devel June 2024

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

152 participants
197 discussions

F36 Change: Remove Wire Extensions Support (Self-Contained Change proposal)
by Ben Cotton 11 Nov '25

11 Nov '25

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RemoveWirelessExtensions == Summary == The legacy wireless extensions interface was replaced by the new mac80211/cfg80211 interface in 2007. The legacy Wireless Extensions support has been long deprecated and only supports long EOL WiFi encryption like WEP so it's time to disable it and remove it. == Owner == * Name: [[User:pbrobinson| Peter Robinson]] * Email: [mailto:pbrobinson@fedoraproject.org| pbrobinson(a)fedoraproject.org] == Detailed Description == The Wireless Extensions support in the kernel has been long replaced by the mac80211/cfg80211 support. Disable the kernel options and retire the wireless-tools userspace utilities. Wireless Extensions only supports a minor subset of the wireless interfaces, predominently the WEP interface and userspace has been replaced by iw/libnl/ip interfaces which offer a lot more advanced features as well as modern 802.11 functionality like WPA. == Benefit to Fedora == More secure and advanced features in wireless. In most cases most users won't notice a difference. The vast majority of users use NetworkManager to use 802.11 based wireless interfaces which has long ceased to support wireless extensions/wireless-tools, if it evere did. == Scope == * Proposal owners: ** Disable the wireless extensions interface in the kernel and any drivers that depend on it. The only driver that is currently enabled that requires wireless extension support is the Intel Pro Wireless 2100/2200 drivers, this hardware was released in 2003-2005 as part of the original Centrino laptop platforms and all officially supported devices were 32 bit so it's unlikely there's any current users but as they were mPCI cards it's possible there's a few users that put them into 64 bit machines. ** Retire the wireless-tools package, retirn any packages that depend on it, or migrate them to use libnl3. * Other developers: ** No impact * Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10386 #10386] * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not a System Wide Change) * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) == Upgrade/compatibility impact == A handful of packages still use the libiw interface and hence depend on the wireless-tools package. Some projects look dead upstream, a number have already been migrated in the last year or so. Where the project is alive upstream tickets have been filed requesting migration. The current remaining package list is: * conky * lxpanel * reaver == How To Test == * Check that the wireless extensions kernel options are disabled: (CONFIG_WEXT_CORE CONFIG_WEXT_PROC CONFIG_WEXT_SPY CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV CONFIG_CFG80211_WEXT CONFIG_CFG80211_WEXT_EXPORT) * Check the wireless-tools package is no longer available == User Experience == Generally users should notice little to no difference. == Dependencies == N/A (not a System Wide Change) == Contingency Plan == * Contingency mechanism: Leave WEXT enabled in the kernel, leave wireless-tools package in Fedora package repository. * Contingency deadline: GA * Blocks release? No. * Blocks product? No. == Documentation == N/A (not a System Wide Change) == Release Notes == N/A -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

8 12

Is the chromium debuginfo package exists?
by Mikhail Gavrilov 08 Oct '25

08 Oct '25

Hi folks! Is the chromium debuginfo package exists? Quick searching in repos didn't find any debuginfo packages for chromium. # dnf search chromium | grep debuginfo Last metadata expiration check: 0:08:12 ago on Mon 26 Jul 2021 02:25:19 AM +05. chromium-bsu-debuginfo.x86_64 : Debug information for package chromium-bsu lightspark-chromium-plugin-debuginfo.x86_64 : Debug information for package lightspark-chromium-plugin And of course I enabled "rawhide-debuginfo" repo.

5 4

fedup upload failure
by Martin Gansser 29 Sep '25

29 Sep '25

Hello, I'm getting the following error when I'm uploading a new tarball: $ kinit martinkg(a)FEDORAPROJECT.ORG $ fedpkg new-sources vdr-plugin-epg2vdr-1.1.86.tar.bz2 Could not execute new_sources: Request is unauthorized. Any ideas as to why I can not do an fedpkg upload? I'm able to do a fedpkg clone so my rsa keys are good...

2 3

replace memtest86+ with pcmemtest, needs maintainer
by Chris Murphy 01 Sep '25

01 Sep '25

[Bug 1988142] memtest boot entry on Fedora install media does not work since Fedora-Rawhide-20210728.n.3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1988142 This bug might be gcc, but also includes a note about the upstream being kinda weak, possibly non-existent these days. Neal Gompa mentioned pcmemtest earlier this year https://github.com/martinwhitaker/pcmemtest It would need a maintainer. Any takers? Fedora doesn't have a release criterion covering the memory tester, or really any option appearing in the install media's boot menu other than the one that launches the installer. But I think it's better to not ship a memory tester at all, than to ship a broken one (given the options). Memtest86+ is bios only, where pcmemtest can be compiled to run on either firmware type. If we want it to work with UEFI Secure Boot enabled, it'd need to be signed with Fedora's key (I think the same as the one used for GRUB and/or the kernel?). This would be in scope for Fedora 36, assuming the above bug can be easily fixed. But if that bug is hard to fix, and pcmemtest could be a drop-in replacement (i.e. bios only, just like now) maybe that's doable for Fedora 35, and better than having no memory tester. Chris Murphy -- Chris Murphy

15 33

Remove old GPG keys?
by Miroslav Suchý 13 Aug '25

13 Aug '25

I just stumbled upon https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/400634/does-anyone-bother-to-remov… with the nice link to: https://blog.laimbock.com/2014/05/02/how-to-remove-an-imported-gpg-key-from… And I wonder: is it a good idea to keep old gpg keys in RPM db? Or should we automate the removal of old keys? Mirek

17 31

Upstream tip wanted: CI service for Big Endian acrhes
by Miro Hrončok 06 Aug '25

06 Aug '25

Recently I've reported some Big Endian related test failures to an upstream project [0]. I was asked by an upstream project maintainer, whether I know some free Continuous Integration services where they can easily run their testsuite on Big Endian. Any tips? * Upstream uses Travis CI to test on x86_64 Linux (Ubuntu) * Upstream uses AppVeyor to test on Microsoft Windows * It's a pure Python project, noarch, but some changes need to be done when loading/saving binary data (LE) with NumPy on BE system. What I've considered: * COPR (but there is no big endian arch) * (Ab)using Koji (I guess that would be considered a bad practice?) * using QUEMU on Travis CI [1] Any better tips? Thanks [0] https://github.com/mikedh/trimesh/issues/249 [1] https://developer.ibm.com/linuxonpower/2017/07/28/travis-multi-architecture… -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

8 10

pdftk retired?
by Michael J Gruber 06 Aug '25

06 Aug '25

I just git a "broken dependencies" notice for a package that I maintain. The reason is that "pdftk" got retired just the other day. I may have missed a corresponding post on fedora-devel, but I think a heads up notice to maintainers of depending packages may be in order before you retire a package, as a general idea. You see, unretiring a package is so much more work than changing maintainership. As for pdftk: I see 2 failed builds for version 1.45 and none for the current version 2.02 (which probably breaks the api anyways). What are the plans? Retire pdftk completely? Start fresh with pdftk2? pdflabs, the maker of pdftk, provide binary as well as source rpms for pdftk 2.02, by the way. I might even look into packaging it but don't want to duplicate any existing efforts. Michael

17 26

upgrading RH 9 system->Fedora with iso files and apt only
by Didier Casse 06 Aug '25

06 Aug '25

I have the yarrow's iso files on my HD in a RH9 system. Let's say I want to upgrade selected packages using an "apt-get install" pointing to my iso-mounted files, how do I do it? i.e I mount the iso into some /mnt/yarrow1, /mnt/yarrow 2 etc.. Then what is the complete procedure to make my apt look into my own HD to upgrade packages. Can anybody redirect me to the correct resource or some literature hanging on the web? Thanks. Assume also that I do not wish to burn CDs! I do not want to use apt-cdrom. Thanks. With kind regards, Didier. --- PhD student Singapore Synchrotron Light Source (SSLS) 5 Research Link, Singapore 117603 Email: slsbdfc at nus dot edu dot sg \or\ didierbe at sps dot nus dot edu dot sg Website: http://ssls.nus.edu.sg

6 9

Packaging Guidelines for Applications using Git Submodules
by Gerald B. Cox 06 Aug '25

06 Aug '25

I'm trying to figure out the best way to handle the situation where a project decides to use submodules in Git. The archive generated doesn't incorporate the submodule files. I've done some searching on this, and haven't really come up with much. I've reviewed: Packaging:Github <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#G…> ; but that really doesn't address the submodule issue. I looked through some packages that are currently in the Fedora repository and found where a few folks have rebuilt the tarball and referenced that version as the Source in the spec file; then they put in a comment stating: The source of this package was pulled from upstreams' vcs. Use the following commands to generate the tarball: ... - git clone ... - git submodule init - git submodule update ... This approach is the best that I've found. Any other suggestions? Thanks much!

8 11

Intel's Clear Linux optimizations
by František Zatloukal 06 Aug '25

06 Aug '25

Hi, Phoronix recently release article[1] about Intel's Clear Linux with some cool graphs showing nice performance gain compared to Xubuntu. I didn't have time to dig in and look how it's performing against Fedora, but I'd assume Fedora can be compared to Xubuntu in terms of compiler settings. I think i'll be interesting to look into it and find out if Fedora can't tweak compiler settings (eg use LTO for critical things like Mesa, Kernel, ...). I think it could be interesting fo Fedora users to have this enabled if there are not any disadvantages other than compile time, compile memory usage and so on. What do you think? [1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-clr-opengl&num=1 -- Best regards / S pozdravem, František Zatloukal Project Coordinator Red Hat

15 50

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel June 2024