xfce April 2019

xfce@lists.fedoraproject.org

8 participants
6 discussions

Removal of Python 2 from the Xfce spin
by Miro Hrončok 11 Aug '19

11 Aug '19

Hi, we've successfully removed Python 2 from default Workstation installation years ago, today I'd like to see if we could do it in Xfce Spin as well. For those not in the picture: Python 2 ill EOL in 11 months, 22 days [0]. We are trying to get rid of it as much as possible in Fedora [1][2]. Eliminating Python 2 from our defualt installations is an important step here. Today, if I try to uninstall python2 from Xfce spin (rawhide), this is what gets removed as dependent: NetworkManager-openconnect-gnome blueberry gnumeric python2-catfish system-config-keyboard system-config-users Several others go as no longer needed, mostly python2 libs, but also: NetworkManager-openconnect bluez-obex bluez-tools openconnect wmctrl While I doubt the actual usefulness of gnumeric, what bothers me is: 1. It seems that the Bluetooth stack is entirely gone. Do we have an viable alternative? 2. If openconnect is not needed on Workstation, why is it needed in Xfce? 3. Can we set keyboards/users with some alternatives? system-config-* still link to fedorahosted as upstream and haven't received an update in years. They seem pretty upstream dead to me. 4. Catfish is Python 3 compatible, but the Fedora maintainer is not [4]. Thanks for tips. [0] https://pythonclock.org/ [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FinalizingFedoraSwitchtoPython3 [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal [3] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/catfish/pull-request/1# -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

6 15

Fwd: 4.14 Release Schedule
by Kevin Fenzi 29 Apr '19

29 Apr '19

FYI, some concrete news on 4.14. ;) We will want to draft up a fedora 31 change page for it asap and perhaps sign up for a test day? I'm sure lots of testing will be needed... :) -------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Simon Steinbeiss <simon(a)xfce.org> Subject: 4.14 Release Schedule Hi everyone, I recently signed up as Release Manager for Xfce 4.14 and am happy to provide you with some concrete dates for the upcoming weeks and months, including the announcement of the final date for the 4.14 release. === General Notes === First of all, we will stick to our official release mode ( https://www.xfce.org/about/releasemodel) also for this release, which means we will tag each of the three (at least: two) pre-releases - in addition to the 4.13.x devel release tag - in all git repositories that are part of the core (example: xfce-4.14pre1). Hopefully this will make it clear which versions belong to a specific pre-release of 4.14 and will help with testing the platform as a whole. This information is especially important to packagers as we have skipped this step since Xfce 4.8. === The Schedule === After some internal discussions we have come to the following schedule (more details here: https://wiki.xfce.org/releng/4.14/roadmap): 19th of May: 4.14-pre1 30th of June: 4.14-pre2 28th of July: 4.14-pre3 (optional; possibly also 4.14-final) 11th of August: 4.14-final === How can you help? === If you're a developer it's quite clear: clear your schedule, commit yourself and your code! :) In all seriousness: almost anyone can help! We'll try to provide a Docker container of xfce-test (https://github.com/schuellerf/xfce-test) for each of the pre-releases which can help with testing (and reporting bugs), doing translations, screenshots, docs etc. Moral support (on IRC or one of the mailing lists) also counts! ;) Cheers Simon

3 3

4.12
by ToddAndMargo 14 Apr '19

14 Apr '19

Hi All, Would you guys please consider going back to Xfce 4.12 in Fedora 30? Xfce 4.13 is just too buggy to let loose on my customers! Me? I work around them and have reported a ton of them. But way too many problems for a non-technical customer. I have just been installing Fedora 28, which is near end of life or just jumping to Mate. And I really do adore Xfce. Guess there is no change of Xfce 4.14 in Fedora 30? Many thanks, -T

5 9

Re: "Basic graphics mode" feature and criterion discussion
by Adam Williamson 02 Apr '19

02 Apr '19

On Tue, 2019-04-02 at 12:07 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 4:19 AM Kamil Paral <kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 9:04 PM Adam Williamson <adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > > "The boot menu for all release-blocking installer and live images > > > should include an entry which causes both installation and the > > > installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such > > > as 'vesa')." > > > > Maybe change "causes" to "attempts", so that it's clear it has to > > do something (e.g. add a kernel cmdline option), but the thing > > doesn't have to succeed ("causes" sounds to me like a successful > > attempt). > > Agree. > > > > At Final we would add this requirement: > > > > > > "The generic video driver option ('basic graphics mode') on all > > > release-blocking installer and live images must function as intended > > > (launching the installer or desktop and attempting to use a generic > > > driver), and there must be no bugs that clearly prevent the installer > > > or desktop from being reached in this configuration on all systems or > > > on wide classes of hardware." > > > > Here I'd probably remove "attempting" in favor of a stricter "using > > a generic driver". But even your version sounds ok. > > I agree. OK, I'm gonna go ahead and push this change out with both of Kamil's proposed changes. Thanks folks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

1 0

any sign of 4.14 in our future?
by ToddAndMargo 01 Apr '19

01 Apr '19

Hi All, Fedora 29 Xfce 4.13 I have a customer interested in me putting Fedora 29 on a laptop. Problem: Xfce 4.13 is too buggy to release on the general public. Me, I am loyal and know how to cope with the bugs, but a typicall usedr, I would not swiosh that on th em. Is 4.14 anywhere near? If not, is there a way to lock Fedora 29 into 4.12? If not, I guess Mate would be the closest alternative. I could always go with gnome, but it has a bad cas of the weirds. Many thanks, -T

2 4

Re: "Basic graphics mode" feature and criterion discussion
by Adam Williamson 01 Apr '19

01 Apr '19

On Tue, 2019-03-26 at 14:30 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > My two cents: > > If there's a fallback option, and if the user selects it, they > shouldn't end up in an unambiguous state. Right now we're seeing > systems hanging. I'd rather see a crash than a hang where the user > can't get to a shell, and sees no useful information on the screen > that tells them why they're hung up; or even generically that "by now > you should see a login screen and if you don't we've faceplanted > somewhere, sorry". > > Maybe split the criterion: > > Basic criterion: installation media must have a basic video boot entry > that uses the accepted fallback boot parameter(s), e.g. nomodeset. The > criterion just means the media must have the menu entry, and that it > passes something intentional for this purpose as a boot parameter. > > Final criterion: installation media's basic video boot entry should > either work (we get a successful graphical boot), or it should > faceplant in some unambiguous way. > > If it's not possible to ensure basic video either works as intended or > faceplants unambiguously; then I suggest dropping any beta or final > criterion. And also I wonder if it's at all useful to include some > kind of heads up description for the basic video boot entry? Like, > "this may not work at all" or "wait 5 minutes for graphical boot, > after 10 minutes assume it failed". Haha - I have no idea. Just > something so they aren't waiting around going WTF? Now what? So kinda aggregating all the response to this discussion, I propose we go with a modified version of Chris' proposal. 1. We retain the 'entry must exist' part of the criterion at Basic (but at that point it does not have to *work* - the idea is to ensure it's testable so we catch bugs in it at that point) 2. We move the rest of the criterion to Final and tweak it a bit to specify that it must be at least somewhat capable of reaching the installer or desktop. We do not adopt Chris' "or faceplant unambiguously" proposal, people seemed to prefer just requiring it to work. So, here's the specific text I propose. At Basic we would change this requirement: "The boot menu for all supported installer and live images should include an entry which causes both installation and the installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such as 'vesa'). This mechanism should work correctly, launching the installer or desktop and attempting to use the generic driver." To read only: "The boot menu for all release-blocking installer and live images should include an entry which causes both installation and the installed system to use a generic, highly compatible video driver (such as 'vesa')." i.e. remove the second sentence (and change 'supported' to 'release- blocking' - that is a better form of words that should have been used all along). At Final we would add this requirement: "The generic video driver option ('basic graphics mode') on all release-blocking installer and live images must function as intended (launching the installer or desktop and attempting to use a generic driver), and there must be no bugs that clearly prevent the installer or desktop from being reached in this configuration on all systems or on wide classes of hardware." How does that sound to everyone? Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

xfce April 2019