too late.
Richard
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 at 15:44, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> I wonder if you have it from a group you are in or if it was the general
> creep of time that has added you to a lot of packages?
I'm a packager and a provenpackager, so I'm a bit confused why I'm on
so many packages as a separate committer.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 at 15:07, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> * 23711 spec files in Fedora
I was looking through the list for any of my packages, and I've found
that I'm "maintaining" long dead packages like
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/GConf2
According to that I have "commit" ACLs, but I couldn't
Hi all,
I've orphaned argyllcms -- I'm no longer using the package, and
haven't worked on color management for some time. If anyone wants to
take on the package the upstream source is chucked over the wall (no
source control) every few months, and it sometimes needs patches to
fix the Linux suppor
On Mon, 16 Oct 2023 at 09:46, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> Or possibly we end up with a mixture of (2) and (3) where most firmware
> are under an umbrella but a few oddballs with unusual terms justify a
> dedicated LicenseRef.
I'm also interested from a LVFS firmware point of view. At the moment
n
On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 22:41, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I'm not sure at all that it would be possible to do at compose-time...
> composes are taking around 3.5-4hours and thats after I have done
> a lot to speed them up, but might be worth some benchmarking
> to see how much slower it would be. If we
On Wed, 27 Sept 2023 at 13:23, Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
> Can't this script be moved to run in Openshift as cron-based?
Yes! In fact, that's what I proposed about a decade ago when I wanted
to include the data in the metadata like Debian does. I do think it
should be managed by someone in th
On Tue, 26 Sept 2023 at 03:16, Neal Gompa wrote:
> So a stopgap solution was implemented: appstream-data. Richard Hughes
> maintains a local mirror of the full Fedora repositories and generates
> the appstream data from that using scripts[1] and extra data[2] to
> produce the ap
On Thu, 7 Sept 2023 at 11:36, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> All systemd services that have an "enabled by default" preset need to do that:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DefaultServices/#_enabling_services_by_default
It's not exactly enabled by default -- it's autostarted
ry. I pushed the commit:
commit 44a1d6df6cf40912ea07bd7e71bc69bc0742e814 (HEAD -> main,
origin/rawhide, origin/main, origin/HEAD)
Author: Richard Hughes
Date: Fri Aug 25 20:53:33 2023 +0100
Split out a -libs subpackage
:100644 100644 bc51e57 3ad7ccc Mpassim.spec
...but for some reaso
On Wed, 6 Sept 2023 at 18:36, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> NetworkManager has the same concept, but of course it depends on apps
> that use data *caring* about it.
It sounds like passimd should be a thing that cares too --
https://github.com/hughsie/passim/issues/13
Richard.
On Wed, 6 Sept 2023 at 19:12, Adam Williamson
wrote:
> This message says you're "thinking of adding Passim", but in point of
> fact, it appears to have been added to the package set already, and as
> of fwupd-1.9.5-2.fc40 (built two days ago), fwupd hard requires it,
It hard requires the -lib --
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 23:13, Marcus Müller wrote:
> - using avahi for local peer discovery, how does this compare to good ole
> bittorrent with
> Protocol/Message Stream Encryption turned on, and DHT instead of a tracker?
I think more than a few places would ban/block/report bittorrent
traffic
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023 at 22:05, Björn Persson wrote:
> The document doesn't say what design decisions were made based on the
> assumption of a friendly network.
Well, I can certainly add them -- this discussion was started so I can
add any missing information.
> All of those design decisions need
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 21:03, Simo Sorce wrote:
> You could have deltas, so that clients will not get the whole thing
> every day, but deltas compared to what they have already (which would
> be 0 bytes if thy are up to date).
I'm trying to reduce the number of CDN accesses and the number of file
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 18:54, Simo Sorce wrote:
> That depends on how you are going to handle re-installs of peers in the
> network where the certificate will start mismatching ...
In event of a mismatch I was going to ignore the peer; in most home
networks there'll be dozens of devices all offer
On Tue, 29 Aug 2023 at 17:06, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> The point was that `fwupdmgr get-devices` lists ~32 devices for my LP. I
> can't imagine that the metadata for these 32 devices would take 2 MBs.
> That is more likely data for all devices ever supported.
It is the metadata for every device -- ev
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 21:50, Simo Sorce wrote:
> It could be improved by using TOFU, so that the window of impersonation
> is small, but requires clients to cache an association and then has
> weird failure modes to be dealt with if one of the actors get re-imaged
> or changes the cert for any re
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 21:14, Chris Adams wrote:
> Without identification though, it doesn't do that, because there's no
> way for client B to know it is really talking to client A - it could be
> talking to client C with a man-in-the-middle attack and a different
> self-signed cert pretending to
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 12:42, Richard Hughes wrote:
> I was thinking of adding Passim as a default-installed and
> default-enabled dep of fwupd in the Fedora 40 release. Before I create
> lots of unnecessary drama, is there any early feedback on what's
> described in https://g
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 11:05, Petr Pisar wrote:
> V Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 07:34:35PM +0100, Richard Hughes napsal(a):
> > you need to reboot into the new firmware before the published firmware gets
> > shared;
> Won't this suppress an effeciency of the local sharing?
Yes -
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 16:27, Leon Fauster via devel
wrote:
> whats the benefit of this "self-signed TLS certificate" (as it does
> not provide any "security")? Is this stub for something later ... ?
It's a good question. It provides encryption (so client A can provide
the file to client B withou
On Mon, 28 Aug 2023 at 15:53, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Sorry, I am probably missing something, but how this would help my
> computer (or three I have at home)?
One computer downloads the 2MB from the CDN and the other two download
it from the first computer. This saves you 4MB in bandwidth, and saves
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 19:34, Richard Hughes wrote:
> Yes, that's what I have right now. I do need to split out a
> passim-libs so that you can remove the daemon and just leave the tiny
> client library.
Something like this perhaps?
diff --git a/passim.spec b/passim.spec
index bc
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 19:26, Marcus Müller wrote:
> I fully agree with that assessment. "Here's a knob you turn that has the
> potential to make
> your firmware update 2s faster and is generally good for the ecosystem, but
> you will have
> set it on every machine you set up" will not lead to s
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 15:59, Peter Robinson wrote:
> Is this something where you could enable it on one specific device and
> have a systemd time to pull the metadata and it advertises it to the
> network so you can designate a single device to run the service?
Yes, not a bad idea at all. Can y
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 16:27, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> It depends on the scanning from ports open to unknown shared files to 'why
> did our network costs go up so much?'
Surely if you're on a local network with bandwidth costs you'd turn
off avahi or lock down the firewall? Lots of stuff blasts
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 16:00, Benson Muite wrote:
> Better as optional rather than default-enabled. It would likely be
> helpful for computers in an institutional setting where the LAN is well
> controlled.
So that's the thing; if it's default disabled then I can say with
certainty that almost n
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 13:19, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> My understanding was that Microsoft found their own 'share updates' not
> working as much as expected
Hmm, I heard the opposite; can you give any more info? They have way
more telemetry than we do, and I was told it would not "be feasible"
t
On Fri, 25 Aug 2023 at 13:50, Petr Pisar wrote:
> I see you wrote "metadata". It's not the firmware itself .Sill my concert is
> the same: what's a license of the metada? Can I redistribute them?
The metadata is explicitly CC0-1.0 -- but even if we later did
firmware one of the things I negotiate
Hi all,
I was thinking of adding Passim as a default-installed and
default-enabled dep of fwupd in the Fedora 40 release. Before I create
lots of unnecessary drama, is there any early feedback on what's
described in https://github.com/hughsie/passim/blob/main/README.md
please.
The tl;dr: is I wan
On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 11:55, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> Especially not by making some small change contingent on moonshot proposals.
> But I think that a) the current proposal is just a band-aid, and
> b) to make things better we don't need to make huge changes.
Okay, please open a _ne
On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 10:22, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> This is both too much and not enough.
Right; and I think a different Fedora feature proposal would be a good
idea for the version of Fedora when we switch to UKIs. Where we can
just have /boot/efi and not /boot -- but that's not wh
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 at 07:05, Peter Robinson wrote:
> While I believe this to be low impact I do believe it should be a
> system wide change as it impacts all aarch64 and basically all the
> x86_64 we actively care about.
I guess you could argue it both ways -- I figured it was self
contained as
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 at 18:28, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> This refers to the minimum size being changed, but later it mentions
> the default size being changed. Are the default & minimum sizes
> effectively the same in this case ?
I believe so.
> nitpick - the github change linked is 512 MiB rat
Ok, thanks, much appreciated!
Richard.
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 at 15:57, Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 28. 03. 23 16:53, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I've got a package that's a mixture of BSD-3-Clause and BSD-4-Clause
> > (the original, old licence
Hi all,
I've got a package that's a mixture of BSD-3-Clause and BSD-4-Clause
(the original, old licence), and is current labelled "License: BSD" --
but I get the following:
license-fedora2spdx BSD
Warning: more options on how to interpret BSD. Possible options:
['BSD-1-Clause', 'BSD-2-Clause-Free
On Wed, 22 Feb 2023 at 12:03, Steve Cossette wrote:
> Downgrading:
> fwupd x86_64 1.8.10-1.fc38 fedora 1.8
> M
Mea culpa. I'm doing a new upstream release tomorrow, and will build
both as 1.8.11-1 -- I guess the drawbacks of %autorelease. From an
upgrade p
On Tue, 3 Jan 2023 at 13:46, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > BuildError: Error running GIT command "git clone -n
> > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fwupd.git
> > /var/lib/mock/f38-build-4075-4953952/root/chroot_tmpdir/scmroot/fwupd",
> > see checkout.log for details
> | fatal: the remote end hun
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 19:02, Ben Cotton wrote:
> Version: 1.2.3
> Release: %autorelease
> %autochangelog
I tied this on a package this morning and got:
BuildError: Error running GIT command "git clone -n
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fwupd.git
/var/lib/mock/f38-build-4075-4953952/root/
On Tue, 26 Jul 2022 at 19:06, Chris Murphy wrote:
> b. Add a user space utility modifies system NVRAM such that the next boot
> (only) will directly boot the Windows bootloader.
In fwupd we add a Boot target and sets BootNext to run the capsule
update loader. 99.99% of the time it works just
On Thu, 30 Jun 2022 at 10:41, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> ... *when* they are sandboxed ...
> Unfortunately, in many cases, they aren't.
I don't think that "some apps have lots of holes punched in the
sandbox, but can be locked down easily using a GUI tool, where the
majority are inde
On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 at 09:43, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Also, why would a boot menu need a particularly fancy user experience?
Being honest, I think the simplicity of sd-boot is a feature, not a failure.
Richard.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.
On Wed, 6 Apr 2022 at 11:20, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
wrote:
> > and on its way out. As it ages, maintainability has decreased, and
> > the status quo of maintaining both stacks in perpetuity is not viable
> > for those currently doing that work.
> Have you tried getting more people involve
Hi all,
I'm wanting to update the fwupd package in Fedora rawhide to the
recently released 1.6.0, but this release splits out the EFI binary to
a new source package. I've created
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1953508 for the new
package review process and would appreciate a reviewer
On Wed, 2 Dec 2020 at 16:13, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> There is a bug report [1] that KiCAD doesn't show up in the GNOME Software or
> KDE Discover managers. I ran desktop-file-validate on the kicad.desktop file
> and got a hint that there is no registered main category.
That just means it's no
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 12:38, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Because Red Hat customers put the SELinux policy developers into
> no-win situations: they complain about AVC denials that don't actually
> significantly break anything in *their* app
My response to that would be to ship a "AVC ignore-list" config
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 10:17, Tom Hughes wrote:
> > Speaking from personal experience, I've wasted days over the last
> > decade trying to debug a locally installed system service that was not
> > working where there were no messages in any of the logs (e.g. no AVCs)
> > -- and turning off selinux
On Tue, 8 Sep 2020 at 16:29, Ben Cotton wrote:
> NOTE: Runtime disable is considered deprecated by upstream, and using
> it will become increasingly painful (e.g. sleeping/blocking) through
> future kernel releases until eventually it is removed completely.
Speaking from personal experience, I've
On Wed, 19 Aug 2020 at 14:57, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> It seems like gnome-firmware also needs it and due to that both
> rawhide and branched composes failed today.
I had no idea, my apologies!
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.or
Hi all,
I'm going to build the recently released libxmlb 0.2.0 into rawhide
and F33. It has two consumers (fwupd and gnome-software) both of which
I own, and I'll rebuild them at the same time. Any problems please
shout.
RIchard.
___
devel mailing list
Hi all,
I maintain a library that's bumped soname upstream (libxmlb) that is
used just by gnome-software and fwupd in Fedora. Both users would just
need recompiling against the new ABI as they already have the right
#ifdefs in place. I'm intending to do this for F34 now it's been
branched, but is
On Thu, 13 Aug 2020 at 08:29, Artur Iwicki wrote:
> We also have an icon size requirement.
Do you have the latest appstream-data installed? I believe it went to
stable a few days ago.
Richard.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On Mon, 3 Aug 2020 at 14:02, Mohan Boddu wrote:
> Failures can be seen
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f33-failures.html
Most of those are the libcroco->gettext breakage, no? We're not going
to be rebuilding all affected packages manually are we?!
Richard./
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 22:19, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> This is not something that's beneficial here, it's only
> harming our users.
That seems exceedingly myopic to me. I'm guessing you've not been
following the last few years of security research, where attacking the
firmware is now the best wa
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 16:48, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> needlessly disables a lot of kernel functionality
It disables functionality which can destroy platform security.
> You cannot load kernel modules you've built
If you can build and insert your own kernel module you can do almost
anything to
On Wed, 8 Jul 2020 at 09:59, Marius Vollmer wrote:
> As I understand it, there is a lot of evolving OS specific subtlety
> involved, so I am asking specifically how this would look on current
> Fedora and what to expect in the near future.
Just a heads-up; the PCR0 changes when you upgrade the sy
On Fri, 26 Jun 2020, 22:21 Florian Weimer, wrote:
> Is FirmwareUpdate.efi really firmware in Fedora's sense? Won't it run
> on the host CPU?
>
This is flashed hardware!? Can't mellanox just use the LVFS to distribute
firmware rather than having to install a package of blobs you're going to
use
On Thu, 25 Jun 2020 at 14:57, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> What you need is to disable is the "shebang dependency generator" from RPM.
> The
> easiest way is to use:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering/
> %global __requires_exclude ^%{python3
Hi all,
In fwupd we ship 4 *tiny* python scripts that are useful for ODMs and
other people working with low level firmware blobs. In
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fwupd/pull-request/2 it was
suggested we split them off as a subpackage to avoid the
/usr/bin/python3 dep which is unwanted on Cor
On Fri, 1 May 2020 at 06:22, Joe Doss wrote:
> Yes!!! This works on my T490s!
Phew! Do we know why it's not been promoted to stable yet?
Richard.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.
On Fri, 3 Apr 2020 at 07:48, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> The problem is that in the past there have been some packages that have
> had to be updated first to successfully do the upgrade.
So we list them with versions and do a deterministic check. Being told
over and over and again "you need to make sure
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 01:59, Neal Gompa wrote:
> caches are not, and that *does* need to be fixed. The library
> interface for DNF already has APIs for this, PackageKit doesn't use
> them.
I'm 100% okay with a pull request to fix this, as long as the same
cache promises are met, i.e. PackageKit n
Hi all,
I've orphaned argyllcms. The current version fails to build in Fedora
32 and I no longer use these tools. The Fedora package is also a few
minor versions out of date. For anyone wanting to take over this
package be aware upstream is pretty hostile for Linux packaging. For
instance, you hav
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 at 18:07, Martin Kolman wrote:
> IIRC the speedups in compression and decompression
> speed we got for RPMs[0] with zstd were pretty nice
If it helps the argument, at the moment 99.7% of the time building the
AppStream metadata is spent decompressing the RPMs. If zstd helps wit
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 00:48, Chris Murphy wrote:
> This is an hp spectre running Fedora 30 Workstation. On Fedora 29,
> there was fairly close agreement between powertop and upower and the
> time estimates were sane.
If you downgrade back to a F29 live session, is it sane again? If the
answer is
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 at 21:02, Neal Gompa wrote:
> If an update occurs even within stable
> releases, I would expect it to have a chance to break.
We don't break plugin ABI in stable GNOME releases. e.g. 3.32.1 will
be the same internal ABI as 3.32.x. In development releases (e.g.
3.33.x) all plug
On Thu, 11 Jul 2019 at 14:52, Neal Gompa wrote:
> My understanding of the situation was that Canonical is working on a
> separate experience tailored for Ubuntu because they have extra needs,
> but all of it was built on GNOME Software in the first place.
No, it's also a new codebase: https://git
Hi all,
In Fedora 31 I'll be disabling the snap plugin from GNOME Software.
It's never been enabled in RHEL and so this change only affects
Fedora. It's also not installed by default and so this change should
only affect a few people. It's also not really a FutureFeature, it's a
RemovalOfFeature b
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 at 03:59, Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
wrote:
> Any objections?
None whatsoever. I use an old version of this in my UEFI work. If you
get it building in Fedora 30 I'd be happy to co-maintain.
Richard
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lis
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 19:27, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Hmm? Can you elaborate? Why does fwupd's runtime have something to do
> with display flickers? Not grokking the connection?
More information in
https://github.com/hughsie/fwupd/commit/75b965d01d80d70ae51816acd4d4cafdaf792e99
-- in the case
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 19:21, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Very similar is actually "fwupd", why does that need to run all the
> time? Seems like something that should be bus activatable, and
> exit-on-idle, but why run it all the time?
It does exit on idle, if you don't have hardware that is trick
On Wed, 13 Mar 2019 at 14:37, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> Dne 13. 03. 19 v 13:50 Kalev Lember napsal(a):
> > ..makes it harder for other programs such as packagekit
> > and gnome-software that all need to adopt for the new paths.
> Not exactly true.
It's completely true, Kalev is spot on. GNOME Sof
On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 10:29, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
> It may be wrong, however as fwupd-1.2.4 uses g_format_size(), I guess that
> this failure is due to recent g_format_size() output change (in glib2-2.59.X):
Aha! Thanks, that sounds exactly right. Much appreciated.
Richard.
_
Hi all,
One of my package builds (fwupd) in F30 is failing in the unit tests,
with this failure comparing the expected output of a to_string()
function:
- Size: 1.0 kB
+ Size: 1.0?kB
I assume it's due to the removal of glibc-langpacks-all from the
buildroot. I't
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 at 08:57, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Yes, Tom's proposal makes sense. Calculate the UUID you submit as
> HMAC(machined_id, CONCAT(fixedappuuid, unixtime/432000))
Out of interest, how is using a HMAC different to just using the
machine-id appended with a salt, sha256'd?
Rich
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 10:16, Hans de Goede wrote:
> So I say +100 to just pushing the changes directly, as said
> people can always revert them.
Completely agree. For my packages I'd totally prefer things just
magically be done without any action on my part.
Richard.
___
On Wed, 14 Nov 2018 at 11:26, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> It is not so much whether we "care", but rather whether we have enough
> time in the day to get the expected work done. I can't magic up more
> time to work no matter how much I care to.
Exactly my situation too.
Richard.
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 11:38, Matthew Miller wrote:
> What about a "Command Line tools for Developers" section in Software?
We've got a developers top level, so I think a CLI tools subsection
would be fine.
Richard.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@list
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 at 09:36, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> I was always under impression, that we don't want to show CLI apps in
> Software. Not sure what was the reasoning behind, but I can imagine that:
> * we don't want Python to show up in Software (for example)
Right, agreed.
> * screenshots of ter
On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 at 16:19, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I'd be *strongly* disinclined to give a Freeze Exception for a GNOME
> mega-update.
So you'd rather we ship GA with early pre-release builds of GNOME that
have had little-to-no testing? From a downstream point of view I'm not
going to fix t
On Mon, 20 Aug 2018 at 20:13, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> but would you prefer that I append something to my machine ID
> so that I can send the others?
Yes please, just change the last two digits. I think it always has to
be 32 hex chars in size, but it doesn't have to be a machine ID.
> Simp
Hi all,
I've started to look at adding firmware updates for NVMe hardware to
the LVFS project (realistically for Fedora >= 31, so don't get too
excited). Before I know which vendors to approach, and what I need to
ask for, I need to get some statistics about the NVMe hardware the
"typical linux us
On Tue, 10 Jul 2018 at 13:35, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> IMO even if he has some potential I'm guessing that he is still
> relatively young and if it is true he may still need proper mentoring
Not cool, you stepped over the line. Igor has done some great work in
Fedora in the last few months.
Richa
On Wed, 4 Jul 2018 at 14:17, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
wrote:
> - pkcon ?
> - Gnome Software ?
I've been talking internally about this. The idea is for pkcon and
GNOME Software to have a superficial view of what modules are, but not
to actually expose all the nitty-gritty detail. It's on my rad
1 - 100 of 670 matches
Mail list logo
