- Fedora i3 SIG - Fedora mailing-lists

Re: Donate 1 minute of your time to test upgrades from F40 to F41
by Luna Jernberg 03 Sep '24

03 Sep '24

Did run through a full update with dnf4 on my Fedora 40 i3 Spin install to 41 i3 spin (Pre Release) and nothing exploded on my ThinkPad Edge 0217A16 laptop https://i.imgur.com/vReaIwy.png Den tis 3 sep. 2024 kl 10:38 skrev Luna Jernberg <droidbittin(a)gmail.com>: > > Odd as i also had problems with RPMFusion > but removed it and then it works, just updated 1.3GB of Fedora 40 > updates on my test laptop and now downloading and installing 2.3GB of > Fedora 41 pre release packages > > Den tis 3 sep. 2024 kl 10:09 skrev Leigh Scott <leigh123linux(a)gmail.com>: > > > > You have some other issue as all those rpmfusion dep issues are bogus. > > > > > > Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: > > > On 2.09.2024 12:20, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > > > > Do you want to make Fedora 41 better? Please spend 1 minute of your time > > > > and try to run: > > > > dnf --releasever=41 --enablerepo=updates-testing --assumeno distro-sync > > > > I have several packages from RPMFusion so some problems (1, 3, 4, 7, > > > 9, 10, 11) are related to it: > > > Problem 1: package ffmpeg-libs-6.1.2-2.fc40.x86_64 from @System requires libjxl.so.0.8()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package ffmpeg-libs-6.1.2-2.fc40.x86_64 from @System requires libjxl.so.0.8(JXL_0)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package ffmpeg-libs-6.1.2-2.fc40.x86_64 from @System requires libjxl_threads.so.0.8()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package ffmpeg-libs-6.1.2-2.fc40.x86_64 from @System requires libjxl_threads.so.0.8(JXL_0)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - libjxl-1:0.8.3-1.fc40.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > - problem with installed package ffmpeg-libs-6.1.2-2.fc40.x86_64 > > > Problem 3: package mesa-vdpau-drivers-freeworld-24.1.6-1.fc40.x86_64 from @System requires mesa-filesystem(x86-64) = 24.1.6, but none of the providers can be installed > > > - mesa-filesystem-24.1.6-1.fc40.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > - problem with installed package mesa-vdpau-drivers-freeworld-24.1.6-1.fc40.x86_64 > > > Problem 4: package python3-rpmfusion-cert-0.7.2-8.fc40.noarch from @System requires python(abi) = 3.12, but none of the providers can be installed > > > - python3-3.12.5-1.fc40.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > - problem with installed package python3-rpmfusion-cert-0.7.2-8.fc40.noarch > > > Problem 7: package rpmfusion-free-release-40-0.1.noarch from @System requires system-release(40), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - fedora-release-40-39.noarch from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > - problem with installed package rpmfusion-free-release-40-0.1.noarch > > > Problem 9: package ffmpeg-libs-6.1.2-2.fc40.x86_64 from @System requires libplacebo.so.338()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package ffmpeg-6.1.2-2.fc40.x86_64 from @System requires ffmpeg-libs(x86-64) = 6.1.2-2.fc40, but none of the providers can be installed > > > - libplacebo-6.338.2-1.fc40.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > - problem with installed package ffmpeg-6.1.2-2.fc40.x86_64 > > > Problem 10: package ffmpeg-libs-6.1.2-2.fc40.x86_64 from @System requires libvmaf.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package libavdevice-6.1.2-2.fc40.x86_64 from @System requires ffmpeg-libs(x86-64) = 6.1.2-2.fc40, but none of the providers can be installed > > > - libvmaf-2.3.0-7.fc40.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > - problem with installed package libavdevice-6.1.2-2.fc40.x86_64 > > > Problem 11: package python3-rpmfusion-cert-0.7.2-8.fc40.noarch from @System requires python(abi) = 3.12, but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package python3-3.12.5-1.fc40.x86_64 from @System requires python3-libs(x86-64) = 3.12.5-1.fc40, but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package rpmfusion-packager-0.7.2-8.fc40.noarch from @System requires python3-rpmfusion-cert, but none of the providers can be installed > > > - python3-libs-3.12.5-1.fc40.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > - problem with installed package rpmfusion-packager-0.7.2-8.fc40.noarch > > > Two are libtiff related: > > > Problem 12: package alizams-1.9.10-2.fc41.x86_64 from fedora requires libITKCommon-4.13.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package alizams-1.9.10-2.fc41.x86_64 from fedora requires libITKStatistics-4.13.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package alizams-1.9.10-2.fc41.x86_64 from fedora requires libITKTransform-4.13.so.1()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package InsightToolkit-4.13.3-15.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires libtiff.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package InsightToolkit-4.13.3-15.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires libtiff.so.5(LIBTIFF_4.0)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package InsightToolkit-4.13.3-15.fc39.x86_64 from fedora requires libtiff.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package InsightToolkit-4.13.3-15.fc39.x86_64 from fedora requires libtiff.so.5(LIBTIFF_4.0)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - problem with installed package alizams-1.9.9-2.fc40.x86_64 > > > - libtiff-4.6.0-2.fc40.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > - alizams-1.9.9-2.fc40.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > Problem 14: problem with installed package InsightToolkit-4.13.3-15.fc39.x86_64 > > > - package InsightToolkit-4.13.3-15.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires libtiff.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package InsightToolkit-4.13.3-15.fc39.x86_64 from @System requires libtiff.so.5(LIBTIFF_4.0)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package InsightToolkit-4.13.3-15.fc39.x86_64 from fedora requires libtiff.so.5()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package InsightToolkit-4.13.3-15.fc39.x86_64 from fedora requires libtiff.so.5(LIBTIFF_4.0)(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - cannot install both libtiff-4.6.0-6.fc41.x86_64 from fedora and libtiff-4.6.0-2.fc40.x86_64 from @System > > > - package libtiff-devel-4.6.0-6.fc41.x86_64 from fedora requires libtiff(x86-64) = 4.6.0-6.fc41, but none of the providers can be installed > > > - problem with installed package libtiff-devel-4.6.0-2.fc40.x86_64 > > > - libtiff-devel-4.6.0-2.fc40.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > Three are Python issues: > > > Problem 5: package rfpkg-1.27.3-1.fc40.noarch from @System requires python3.12dist(python-bugzilla), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - python3-bugzilla-3.2.0-10.fc40.noarch from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > - problem with installed package rfpkg-1.27.3-1.fc40.noarch > > > Problem 6: package rfpkgdb-cli-2.15.1-1.fc40.noarch from @System requires python3.12dist(beautifulsoup4), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - python3-beautifulsoup4-4.12.3-3.fc40.noarch from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > - problem with installed package rfpkgdb-cli-2.15.1-1.fc40.noarch > > > Problem 13: problem with installed package python3-devel-3.12.5-1.fc40.x86_64 > > > - package python3-devel-3.13.0~rc1-2.fc41.x86_64 from fedora conflicts with python3 < 3.13.0~rc1-2.fc41 provided by python3-3.12.5-1.fc40.x86_64 from @System > > > - package python3-devel-3.13.0~rc1-3.fc41.x86_64 from updates-testing conflicts with python3 < 3.13.0~rc1-3.fc41 provided by python3-3.12.5-1.fc40.x86_64 from @System > > > - package python3-libusb1-3.1.0-1.fc41.noarch from fedora requires python(abi) = 3.12, but none of the providers can be installed > > > - problem with installed package python3-libusb1-3.0.0-9.fc40.noarch > > > - python3-libusb1-3.0.0-9.fc40.noarch from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > - python3-devel-3.12.5-1.fc40.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > And the rest two: > > > Problem 2: package ghc-foldable1-classes-compat-0.1-4.fc40.x86_64 from @System requires libHSarray-0.5.4.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - ghc-array-0.5.4.0-142.fc40.x86_64 from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > - problem with installed package ghc-foldable1-classes-compat-0.1-4.fc40.x86_64 > > > Problem 8: package fedora-release-40-39.noarch from @System requires fedora-release-common = 40-39, but none of the providers can be installed > > > - package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-40-0.1.noarch from @System requires system-release(40), but none of the providers can be installed > > > - fedora-release-common-40-39.noarch from @System does not belong to a distupgrade repository > > > - problem with installed package rpmfusion-nonfree-release-40-0.1.noarch > > -- > > _______________________________________________ > > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

1 0

Fedora 36 on Linux Saloon
by Luna Jernberg 28 Jun '22

28 Jun '22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=769-0f75Xag The last episode of Linux Saloon of June 2022 is about Fedora 36

1 0

DT Review of Fedora 36 i3 Spin
by Luna Jernberg 16 May '22

16 May '22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdbgDCwCs_w

2 2

Moving to gitlab
by Eduard Lucena 09 May '22

09 May '22

Hello team, Since there is a massive effort to move all docs to GitLab, should we move ahead and start moving all the team stuff to GitLab or should we wait until everything is moved. If we move now, the workflow will be very similar since the .ks file needs to be manually updated in the kickstart's repo. Also I'm not sure if the kickstart repo will be moved to GitLab, but if it's moved, it will make sense to ask all SIGs and WG to move the .ks files there to config a CI/CD pipeline to produce everything automated (I'm a dreamer, sorry). Hope to hear from you soon. Best Regards, -- Eduard Lucena Móvil: +56962318010 GNU/Linux User #589060 Ubuntu User #8749 Fedora Marketing Representative

2 1

Migrating mailing list to Discourse?
by Justin W. Flory (he/him) 03 May '22

03 May '22

Hi all, I wanted to propose a change for us to migrate this mailing list to the Fedora Discussion forum using Discourse. Why make this change? Many Fedora sub-projects, teams, and SIGs are moving their discussion to the Discourse site. It brings our conversations and discussions closer to the rest of the project. It is also easier to discover there is an i3 SIG if we create a new tag (with the help of friendly neighborhood Discourse admins). There have already been a few i3-related discussions there, although they aren't seen by most packagers and SIG members unless they search them in other categories. Why not double down on using the mailing list? For me, I find it difficult to engage. Most of the notifications I get as a mailing list owner are about spam. I just deleted 42 threads about spam posts in the moderation queue going back to January 2022, of which there were two legitimate posts on the list. I know we can turn this off, but there are other cases where we do want to moderate that queue for the occasional legitimate mail that comes through. To me, mailing lists feel limited in use today in Fedora and it is also harder now to connect with people who are not deliberately intent on participating with the i3 SIG folks. When could this change happen? The i3 SIG is not meeting regularly now, so my assumption is that it is up to our own discretion as SIG members if this is a change we want to take and when it could happen. I wanted to start the conversation to get a temperature check on how others feel now that the Fedora Discussion site is live for almost four years. Any thoughts? -- Cheers, Justin W. Flory (he/him) || 🔗 jwf.io TZ=America/New_York 🕖

3 2

Feedback on Fedora 36 i3 Spin
by Casey Witt 24 Apr '22

24 Apr '22

Hello all, Today I tried out the Fedora 36 i3 spin beta. I downloaded it from the link on the F35 spin download page on the bottom right where it says "TRY A PRE-RELEASE" (direct link is: https://download.fedoraproject.org/pub/fedora/linux/releases/test/36_Beta/S…) Overall it works as advertised, and my experience with it was great. I have three comments about my personal preferences: 1. I really like that `xfce4-terminal` has replaced `rxvt` (that was always the first thing I did with the F35 i3 spin) 2. The new default i3 config (at /etc/i3/config) has: 1. added some keybindings for brightness control (which I couldn't use because I was running in a VM) - but cool to have included this 2. added a keybinding to run `arandr`; but `arandr` is not installed by default - I suggest to include `arandr` by default since it is a system utility 3. added lots of color customization (for both i3 and i3status) which I personally don't like because I switch between solarized light and dark color schemes (depending on the surroundings) and the default i3 and i3status colors sit nicely in between these two color schemes (I assume they sit nicely between most light and dark color schemes). The colors manually added to the i3 spin config are too bright for my personal preference. I guess these were added to better match the color scheme of the F36 desktop background (but with i3 it is almost never visible). For my installation I commented out all color customization. 4. the default `dmenu` keybinding has been updated to change some display characteristics (colors I think), but since it still shows everything in the path (and not just .desktop entries) I still immediately always replace it with `rofi` and uncomment the `rofi` keybinding (leaving it unchanged). It is a personal preference of course, but I would vote to make `rofi` the default launcher. It would definitely help a user new to i3 get oriented with what software is installed (most importantly so they can easily see what is not installed and needed to be installed by them). 5. `xdg-user-dirs-update` is executed at login - which is a good thing and seems to solve several weird issues (including an issue with flatpaks if it is never run) Also, if you run `system-config-printer` (for example) as an unprivileged user you can't install a new printer, but there is a button in the upper right corner to "unlock" the settings if you have sudo privilege. This does not work out of the box because there is no "polkit authentication agent" installed. To make this work install 'xfce-polkit' (46kb installed), and then add "exec --no-startup-id /usr/libexec/xfce-polkit" to the i3 config file to run it. Personally I like that the installed software is kept to a bare minimum (ie. no LibreOffice, music players, etc.) so I can add whatever I want. With `dnf` it is very easy to add whatever is fit for your purpose. I was going to recommend including `flameshot` by default but then saw that it pulls in qt and takes 54 MB including dependencies. So I still support keeping the base spin as lean as possible and leaving it to the end user. Having said that; perhaps the i3 spin web page could be updated to show "suggested" apps based on recommendations from other i3 spin users (which is how I learned about `flameshot` for example). I also recommend that the i3 spin web page be updated to tell new users the following so they don't give up because they don't know how to proceed once they boot the live iso: * the keybinding to open the launcher menu * the keybinding to open a terminal * the command to launch the installation (from the terminal) - the terminal motd says this but you have to get to the terminal to see it so perhaps it is useful to show users upfront This spin is awesome, and I really appreciate everyone who worked to put it together - for me the Fedora i3 spin is the perfect linux distro! Cheers, Casey

1 0

i3 config
by Hanku Lee 12 Feb '22

12 Feb '22

Overall, the selected basic package of i3 spin makes it a lightweight installation, which I like. I understand the keyboard-driven workflow. Compared to other methods of installation (ARM installer for server, Media Writer graphical installer), I had a hard time figuring out i3 installation and configuration. Arch wiki helped a little bit, but overall some packages/settings are not relevant to RPM or do not exist for Fedora i3 spin. 1. Functional features nm-connection-editor: Anaconda shows a command-line tool to enter network setup, which is cumbersome for new users. I used nm-connection-editor to complete the wifi connection. It will be helpful to show two choices in Anaconda and Fedora docs. i3 config wizard: it appears to be a useful 'shortcut' to configure, but once I create a config file (initially), it is of no use. i3 debug mode: other than backup copies of config files, debug mode can be a safety feature for any failure. Often wrong editing of config files borks the computer and I had to reinstall all over again. Can we elaborate more on this debug mode in docs? 2. Visual appeal & user experience: this is a highly subjective and controvercial field, so there are no right defaults settings. Display manager (greeter): Slick-greeter is better than stock greeter. However, there should be more greeters available like gtk2 in Arch. i3-config-fedora: it installs xfce terminal2. I know people have love or hate relationship with urxvt. urxvt is listed as the default package, why does i3-config-fedora override urxvt with xfce? Rather, a few Fedora-themed color palettes for urxvt will help reach more people with ready-to-use features. lightdm config: i3 spin has a separate config setter. I was unsure of what to do with this. I would love to explore more on this topic and discuss it with SIG for collaboration.

1 0

Re: i3 SIG at Fedora Council Video Meeting
by Justin W. Flory (he/him) 10 Jan '22

10 Jan '22

Hi all, we were invited to give a 30-minute video update to the Fedora Council by Spot. The full details are below. Is anyone interested to deliver this update to the Council? Should it be a group of us? I wanted to open the discussion here on the list. :-) -- Cheers, Justin W. Flory (he/him) || 🔗 jwf.io TZ=America/New_York ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Thursday, January 6th, 2022 at 14:47, Tom Callaway <spotrh(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hi! If you're getting this email, it is because you're listed as a SIG member on the Fedora Wiki. > > (In looking at the i3 SIG page, it was not clear who might be the right person to poke, so I sent this to you. Please forward as needed) > > The Fedora Council would like to invite your SIG to present at an upcoming Fedora Council video meeting. If you're interested, what we'd be looking for from you is: > > - Someone to present (on camera in a virtual meeting room) a 10-15 minute presentation (with slides) on the state of your SIG (past, present, future) along with any calls to action that you might have. > - Stick around for 15+ minutes for Q&A discussion > > These meetings are recorded and then shared on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnIfca4LPFVn8-FjpPVc1ow > > A small FAQ: > > Q. When are these meetings held? > > A. The video meetings are held monthly, on a Thursday, between 1800 - 1900 UTC. > > Q. Do we have to do this? > > A. No. It is an opportunity we're making available to you, but if you don't want to (or cannot), feel free to decline (or ignore this email). > > Q. Would the meeting be all about our SIG? > > A. We also use some time to discuss council business, but you'd be the guest(s) of honor. > > Q. Okay, we're in. How do I sign-up? > > A. You reply to this email and say "Our SIG would love to do this!" and I'll get you scheduled. > > Q. I have other questions, who can I ask? > > A. You can ask me! You now have my email, or you can find me any of the other obvious places I have presence on the internet and ask me there. > > Thanks, > > Tom "spot" Callaway, on behalf of the Fedora Council

3 2

xorg-x11-server package maintenance
by Eduard Lucena 28 Dec '21

28 Dec '21

Hello team, It looks like the xorg-x11-server package is having problems with its packaging [1] and I'm wondering if that is a package that we can pick up as a team to maintain? What do you think? I think it is important for us to keep an eye on the xorg server stack since i3wm depends on it. I want to know your opinion, Is it too much for us? [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org… -- Eduard Lucena Móvil: +56962318010 GNU/Linux User #589060 Ubuntu User #8749 Fedora Marketing Representative

2 2

Next meeting - 2021-12-02 17 UTC
by Dan Čermák 21 Dec '21

21 Dec '21

Hi team, we'll have our next meeting tomorrow December 2nd, 2021 at 17:00UTC over on https://matrix.to/#/#i3:fedoraproject.org or #fedora-i3 at irc.libera.chat. Hope to see you soon! Dan

5 7

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

Fedora i3 SIG