Server Side Public License (SSPL) v1
by Tom Callaway
After review, Fedora has determined that the Server Side Public License
v1 (SSPL) is not a Free Software License.
It is the belief of Fedora that the SSPL is intentionally crafted to be
aggressively discriminatory towards a specific class of users.
Additionally, it seems clear that the intent of the license author is to
cause Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt towards commercial users of software
under that license. To consider the SSPL to be "Free" or "Open Source"
causes that shadow to be cast across all other licenses in the FOSS
ecosystem, even though none of them carry that risk.
It is also worth nothing that while there is a draft for a "v2" of the SSPL:
A) It is not final.
B) It is not in use anywhere at this time (as far as we know).
C) The intent of the v2 draft text is not changed from the v1 license
currently in use.
We have updated our "Bad License" list to include SSPLv1. No software
under that license may be included in Fedora (including EPEL and COPRs).
Thanks,
Tom Callaway
Fedora Legal
3 years, 2 months
Re: NeuroFedora review swaps
by Ankur Sinha
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 15:47:00 +0100, J. Scheurich wrote:
>
> > I'd like to get this package reviewed please:
> >
> > - python-pyscaffold: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1669913#
> >
> > Would anyone like to swap reviews?
>
> I would review it for wdune sponsoring.
Sorry---I'm not current with the wdune scenario. I assumed you meant
that you'd review it unofficially as part of the work to get sponsored
to the packagers group:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_gro...
I'm not a sponsor yet so I cannot sponsor you to the group myself, but
once you've done a few reviews, a sponsor will be happy to take a look
at them and guide you through the sponsorship process.
If you've submitted a review ticket for wdune already, I will be happy
to review it and provide comments.
--
Thanks,
Regards,
Ankur Sinha
https://ankursinha.in
Time zone: Europe/London
3 years, 3 months
Reproducible builds/bootstrap
by Pablo Greco
I'm starting to work on a project to make Fedora fully reproducible and bootstrappable from scratch.
I know it is a long term plan and still working on the steps, but it would be good to know the current status, if there is an internal interest in this, if someone is already working (or planning to).
Thanks for the info.
Pablo
3 years, 6 months
Fedora 32 system-wide change proposal: reduce installation media size
by improving the compression ratio of SquashFS filesystem
by Bohdan Khomutskyi
Summary
Improve compression ratio of SquashFS filesystem on the installation media.
Owner
Name: Bohdan Khomutskyi
Email: bkhomuts(a)redhat.com
Current status
Targeted release: I propose this change for Fedora 32
Last updated: Jan 5 2020
Pagure.io issue: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9127
I was unable to create an article in Fedora wiki system.
Detailed Description
As of Fedora 31, the LiveOS/squashfs.img file on the installation image, is
compressed with default settings of mksquashfs. The standard configuration
is set to XZ algorithm with block size of 128k and BCJ filter enabled.
Those parameters can be adjusted which will lead to a better compression
ratio and/or reduction of the CPU usage at build time.
This is simple to achieve. Recently, Lorax has gotten support[1] for
adjusting the compression options for mksquashfs via the configuration
file. The file should be altered as following:
[compression]
bcj = yes
args = -b 1M -Xdict-size 1M -no-recovery
Where -b 1M and -Xdict-size 1M are block and dictionary sizes respectively.
Could be adjusted.
Benefit to Fedora
-
Reduction of the installation media size and the cost of storing and
distributing Fedora.
-
Reduction of the CPU usage at build time. Depending on which compression
parameters chosen.
-
See a graphical detail at https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9127.
Scope
-
Proposal owners:
The build environment should have support for adjusting the Lorax
configuration file.. Lorax is a program that produces the
LiveOS/squashfs.img file on the installation media.
One of the way to allow for such customization, is to add a feature in
Pungi, to allow for passing -c option to Lorax.
-
Release engineering: #9127 <https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9127>
-
Policies and guidelines: N/A
-
Trademark approval: N/A
Upgrade/compatibility impact
-
This change comes at a cost of higher memory usage during the
installation. Based on my personal estimations, this should not be the
issue. Since the decompression should require up to 1MiB per thread.
User Experience
-
Increasing the block size on the current configuration with EXT4 file
system, should increase latency while accessing the EXT4 filesystem. The
exact impact is to be evaluated.
-
The impact of latency will be reduced, if the plain SquashFS option is
be choosen.
Dependencies
-
N/A
Contingency Plan
-
N/A
Documentation
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9127.
mksquashfs(1)
Release notes See also
https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8646
--
Bohdan Khomutskyi
Release Configuration Management engineer
Red Hat
3 years, 8 months
Fedora 32 System-Wide Change proposal (late): Enable EarlyOOM
by Ben Cotton
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EnableEarlyoom
== Summary ==
Install earlyoom package, and enable it by default. This will cause
the kernel oomkiller to trigger sooner, but will not affect which
process it chooses to kill off. The idea is to recover from out of
memory situations sooner, rather than the typical complete system hang
in which the user has no other choice but to force power off.
== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:chrismurphy| Chris Murphy]]
* Email: bugzilla(a)colorremedies.com
== Detailed Description ==
Workstation working group has discussed "better interactivity in
low-memory situations" for some months. In certain use cases,
typically compiling, if all RAM and swap are completely consumed,
system responsiveness becomes so abysmal that a reasonable user can
consider the system "lost", and resorts to forcing a power off. This
is objective a very bad UX. The broad discussion of this problem, and
some ideas for near term and long term solutions, is located here:
Recent long discussions on "Better interactivity in low-memory situations"<br>
https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/98<br>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.o...<br>
Fedora editions and spins, have the in-kernel OOM (out-of-memory)
manager enabled. The manager's concern is keeping the kernel itself
functioning. It has no concern about user space function or
interactivity. This proposed change attempts to improve the user
experience, in the short term, by triggering the in-kernel process
killing mechanism, sooner. Instead of the system becoming completely
unresponsive for tens of minutes, hours or days, the expectation is an
offending process (determined by oom_score, same as now) will be
killed off within seconds or a few minutes. This is an incremental
improvement in user experience, but admittedly still suboptimal. There
is additional work on-going to improve the user experience further.
Workstation working group discussion specific to enabling earlyoom by default
https://pagure.io/fedora-workstation/issue/119
Other in-progress solutions:<br>
https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/hadess/low-memory-monitor<br>
Background information on this complicated problem:<br>
https://www.kernel.org/doc/gorman/html/understand/understand016.html<br>
https://lwn.net/Articles/317814/<br>
== Benefit to Fedora ==
There are two major benefits to Fedora:
* improved user experience by more quickly regaining control over
one's system, rather than having to force power off in low-memory
situations where there's aggressive swapping. Once a system becomes
unresponsive, it's completely reasonable for the user to assume the
system is lost, but that includes high potential for data loss.
* reducing forced poweroff as the main work around will increase data
collection, improving understanding of low memory situations and how
to handle them better
== Scope ==
* Proposal owners:
a. Modify {{code|https://pagure.io/fedora-comps/blob/master/f/comps-f32.xml.in}}
to include earlyoom package for Workstation.<br>
b. Modify {{code|https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-release/blob/master/f/80-workstation.preset}}
to include:
<pre>
# enable earlyoom by default on workstation
enable earlyoom.service
</pre>
* Other developers:
Restricted to Workstation edition, unless other editions/spins want to opt-in.
* Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issues #9141] (a
check of an impact with Release Engineering is needed) <!-- REQUIRED
FOR SYSTEM WIDE CHANGES -->
* Policies and guidelines: N/A
* Trademark approval: N/A
== Upgrade/compatibility impact ==
earlyoom.service will be enabled on upgrade. An upgraded system should
exhibit the same behaviors as a clean installed system.
== How To Test ==
* Fedora 30/31 users can test today, any edition or spin:<br>
{{code|sudo dnf install earlyoom}}<br>
{{code|sudo systemctl enable --now earlyoom}}
And then attempt to cause an out of memory situation. Examples:<br>
{{code|tail /dev/zero}}<br>
{{code|https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/8/4/15}}
* Fedora Workstation 32 (and Rawhide) users will see this service is
already enabled. It can be toggled with {{code|sudo systemctl
start/stop earlyoom}} where start means earlyoom is running, and stop
means earlyoom is not running.
== User Experience ==
The most egregious instances this change is trying to mitigate:
a. RAM is completely used
b. Swap is completely used
c. System becomes unresponsive to the user as swap thrashing has ensued
--> earlyoom disabled, the user often gives up and forces power off
(in my own testing this condition lasts >30 minutes with no kernel
triggered oom killer and no recovery)
--> earlyoom enabled, the system likely still becomes unresponsive but
oom killer is triggered in much less time (seconds or a few minutes,
in my testing, after less than 10% RAM and 10% swap is remaining)
earlyoom starts sending SIGTERM once both memory and swap are below
their respective PERCENT setting, default 10%. It sends SIGKILL once
both are below their respective KILL_PERCENT setting, default 5%.
The package includes configuration file /etc/default/earlyoom which
sets option {{code|-r 60}} causing a memory report to be entered into
the journal every minute.
== Dependencies ==
earlyoom package has no dependencies
== Contingency Plan ==
* Contingency mechanism: Owner will revert all changes
* Contingency deadline: Final freeze
* Blocks release? No
* Blocks product? No
== Documentation ==
{{code|man earlyoom}}<br><br>
https://www.kernel.org/doc/gorman/html/understand/understand016.html
== Release Notes ==
Earlyoom service is enabled by default, which will cause kernel
oom-killer to trigger sooner. To revert to previous behavior:<br>
{{code|sudo systemctl disable earlyoom.service}}
And to customize see {{code|man earlyoom}}.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Fedora Program Manager
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
3 years, 8 months
Headsup: dbus 1.12.10-1.fc29 is missing systemd dbus.service file,
breaking almost everything
by Hans de Goede
Hi All,
Just a quick headsup for users following Fedora 29, the
dbus 1.12.10-1.fc29 build is missing the systemd dbus.service
file, breaking almost everything.
Instead it contains a dbus-daemon.service file, but the
dbus.socket file expects a matching dbus.service, not
dbus-daemon.service.
So either hold of on applying updates until this is fixed
or exclude dbus.
Regards,
Hans
3 years, 8 months
Ditch RPM in favor of DPKG
by Dridi Boukelmoune
Greetings packagers,
I know how important RPM is to the Fedora Project, but it breaks
everything downstream and we'd be better off using DPKG as we should
have from day one.
I'm calling this initiative fedpkg: Fedora Embraces DPKG.
A bit of background here: I build both RPMs and DEBs for $DAYJOB and
until recently my workflow was quite painful because I needed extra steps
between git checkout and git push that involves a VM, because what we
ship as apt is in reality apt-rpm.
It finally got enough on my nerves to locally build the things I needed and
after a month I have already amortized my efforts with the time I save not
having to deal with needless extra hoops.
In order to successfully build debs on Fedora I needed 4 packages that
I'm now submitting for review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=gnu-config
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=strip-nondeterminism
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=sbuild
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=apt
I need more than reviews here.
Three of those packages are heavy on Perl code, and I'm not a Perl
Monk. I tried to CC perl-sig as per the guidelines [1] (also tried with
the mailing list address) but bugzilla replied kindly:
CC: perl-sig did not match anything
Apt is a mix of C, Perl and C++ code, so I would be reassured if I
could have a C++ co-maintainer too. I'm only a C developer so if
something goes wrong outside of the C realm that would be helpful.
Two of those packages should be runtime dependencies of debhelper.
The current apt package should be renamed to apt-rpm, I will look up
the procedure for that to happen. I understand that when someone sees
they should run "apt-get install foo" somewhere on the web it's
helpful for non-savvy users that this JustWorks(tm) [2], but apt-rpm is
dead upstream and it shouldn't be advertised as apt.
I hope I CC'd everyone that should get this heads up, and hope to find
help for the reviews and co-maintainership. The packaging does nothing
fancy, there are quirks here and there but overall it was rather easy
to put together. And of course I would be happy to help with reviews
too in exchange.
And thanks again to the mock developers, its design is so much better
than either sbuild or pdebuild that I barely have pain points left when it
comes to RPM packaging.
Thanks,
Dridi
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/#_perl_sig
[2] I'm not against apt-rpm in the base install for example
3 years, 9 months
Autoclosure of review requests?
by Ben Cotton
In the weekly Fedora program update that I publish on
communityblog.fedoraproject.org, I have started to include a count of the
open package review requests. As of this moment, there are ~1300 open
review requests. Some of these were opened in 2006.
The usual Bugzilla housekeeping (branching, EOL closure, etc) explicitly
excludes review request bugs. Having a large number of open, ancient review
requests isn't exactly harmful, but it's not very helpful either.
Before I make a proposal to FPC, I thought I'd open a conversation here.
What does a reasonable cleanup of review requests look like?
My initial thought is to close all review requests that were opened >2
years ago, to be performed at the EOL closure for each release.
--
Ben Cotton
He / Him / His
Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream
Red Hat
TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis
3 years, 9 months
