-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
I wanted to avoid replying to this thread, but this message forced me
to do so since it is spreading misinformation.
On Thu, 2020-05-14 at 06:33 -0500, Ty Young wrote:
On 5/13/20 4:58 PM, Solomon Peachy wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 04:04:50PM -0500, Ty Young wrote:
> > Anyway, I'm just asking that Fedora not repeat what Debian did.
> > While
> > I find it to be a bit paranoid, I understand the concerns
> > regarding
> > someone sneaking in malware into pre-build binaries. I'm just
> > asking
> > Fedora not package the software at all in that case, or any
> > software
> > that depends on that software if possible. People who want to
> > support
> > Linux by writing software shouldn't be bothered with bug reports
> > from
> > issues they never created to begin with.
> "Fedora" doesn't package software; individuals do. Those
> are free to package whatever they like, and Fedora will distribute
> packages if they meet the well-established packaging criteria.
Whichever you choose. Large projects like Gnome and Fedora refer to
themselves as one large organization one minute and then as
the next. It reminds me of how everyone says "Linux" is less
hungry then Windows but "Linux" is just a kernel, as those same
will often say in "Linux"'s defense.
and it's those "well-established" packaging criteria are the reason
people stopped packaging Java software for Fedora, according to many
People did not stop packaging Java software for Fedora. Some of them
did because packaging some of Java projects is hard, because upstream
makes it hard to do so. By relying on old versions of dependencies,
bundling them, switching buildsystem to gradle (which is basically
impossible to package because of same reasons).
> Those packagers, and Fedora, are "supporting Linux".
The amount of disdain and disrespect for third-party, and/or
software developers and/or creators who don't conform to your
rules is palpable.
> Meanwhile, for every distribution-created "bug" there are ten
> that created by the upstream authors. Most upstreams are mature
> to recognize this, and consider distribution-level packaging (and
> front-line user support) efforts to be, on the whole, a net gain.
Nonsense spewing with no proof.
Well, you have started this. Can you provide some statistics how many
bugs were introduced by distributions versus upstream bugs.
The Debian Xscreensaver fiasco is enough proof that contradicts your
ridiculous claims and there are plenty more, including:
Well, this does not apply to Fedora as-is because we are trying to ship
latest versions of software as much as possible. That's one of key F's
of Fedora - First.
* Game developers largely refuse to support Linux, and the some of
few that have have or are currently pulling support citing
Fragmentation is the issue, yes. But I think this decade we are finally
trying to converge. Flatpaks, RPM improvements and such.
* Hardware support for AMD GPUs is all over the place and even if
technically supported, can be too buggy to use. This is largely
kernel/mesa versions are all over the place.
Same here, in Fedora we try to keep kernel and mesa on latest versions
as much as we can, so this does not apply to us.
* Some software packaged even in large Linux distros like Ubuntu as
of their enabled-by-default repos don't even launch. Codeblocks in
around 16.04, IIRC, didn't even launch once you install it. You had
use their privately hosted repo to install a newer version.
I agree that this is issue and bugs should be reported against such
software. This area is not really explored by distributions much, but
here at least we have quite good test suite for default Workstation
applications, so contributing tests for other software is very welcome.
Probably best place to talk about this would be test@ or ci@.
* You often need to install third-party repos to get up-to-date
since packages are way too slow, or the distros just choose to use
This problem was supposed to be solved by Fedora Modularity, though
from my POV it did not succeed (yet?).
* Bugs fixed in newer versions of Gnome shell aren't backported to
versions. It looks like they have extended support, but I doubt it's
the same amount of time Ubuntu supports an LTS. Even if it did, only
newer Gnome shell versions are supported for that long. 18.04
has shell bugs right now that are fixed in newer Gnome versions.
We do backport some of the fixes to stable Fedora versions, but it is
huge effort and we try to do best. Do not forget that packages are
maintained by individuals who do not get paid to work on this (some do,
but that is minority and most likely they get paid for RHEL work rather
If you think there is some nice bug fix to be applied - submit Pull
Request. Though this conflicts with your statements above that we
should stop patching software and just give upstream binaries, because
upstream most likely will never fix some bugs in old versions but in
Fedora we might.
* There have been security bugs found in packaged software like Grub
that have existed in years despite being one of the most widely
and used software on Linux.
Did you see how many patches are applied to grub2 in Fedora? Security
issues are everywhere? Were they introduced by distribution-specific
patches? Pretty sure they were patched in Fedora much faster than
upstream released new version.
* Linux distros do not resolve dependancy conflicts correctly.
last time I checked still requires you manually install 32-bit libs
order to launch Steam instead of doing that for the user.
Well, if there is specific bug in Fedora - please report it. Installing
steam from rpmfusion gives me working steam and I did not have any
issues with it.
* Linux distro GUI package managers are generally poorly designed
buggy. That screenshot of Fedora's cinnamon spin's packager manager
I posted here showed that plenty. Other distros aren't much better.
Manjaro/Arch Linux's "Pamac" GUI had a bug where it sees itself as a
running package manager instance and refused to upgrade or install
software on a failed AUR software build/install.
I can not argue with this. But if you would get same software from
upstream, it won't be better at all because those bugs are not specific
You are very welcome to design and create bug-free GUI package manager
* Linux distros "taint" software they package and install by, for
example, enabling shell extensions in Gnome by default. This more
than not results in false bug reports. Fedora even does this!
I can't speak for all software, but enabling some extensions by default
is up to Workstation WG, they evaluate options and decide what is good
for majority of Workstation users. For some other software it might be
some legal requirements or things like that. Remember that people have
best intents when packaging software. Mistakes happen and you should
just let people know and they will do their best to address problem.
I could literally go on and on. The "my-shit-don't-stink" attitude is
terrible it's borderline sad.
> - Solomon
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> List Guidelines:
> List Archives:
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
Igor Raits <ignatenkobrain(a)fedoraproject.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----