desktop February 2018

desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org

31 participants
18 discussions

Applications to Flatpak
by Owen Taylor 16 Feb '18

16 Feb '18

While waiting on/working on getting Flatpaks building in the Fedora infrastructure, I took some time to write a tool to collect information about applications we might want to package as Flatpaks and how they correlate with the runtime. You can find the result at: https://fishsoup.net/misc/flatpak-runtime-reports/applications.html (more reports can be clicked through at the top.) The data source for this are: A) The Fedora appstream B) The Fedora package set C) The Flathub appstream D) ODRS reviews (odrs.gnome.org) [ Scripts are in https://src.fedoraproject.org/modules/flatpak-runtime/ - but currently depend on only-on-my-computer versions of fedmod. Once the F28 hybrid compose is sorted out, I can start working on pushing those changes out. ] Some initial observations: * The most popularly reviewed applications on ODRS are either a) packaged in Fedora or b) can't be packaged in Fedora. This is somewhat circular because a large fraction of ODRS reviews come from Fedora. * There are a lot of popularly reviewed applications in Fedora that are *not* on Flathub. Some are don't make sense or are very hard to Flatpak (GParted, GNOME Boxes), but plenty of others (qBittorent, Stellarium, etc.) should be reasonably straightforward. * Many applications have a *lot* of dependencies that would need to be bundled given the current runtime contents. But often these are stray - e.g. gedit pulls 41 dependencies, but if it would only require 4 dependencies if it was fixed to depend on gvfs-client rather than gvfs. Or as another example, applications that depend on the KDE Frameworks pull in a pile of perl packages because of /usr/bin/preparetips5 in kf5-kconfigwidgets which seems marginally useful at runtime. * A few packages would get bundled into many, many applications - and should definitely be added to the runtime (qt-settings, glx-utils). But on the other hand there are a huge set of packages that get bundled into exactly 1 out of the 800 packages examined here (maybe 1700/3700.) * I'm not sure yet whether a "flatpak-shared-deps" module with dependencies built into /app is useful. The pros of it are: - Things built in it will be shared on disk between different apps because of ostree deduplication. (But not when downloading via OCI.) - Things that are hard to build (think perl, texlive) only need to be worked out once. * The bulk of the runtime packages get used very broadly, but there is a short tail of stuff in there that *no* app requires. Some of this I've already identified as stray and to be removed (krb5-server, say.) Once we get the building infrastructure going, we can start picking off some of the low-hanging fruit and looking at the harder cases. Regards, Owen

4 8

Starting an Atomic Workstation SIG
by Owen Taylor 16 Feb '18

16 Feb '18

Hi desktop-list and others, There was a lot of interest around Atomic Workstation at DevConf.cz - there were three talks specifically about Atomic Workstation (*), in addition to quite a few related talks. We should try to catch some of this momentum and figure out how to move the project forward. My thought is that it would be useful to set up a regular IRC meeting, probably every two weeks - more or less an Atomic Workstation SIG. Areas of work that come to mind would be: * Keeping the OSTree and installer composing, installing, and working * Increasing automated testing done on the OSTree image * Making sure that open technical questions and pull requests are dealt with * Documention, including best practices for development on an OSTree system * General initiative planning - milestones, promotion, etc. * Figuring out technical next steps If you are interested and think you would regularly attend meetings and participate, please add yourself to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/AtomicWorkstation/SIG or email me. Please include your timezone, and whether you would would be able to make a meeting opposite weeks from the workstation working group - Monday 13:00 UTC - that's one time that comes to mind, but I'm not at at all tied to it. I can handle agenda and running the meeting for now. Thanks! Owen (*) Sanja Bonic and Colin Walters - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4IPWlfkJSo Kalev Lember - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc7lvkl5atE Jonathan Lebon - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c3GdfhWzcc

9 14

RFC - gobject-introspection rpm provides
by Yanko Kaneti 16 Feb '18

16 Feb '18

Hello, How about generating rpm provides for gir typelibs at buildtime ? pull request doing something of the sort in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/gobject-introspection/pull-request/1 eg gir-1.0(NMGtk-1.0)(x86-64) provided by libnm-gtk The requires on those I guess should be manual for the time being. I realize it probably qualifies as a system wide change, but decided to first bring it up here. Regards Yanko

1 1

Workstatin WG meeting minutes
by mcatanzaro＠gnome.org 12 Feb '18

12 Feb '18

Minutes: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2018-02-12/workstation.2… Minutes (text): https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2018-02-12/workstation.2… Log: https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2018-02-12/workstation.2… ================================= #fedora-meeting-2: Workstation WG ================================= Meeting started by mcatanzaro at 14:03:06 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2018-02-12/workstation.2… . Meeting summary --------------- * Reduce initial setup redundancy (mcatanzaro, 14:05:46) * LINK: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/21 (mcatanzaro, 14:05:54) * LINK: https://pagure.io/fedora-kickstarts/pull-request/328 (mcatanzaro, 14:06:51) * LINK: https://jenkins.fedorainfracloud.org/job/fedora-kickstarts/552/ (stickster, 14:08:39) * LINK: https://jenkins.fedorainfracloud.org/job/fedora-kickstarts/552/console <-- failing jenkins build (mcatanzaro, 14:09:31) * ACTION: mcatanzaro to try to get his fedora-kickstarts PR merged (mcatanzaro, 14:11:29) * Noto Colour Emoji (google-noto-emoji-color-fonts) should be installed by default (mcatanzaro, 14:13:52) * LINK: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/31 (juhp, 14:16:37) * AGREED: Let's switch to Noto Color Emoji (+5,1,-0) (mcatanzaro, 14:29:22) * ACTION: juhp to co-ordinate the change to the noto fonts as the default colour emoji font (ryanlerch, 14:39:37) * Replace Shotwell with GNOME Photos in default install (ryanlerch, 14:40:05) * LINK: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/32 (ryanlerch, 14:40:21) * AGREED: GNOME photos to be the default photos app in Fedora Workstation (6 +1s, 2 0s) (ryanlerch, 14:55:40) * Replace Rhythmbox with GNOME Music in default install (ryanlerch, 14:58:05) * LINK: https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/33 (ryanlerch, 14:58:17) Meeting ended at 15:02:57 UTC. Action Items ------------ * mcatanzaro to try to get his fedora-kickstarts PR merged * juhp to co-ordinate the change to the noto fonts as the default colour emoji font Action Items, by person ----------------------- * juhp * juhp to co-ordinate the change to the noto fonts as the default colour emoji font * mcatanzaro * mcatanzaro to try to get his fedora-kickstarts PR merged * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * mcatanzaro (52) * ryanlerch (43) * stickster (30) * mclasen (29) * otaylor (20) * zodbot (17) * juhp (17) * kalev (15) * ignatenkobrain (10) * rdieter (5) * sgallagh (2) * bt0_ (2) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot

2 1

[Fedocal] Reminder meeting : Workstation WG
by stickster＠gmail.com 10 Feb '18

10 Feb '18

Dear all, You are kindly invited to the meeting: Workstation WG on 2018-02-12 from 09:00:00 to 10:00:00 America/New_York At fedora-meeting-2(a)irc.freenode.net The meeting will be about: Regular meeting for the Workstation Working Group. Agenda: [https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issues?status=Open&tags=meeting](https… More information available at: [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/… Source: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/calendar/meeting/6411/

1 0

some atomic questions
by Matthias Clasen 07 Feb '18

07 Feb '18

All this interest in atomic workstation made me dust off my vm. While upgrading it, I ran into a number of questions that I couldn't find any answers for. This might be useful information to put on a new atomic workstation website. 1) How do I find out what I'm running ? I guess the answer to this is rpm-ostree status, but what does it actually tell me ? ● atomicws:atomicws/fedora/x86_64/continuous Version: 26.447 (2018-01-29 04:58:49) BaseCommit: ba986d4649f08705185ba1ce7208e72d149b1e35314d112a86348cb1d61f6f52 LayeredPackages: powerline It would be nice to explain this output a bit - I assume the first 'atomicws' is a repository name, and 'atomicws/fedora/x86_64/continuous' is a branch name. Version 26.447 may indicate that I am running some version of Fedora 26. Unfortunately, I haven't really seen the gnome-software support in action yet, but I hope it shows this information as well. 2) How do I get the latest updates ? rpm-ostree upgrade is easy enough (once I've found it). 3) How do I upgrade to a newer release ? 4) How do I find out what branches are available to rebase to ? 5) Where is the repo configuration stored ? This is where I got stuck - I could not find any answers to these. Very frustrating, a normal user would have given up here. Eventually, Kalev told me to create a file in /etc/ostree/remotes.d/ with some content, and then I figured out to run ostree remote refs fedora to see the branches in the repo, and rpm-ostree rebase fedora:fedora/27/x86_64/workstation to upgrade to one of them. I blindly picked this branch, since I have no idea what the difference between fedora/27/x86_64/testing/workstation fedora/27/x86_64/updates/workstation fedora/27/x86_64/workstation might be... Also, I had to disable gpg verification, since I didn't know where to find the key for that repo. We need to make the rpm-ostree plugin support distro-upgrades inside gnome-software. And also make this information available in some obvious place.

4 6

Rotating WG chair
by Paul W. Frields 05 Feb '18

05 Feb '18

As we discussed in the meeting earlier this week (sorry for not following up sooner), I'd like to start a process of rotating the chair duties for the Workstation working group meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, January 29. However, I believe that many of us (at least Matthias, Christian, Owen, Kalev, Jens, myself) will be either in meetings or traveling back from the DevConf.cz event in Brno that day. So we could start this with the Monday, February 12 meeting. I'd intended to propose an alphabetical rotation. But if folks would rather volunteer, that's fine with me. It seems to work well in FESCo, which also rotates chairs. If you're interested, just reply here. -- Paul W. Frields <pfrields(a)redhat.com> Manager, Fedora Engineering - Emerging Platform http://redhat.com -- http://opensource.com

2 3

Release criteria proposals: Edition branding and installer customizations
by Adam Williamson 01 Feb '18

01 Feb '18

sgallagh and I both noticed that the release criteria do not currently include any requirements around Edition branding or installer customizations. We think they probably should. Thus, we're proposing the following new criteria. They would be in a new section for each page, something like "Edition requirements" or something like that, probably with a brief explanation of what "Editions" are outside of any specific criterion text. For Beta: == Installer customization == For each Edition, all significant functional customization of installer behavior that are intended to be a part of that Edition must take effect on that Edition's installable release-blocking images. footnote: 'Significant functional?': significant functional customization would usually include, for e.g., changes to the default filesystem and firewall configuration. The WG or SIG responsible for each Edition has the definitive say on what is or is not considered a 'significant functional customization' for that Edition. For Final: == Self-identification == For each Edition, the installer must be clearly identified as that Edition in all of that Edition's installable release-blocking images. Also, for any deployment of that Edition in accordance with the rest of these criteria, the relevant fields in {{filename|/etc/os-release}} must include the correct Edition name. Thoughts, comments, suggestions, flames? Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

1 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

desktop February 2018