kde August 2020

kde@lists.fedoraproject.org

23 participants
17 discussions

Libreoffice cannot export PDF documents
by Klaus Kolle 18 Aug '20

18 Aug '20

Hi list, At some point over the summer my LibreOffice has stopped being able to export to PDF. I get at document, but with no text like the attached, which is a text document with a table. I tried to downgrade to the previous version but with no luck. What could be the reason for this behaviour? |< PS: Running Fedora 32 KDE spin. PPS: Another laptop can export OK as seen last week. -- Med venlig hilsen Klaus Kolle Teknikumingeniør, B.Sc.EE., e-mail : klaus(a)kolle.dk Master of IT www : www.kolle.dk Asger Jorns Vej 17 Telephone : +4522216044 DK-8600 Silkeborg, Denmark "Man skal ikke tilskrive til sammensværgelser hvad der tilstrækkeligt kan forklares af inkompetence" Poul Henning Kamp Planlægning er tanker om noget man agter at gøre en gang i fremtiden, hvis omstændighederne tillader det. Klaus Kolle 2006 Perfection is achieved not when nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more left to take away. Antoine de Saint-Exupery

5 25

laptop semi-freezing frequently
by S Bob 11 Aug '20

11 Aug '20

All; I'm running Fedora 31 KDE spin on a Thinkpad P73 Every few days the system seems to sort of lock up, I can still move the mouse and open apps but I move the mouse and waith 30seconds for it to move, type a command and wait 15seconds for it to show up, etc Last time this happened I managed to open a konsole window and run top, and then I took a picture of it with my phone, you can see it here: http://50.243.150.89:8001/owncloud/index.php/s/1KYrzWz37DcO6Mz Usually my only option at this point is to power off Can someone help me debug this? Thanks in advance

3 3

Re: Proposal to Add: Log In/Out Blocker Criteria
by Kamil Paral 10 Aug '20

10 Aug '20

On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:50 AM Geoffrey Marr <gmarr(a)redhat.com> wrote: > At today's blocker review meeting[0], we ran across a bug[1] that we > believe is bad enough to warrant blocker status, but as the criteria > currently stand, does not violate any particular criterion. The bug in > question has to do with logging out of one user account and logging into > another account that has already been accessed before during that boot. The > criterion listed in the bug[2] doesn't seem to fit, as it is more focused > on what happens after the system is booted (which does work in the case of > this bug). There is a Final criterion[3] that covers switching between two > accounts, where the data in the account switched out of is retained, but > that is not the case presented here (as this bug has to do with "logging > in/out" of accounts, not "switching" as they are defined technically). > Intellectually, we believe this type of bug should violate the criteria, as > it seems a common use-case, and so we are bringing it up as a possible > addition as there is nothing that currently covers this kind of bug. > > The new criterion could look something like "A system with multiple user > accounts must be able to log in and out of said accounts as presented by > all release-blocking desktops in their default configuration." > Actually, I'd make this even simpler. We already have a Beta criterion related to logging out (among others): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Beta_Release_Criteria#Shutdown.2C_… So let's just include logging in as well, and we're done: "Shutting down, rebooting, logging in and logging out must work using standard console commands and the mechanisms offered (if any) by all release-blocking desktops." We'd also update the "Work?" footnote: "Similar to the Basic criterion for shutting down, shutdown and reboot mechanisms must take storage volumes down cleanly and correctly request a shutdown or reboot from the system firmware. Logging in must transfer the user from the login screen/prompt to his/her working environment, and logging out must return the user to the environment from which they logged in, working as expected." This sufficiently covers the discussed bug and seems to fit naturally into the existing criterion. One unclear area might be what the console console used for logging in is. We can either explicitly say that for logging in we don't require any specific console command, or we can note that the most likely command to get covered by this is "su". We can also not define it and leave that up to blocker discussion, if such a situation occurs in the future. I'd lean towards the last option, but all sound fine to me. Thoughts?

3 2

Re: Proposal to Add: Log In/Out Blocker Criteria
by Adam Williamson 05 Aug '20

05 Aug '20

On Tue, 2020-08-04 at 00:49 -0600, Geoffrey Marr wrote: > At today's blocker review meeting[0], we ran across a bug[1] that we > believe is bad enough to warrant blocker status, but as the criteria > currently stand, does not violate any particular criterion. The bug in > question has to do with logging out of one user account and logging into > another account that has already been accessed before during that boot. The > criterion listed in the bug[2] doesn't seem to fit, as it is more focused > on what happens after the system is booted (which does work in the case of > this bug). There is a Final criterion[3] that covers switching between two > accounts, where the data in the account switched out of is retained, but > that is not the case presented here (as this bug has to do with "logging > in/out" of accounts, not "switching" as they are defined technically). > Intellectually, we believe this type of bug should violate the criteria, as > it seems a common use-case, and so we are bringing it up as a possible > addition as there is nothing that currently covers this kind of bug. > > The new criterion could look something like "A system with multiple user > accounts must be able to log in and out of said accounts as presented by > all release-blocking desktops in their default configuration." > > We would appreciate feedback on this idea and the wording of the criterion. > Should this be a beta or a final blocker? If nothing is heard in a > reasonable amount of time (before next week's blocker review meeting), we > will assume there is no issue with the proposal and add it to the criteria > at that time. There's a sort of technical argument to be made that this is covered by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_33_Beta_Release_Criteria#desktop-shut… . That says "Shutting down, logging out and rebooting must work using standard console commands and the mechanisms offered (if any) by all release-blocking desktops", with a footnote "Logging out must return the user to the environment from which they logged in, working as expected." Arguably the environment from which they logged in is not "working as expected" if you can't then log in as someone else. Adding a more explicit requirement wouldn't hurt, though, I guess. I sort of feel like it would be nice to somehow combine and rationalize all these related requirements somehow... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

2 1

Font size for Gajim
by S Bob 04 Aug '20

04 Aug '20

Hi all; I'm running Gajim on KDE, Fedora 31. Anyone know how to modify the font size for Gajim's chat and group chat text? Thanks in advance

1 0

Crashes
by Steve Grubb 04 Aug '20

04 Aug '20

Hello, I was curious about something. KDE has its own crash handling system. How does this community track any metrics around code stability if upstream gets reports? Kontact has segfaulted 20 times on me today. Each time it says it cannot generate a bug report. Abrtd does not seem to pick up anything. Shouldn't it? How does this community track when a recent update suddenly starts making things crash? Kontact was fine 3 weeks ago. I updated today (3 weeks of patches) and its crashing all the time to the point its unusable. It won't generate a bug report, abrtd seems not to notice either. -Steve

1 1

cgit.kde.org seems to have been switched off
by Tim Landscheidt 01 Aug '20

01 Aug '20

Hi, I was looking (randomly) at the description of F31's kwrited ("KDE Write Daemon") and wanted to find out more about what a "KDE Write Daemon" is, so I followed the link listed as URL (https://cgit.kde.org/kwrited.git). That server (cgit.kde.org) was down. On https://community.kde.org/Sysadmin/GitKdeOrgManual#Overview_of_facilities, cgit was listed as an active facility with multiple men- tions, but further googling led to https://www.reddit.com/r/kde/comments/h0ea9h/is_httpscgitkdeorg_down/ and https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2020/06/29/welcome-kde/. So cgit seems to have been switched off for good and "re- placed" by invent.kde.org. There is a large number of references to cgit.kde.org in spec files and the invent.kde.org URLs are more "complicat- ed": | [tim@passepartout ~]$ fgrep cgit.kde.org .cache/rpm-specs/*.spec | wc -l | 299 | [tim@passepartout ~]$ fgrep invent.kde.org .cache/rpm-specs/*.spec | .cache/rpm-specs/ikona.spec:URL: https://invent.kde.org/KDE/%{name} | .cache/rpm-specs/kio-fuse.spec:URL: https://invent.kde.org/system/kio-fuse | .cache/rpm-specs/kuserfeedback.spec:URL: https://invent.kde.org/libraries/%{name} | .cache/rpm-specs/latte-dock.spec:URL: https://invent.kde.org/plasma/%{name} | .cache/rpm-specs/latte-dock.spec:Source0: https://invent.kde.org/plasma/%{name}/-/archive/v%{version}/latte-dock-v%{v… | .cache/rpm-specs/plasma-wayland-protocols.spec:URL: https://invent.kde.org/libraries/%{name}.git | [tim@passepartout ~]$ So maybe a mapping can be obtained from KDE and the URLs up- dated en masse. Tim

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

kde August 2020