Welcome Jered,
> Why I've joined the list: The Package Maintainers Howto says I should, and
> also to say hello. Hello! I'm in the process of moving my personal
> infrastructure from some slowly decaying servers at INAP Somerville into AWS
> us-east-1, and in the process migrating from Debian
Dne 04. 04. 22 v 10:29 Peter Robinson napsal(a):
How will this key be distributed on the distro filesystem or on the web?
The pub keys will be both, I've added a paragraph to the detailed description.
Please add it as TYPE 61 DNS record as well:
https://github.com/xsuchy/distribution-gpg-keys
> >> Hi, creating a thread on this from:
> >> https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/1650
> >>
> >> Basically I'd propose that not just our default images have
> >> y2038-compatible filesystem setups, we ensure that if e.g. XFS is
> >> explicitly chosen for a Workstation installation
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:14 AM Ian Laurie wrote:
> I've done some playing and it looks like it is the first resize after
> the first login after a boot causes it. After that it doesn't seem to
> happen (or it is very infrequent if it does).
>
I'm quite certain it's this:
https://ask.fedoraproje
Hello,
overdue update has just been pushed to release
and will be available soon on the website.
Most notable changes:
* Introduce Lua installation [0]
* Python FastAPI installation [1]
* Configuring RubyGems through .gemrc [2]
* Document usage of qemu sessions in Vagrant [3]
* Long ov
On 04/04/2022 12:34, Fabio Valentini wrote:
I wonder, does this have measurable effect on the time it takes to
build a package?
O(1) -> O(N), where N is the number of files in the RPM package.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
__
BTW, this happened to me on physical Rawhide first time yesterday, after
I updated the system. I did the previous update on 2022-03-18 and all
worked just fine up until yesterday. Therefore I am attaching the update
log and one of the packages must make the difference.
Vít
Dne 05. 04. 22 v
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (aarch64), 1/8 (x86_64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
New soft failures (same test not soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-35-20220404.0):
ID: 1211426 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi
URL:
No missing expected images.
Soft failed openQA tests: 1/8 (x86_64), 1/8 (aarch64)
(Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug)
Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-34-20220404.0):
ID: 1211543 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud
URL: https://op
Hi,
I am Radka, I have been working in Red Hat Brno since 2014 as a RHEL
Quality Engineer. A few years ago you might know me as Radka Skvarilova.
I am interested in upstreaming our internal tests and helping our
developers to feel more safe with releasing some changes in their packages.
Have a nice
Peter Robinson wrote:
> Is ext4 actually a problem here? From the y2038 list [1] the ext4 with
> "new inodes" which has the option of "34 bit seconds / 30-bit ns" has
> a rollover date of 2582. The new extended i_ctime_extra [2] was added
> in 2007 and apparently made the default in 2008 [3] so it
Welcome Radka, glad to have you here :D
Best regards
Josef Ridky
Senior Software Engineer
Core Services Team
Red Hat Czech, s.r.o.
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:16 PM Radka Brychtova wrote:
> Hi,
> I am Radka, I have been working in Red Hat Brno since 2014 as a RHEL
> Quality Engineer. A few year
Welcome, Radka, and good luck!
Frantisek
On 4/5/22 12:06, Radka Brychtova wrote:
Hi,
I am Radka, I have been working in Red Hat Brno since 2014 as a RHEL Quality
Engineer. A few years ago you might know me as Radka Skvarilova.
I am interested in upstreaming our internal tests and helping our d
I have no idea whether or not this Change would add significantly to
package build times in practice. It’s a good question. I think answering
it would require benchmarks rather than asymptotic reasoning, though.
There are plenty of things in an RPM build that already inherently take
O(N) time i
> So I come to y'all to ask about this and give us some feedback on the
> idea, how to do it, and what kinds of things you expect people to need
> a recovery environment for.
As somebody used to often get a knock on the door past midnight in the
early 2000’s because some guy in the hostel borked t
Thanks for updating these pages.
I noticed that the Flask and Django pages have language like:
Fedora includes a |python3-flask| package that you can install and
import. However, unless you are developing or packaging an
application for Fedora, it is more useful to install Flask as a
On 4/5/22 03:54, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> Is ext4 actually a problem here?
It would appear not. I was going off the info from the original email and just
noticed that Justin's
reply addressed the xfs concern and I was wondering about ext4.
Thanks for the info.
Dusty
___
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:48 AM Dusty Mabe wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/5/22 03:54, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >
> > Is ext4 actually a problem here?
>
> It would appear not. I was going off the info from the original email and
> just noticed that Justin's
> reply addressed the xfs concern and I was wondering
On 05/04/2022 13:12, Ben Beasley wrote:
There are plenty of things in an RPM build that already inherently take
O(N) time in the number of files or the total size of the files, even
ignoring %build and %install.
Yes, but signing is an extremely slow process. Rebuilding the texlive
package dur
Once upon a time, Neal Gompa said:
> What about squashfs? We use that for the live media, is that affected?
There's also vfat (for EFI system partition) and ISO9660 (base for all
media). How do they handle dates?
--
Chris Adams
___
devel mailing list
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 6:07 AM wrote:
>
> You are kindly invited to the meeting:
>Prioritized bugs and issues on 2022-04-06 from 10:00:00 to 11:00:00
> America/Indiana/Indianapolis
>At fedora-meetin...@irc.libera.chat
We will review the following nominated bugs
* flathub filtered repo s
On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 17:38 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Earlier this week, the Fedora Workstation WG discussed a ticket
> brought to us asking for a GUI-based rescue/recovery environment[1].
> While we all agreed in principle that such a thing would be a very
> good thing to have, we d
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:20 AM Marc Pervaz Boocha via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2022-03-31 at 17:38 -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Earlier this week, the Fedora Workstation WG discussed a ticket
> > brought to us asking for a GUI-based rescue/recovery e
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:10 AM Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Neal Gompa said:
> > What about squashfs? We use that for the live media, is that affected?
>
> There's also vfat (for EFI system partition) and ISO9660 (base for all
> media). How do they handle dates?
> --
FAT filesystems
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:10 PM Chris Adams wrote:
>
> Once upon a time, Neal Gompa said:
> > What about squashfs? We use that for the live media, is that affected?
>
> There's also vfat (for EFI system partition) and ISO9660 (base for all
> media). How do they handle dates?
Did you look at this
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022, at 3:51 PM, Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:47 AM Colin Walters wrote:
>>
>> Hi, creating a thread on this from:
>> https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/1650
>>
>> Basically I'd propose that not just our default images have y2038-compatible
>
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:48 AM Colin Walters wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022, at 3:51 PM, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:47 AM Colin Walters wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, creating a thread on this from:
> >> https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/1650
> >>
> >> Basicall
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:50 AM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:48 AM Colin Walters wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022, at 3:51 PM, Justin Forbes wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:47 AM Colin Walters wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Hi, creating a thread on this from:
> > >> https
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the
FESCo meeting Tuesday at 17:00UTC in #fedora-meeting on
irc.libera.chat.
To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/UTCHowto
or run:
date -d '2022-04-05 17:00 UTC'
Links to all issues to be d
On Mon, Apr 04, 2022 at 02:51:52PM -0500, Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 11:47 AM Colin Walters wrote:
> >
> > Hi, creating a thread on this from:
> > https://github.com/coreos/fedora-coreos-config/pull/1650
> >
> > Basically I'd propose that not just our default images have
> > y2
Welcome Jered!
If you need help packaging PoV, I'll help you find Peter Robinson... :)
Clark
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 7:42 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> Welcome Jered,
>
> > Why I've joined the list: The Package Maintainers Howto says I should, and
> > also to say hello. Hello! I'm in the proces
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022, at 10:11 AM, Justin Forbes wrote:
>
> That list hasn't been edited in 5 years, but 256 bit inodes have been
> the ext default for a very long time unless you specifically request
> small.
In current Fedora CoreOS we have 128 bit inodes for /boot, and this appears to
be t
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:27 AM Colin Walters wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022, at 10:11 AM, Justin Forbes wrote:
> >
> > That list hasn't been edited in 5 years, but 256 bit inodes have been
> > the ext default for a very long time unless you specifically request
> > small.
>
> In current Fedor
On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 15:58:14 -0500
Gregory Bartholomew wrote:
> > Of topic but related: I wish there was supported option to remove
> > the current rescue kernel,
>
> Is echo "dracut_rescue_image=no" > /etc/dracut.conf.d/rescue.conf not
> sufficient?
That is an interesting option. It isn't do
Once upon a time, Colin Walters said:
> Ah but with a 512M disk I do get 256 bit inodes, I bet that's the difference.
It comes from /etc/mke2fs.conf... kind of. Below 512M, mke2fs chooses
to use the "small" config from there, which includes the smaller
inode_size. The thresholds are hard-coded
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
== Summary ==
Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
platforms that support it (x86_64). Legacy BIOS support is not
removed, but new non-UEFI installation is not supported on those
platforms. This is a first ste
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
>
> == Summary ==
> Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
> platforms that support it (x86_64). Legacy BIOS support is not
> removed, but new non-UEFI instal
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:47 AM stan via devel
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 15:58:14 -0500
> Gregory Bartholomew wrote:
>
> > > Of topic but related: I wish there was supported option to remove
> > > the current rescue kernel,
> >
> > Is echo "dracut_rescue_image=no" > /etc/dracut.conf.d/rescue.
Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 36 Branched 20220405.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:09 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
> > platforms that support it (x86_6
On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 10:52 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
>
> Important, relevant points from that thread (yes, I reread the entire
> thread) that have informed this change:
>
> * Some machines are BIOS-only. This change does not prevent th
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:26 AM Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:09 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> > >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
> > >
> > > == Summary ==
> > > Make UEFI a hardware require
* Peter Robinson:
> This is out of context here because you can disable Secure Boot but
> still use UEFI to make that work. You're trying to link to different
> problems together.
I think there's firmware out there which enables Secure Boot
unconditionally in UEFI mode, but still has CSM support.
Neal Gompa writes:
> And we've still failed to get ARM and RISC-V broadly on board with
> UEFI
This statement is not correct. ARM in Fedora is UEFI-only, and we were
both in the Plumbers conversation around RISC-V's booting.
> We also lack solutions for dealing with the NVIDIA driver in
> UEFI
OLD: Fedora-36-20220404.n.0
NEW: Fedora-36-20220405.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:1
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 16
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 49
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 37.83 MiB
Size of dropped packages:9.07 MiB
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:47 AM stan via devel
wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2022 15:58:14 -0500
> Gregory Bartholomew wrote:
>
> > > Of topic but related: I wish there was supported option to remove
> > > the current rescue kernel,
> >
> > Is echo "dracut_rescue_image=no" > /etc/dracut.conf.d/rescue.co
On Tue, Apr 5 2022 at 11:56:07 AM -0400, Robbie Harwood
wrote:
Users wishing to use NVIDIA hardware have the following options:
- Use nouveau (free, open source, cool)
- Sign their own copy of the proprietary driver (involves messing with
certificates, so not appropriate for all users)
- Disa
> On Apr 5, 2022, at 8:08 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>>
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
>>
>> == Summary ==
>> Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
>> platforms that support it (x86_64)
On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 9:40 PM Gordon Messmer
wrote:
> The ticket mentions Boot Repair, which is the first thing that comes to
> mind: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Boot-Repair
Boot repair is obviously tricky because you have to have something bootable
to initiate the repair. Practically sp
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022, 11:15 Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> >
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
> >
> > == Summary ==
> > Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
> > platforms that support it (x86_64).
On Tue, 2022-04-05 at 09:33 -0700, David Duncan wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 2022, at 8:08 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:54 AM Ben Cotton
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
> > >
> > > == Summary ==
> > > Make UEFI a hardwa
Neal Gompa writes:
> By virtue of how boot stuff is handled in Fedora, the community is
> incapable of working on it.
Not true. Not at all true.
src.fedoraproject.org permits anyone, *anyone* to send PRs to fix issues
in the boot stack, or any other package. Even without it, bugzilla
doesn't
David Duncan writes:
> For similar reasons, I agree with Neal. There are a number of Amazon
> EC2 instance types that would be left out of the next generation. I
> think it would be better to identify the usage in some way and create
> a general awareness that it is being removed prior to outrigh
Once upon a time, Robbie Harwood said:
> (Just to be clear here: this change is proposing a deprecation, not a
> removal.)
No, the change proposes making it impossible to install Fedora on BIOS.
That's not a deprecation.
--
Chris Adams
___
devel maili
Am 05.04.22 um 16:52 schrieb Ben Cotton:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
== Summary ==
Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
platforms that support it (x86_64). Legacy BIOS support is not
removed, but new non-UEFI installation is not suppo
On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
* There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
don’t drop support for existing Legacy BIOS systems yet, just new
installations.
This is where I have a problem with this, the fact
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 2/15 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-36-20220404.0):
ID: 1212154 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification@uefi
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1212154
Old failures (same test failed in Fed
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
>
> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> > * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
> > repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
> > don’t drop support for existing Legacy BIOS systems yet, ju
On 05/04/2022 18:38, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
* There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
don’t drop support for existing
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> > * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
> > repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
> > don’t drop support for exis
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> Fedora Server users *must* fully reinstall, because there's no way to
> make space for an ESP and reconfigure things.
>
I haven't done a "default" Fedora Server installation in a long time, so
I'm not sure how they are laid out. But I seem to r
> Am 05.04.2022 um 16:52 schrieb Ben Cotton :
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
>
> == Summary ==
> Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
> platforms that support it (x86_64). Legacy BIOS support is not
> removed, but new non-UEFI installa
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:46 PM Tom Hughes wrote:
>
> On 05/04/2022 18:38, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>
> >>> * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
> >>> repartitioning
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:47 PM Gregory Bartholomew
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> Fedora Server users *must* fully reinstall, because there's no way to
>> make space for an ESP and reconfigure things.
>
>
> I haven't done a "default" Fedora Server installation
Tom Hughes via devel writes:
> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
>> * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
>> repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
>> don’t drop support for existing Legacy BIOS systems yet, just new
>> installations.
>
> This
On 05/04/2022 18:51, Robbie Harwood wrote:
Right, you need the EFI partition (EFI System Partition, or ESP). I
don't remember what we default those to these days - I usually make
about 600M, but I need it larger for testing stuff. The partition
scheme also needs to be GPT, not MBR. Once that'
Peter Boy writes:
> And I also don't understand why we should give up a hallmark of free
> Linux, namely to support old, but still good usable hardware (unlike
> commercial system, not only Windows but also e.g. RHEL).
Developers are free to support whatever systems they like. If someone
wants
Gregory Bartholomew writes:
> But I seem to remember /boot being a separate partition for a long
> time (it used to be required because some older BOISs couldn't read
> beyond a certain sector on the disk). Could not /boot be converted to
> the ESP (i.e. reformatted with FAT32) on such systems?
> Am 05.04.2022 um 19:38 schrieb Neal Gompa :
>
> Fedora Server is
> screwed because they use XFS and you cannot shrink an XFS volume.
Server is not screwed because of XFS, according to the change, an existing
installation can still use bios boot. That is not a Problem. (And you could
easily
Tom Hughes writes:
> On 05/04/2022 18:51, Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
>> Right, you need the EFI partition (EFI System Partition, or ESP). I
>> don't remember what we default those to these days - I usually make
>> about 600M, but I need it larger for testing stuff. The partition
>> scheme also nee
No missing expected images.
Failed openQA tests: 7/229 (x86_64), 11/161 (aarch64)
New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-36-20220404.n.0):
ID: 1211773 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_printing
URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/1211773
ID: 1211779 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-is
> Am 05.04.2022 um 19:57 schrieb Robbie Harwood :
>
> Peter Boy writes:
>
>> And I also don't understand why we should give up a hallmark of free
>> Linux, namely to support old, but still good usable hardware (unlike
>> commercial system, not only Windows but also e.g. RHEL).
>
> Developers
> Ben Cotton writes:
> == Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
> platforms that support it (x86_64).
My problem here is that I have real, useful hardware which has always
run Fedora that I would like to continue using. But it's just old
enough (purchased in 2011)
So you've heard that we're overloaded, and you know that UEFI is the
direction the world is heading.
Well, so is (was?) 'IPv6' ...
Your solution to this is... what, stick
our heads in the sand and ignore that? Just do legacy? We already have
UEFI-only platforms (see also: the mention of ARM
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:17 PM Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>
> For those who might be curious, the systems are Supermicro 6026TT-HTRF
> machines with four nodes in 2U. I have three, so twelve machines in
> total. The machines have X8DTT-HF+ motherboards. I actually have older
> hardware than t
PGNet Dev writes:
> Curious, has anyone from @redhat or @fedora though to actually
> communicate with any of the 'big' hosting providers, to perhaps
> coordinate/influence/compromise/plan?
>
> I'd bet AWS, DigitalOcean & Linode/Akamai -- among this biggest
> hosting providers where 'new installs'
(Akamai is, to my knowledge, not a provider of VPSs.)
https://www.linode.com/press-release/akamai-to-acquire-linode/
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 2:36 PM Robbie Harwood wrote:
>
> PGNet Dev writes:
>
> > Curious, has anyone from @redhat or @fedora though to actually
> > communicate with any of the 'big' hosting providers, to perhaps
> > coordinate/influence/compromise/plan?
> >
> > I'd bet AWS, DigitalOcean & Linode/
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2022-04-05)
===
Meeting started by mhroncok at 17:00:17 UTC. The full logs are available
at
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2022-04-05/fesco.2022-04-05-17.00.log.html
.
Meeting summary
On 4/5/22 12:29, Michael Catanzaro wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5 2022 at 11:56:07 AM -0400, Robbie Harwood
> wrote:
>> Users wishing to use NVIDIA hardware have the following options:
>>
>> - Use nouveau (free, open source, cool)
>> - Sign their own copy of the proprietary driver (involves messing with
Akamai owns Linode, which is a prominent VPS that focuses on Linux
(Linode is a contraction meaning "Linux Node").
+1
DigitalOcean similarly is Linux centric and so Windows doesn't matter.
+1
Most web hosting providers and VPSes are Linux-centric and so Windows
doesn't matter.
+1
Ironi
On 4/5/22 13:38, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
> wrote:
>>
>> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
>>
>>> * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
>>> repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
>>> don’t drop suppor
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:06 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>
> On 4/5/22 13:38, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
> >>
> >>> * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
> >>> repartition
On 4/5/22 15:09, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:06 PM Demi Marie Obenour
> wrote:
>>
>> On 4/5/22 13:38, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 1:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
>>> wrote:
On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
> * There is no migration story fr
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:15 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> We also lack solutions for dealing with the NVIDIA driver in
> UEFI+Secure Boot case. Are you planning to actually *fix* that now?
> Because we still don't have a way to have kernel-only keyrings for
> secure boot certificates to avoid importing
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:18 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> While this will eventually reduce workload for boot/installation
> components (grub2 reduces surface area, syslinux goes away entirely,
> anaconda reduces surface area), the reduction in support burden
> extends much further into the stack - for
I frequently use BIOS-only machines which don't have a UEFI boot option
- and one of those machines is indeed running Fedora! Certainly, I
understand that there are better ways of booting systems now, but for
the time being BIOS is still very important.
If the installation media can not install on
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:38 PM Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:15 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > We also lack solutions for dealing with the NVIDIA driver in
> > UEFI+Secure Boot case. Are you planning to actually *fix* that now?
> > Because we still don't have a way to have kernel-o
On Wed, Apr 6, 2022 at 1:18 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DeprecateLegacyBIOS
>
> == Summary ==
> Make UEFI a hardware requirement for new Fedora installations on
> platforms that support it (x86_64). Legacy BIOS support is not
> removed, but new non-UEFI install
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:01 PM Sebastian Crane wrote:
> If the installation media can not install onto BIOS-only machines yet
> all the bootloader stages support BIOS, then there will be an awkward
> stage where some existing Fedora installations can be upgraded, but if
> anything goes wrong it'd
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
> Fedora already requires a 2GHz dual core CPU at minimum (and therefore
> mandates that machines must have been made after 2006).
Where do we require this? I see only one location for such minimums:
https://getfedora.org/en/workstation/download/
Chris Murphy writes:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 8:54 AM Ben Cotton wrote:
>
>> Fedora already requires a 2GHz dual core CPU at minimum (and therefore
>> mandates that machines must have been made after 2006).
>
> Where do we require this? I see only one location for such minimums:
>
> https://getf
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:56 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Peter Robinson:
>
> > This is out of context here because you can disable Secure Boot but
> > still use UEFI to make that work. You're trying to link to different
> > problems together.
>
> I think there's firmware out there which enables
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:28 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 9:56 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > * Peter Robinson:
> >
> > > This is out of context here because you can disable Secure Boot but
> > > still use UEFI to make that work. You're trying to link to different
> > > prob
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:31 AM Tom Hughes via devel
wrote:
>
> On 05/04/2022 15:52, Ben Cotton wrote:
>
> > * There is no migration story from Legacy BIOS to UEFI -
> > repartitioning effectively mandates a reinstall. As a result, we
> > don’t drop support for existing Legacy BIOS systems yet, j
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:47 AM Gregory Bartholomew
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:39 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> Fedora Server users *must* fully reinstall, because there's no way to
>> make space for an ESP and reconfigure things.
>
>
> I haven't done a "default" Fedora Server installation
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 4:10 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:38 PM Adam Jackson wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:15 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > > We also lack solutions for dealing with the NVIDIA driver in
> > > UEFI+Secure Boot case. Are you planning to actually *fix* t
On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 07:05:24PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 10:16:01AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 06:10:03PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2022 at 10:07:39AM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2022
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 3:51 PM Chris Murphy wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 11:47 AM Gregory Bartholomew
> wrote:
>
> > I haven't done a "default" Fedora Server installation in a long time, so
> I'm not sure how they are laid out. But I seem to remember /boot being a
> separate partition for a l
On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 5:46 PM Richard Shaw wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 12:31 PM Tom Hughes via devel
> wrote:
==
>> Is it actually true though? You need to be able to find some space
>> for an EFI partition but assuming that can be done is there some
>> other reason you can't migrate from
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
