From Fedora Project Wiki

< FWN‎ | Beats

(#166 devel beat, spellchecked, fasnames checked. 6 topics)
Line 6: Line 6:
Contributing Writer: [[User:Ush|Oisin Feeley]]
Contributing Writer: [[User:Ush|Oisin Feeley]]


=== Fedora 11 Mass Rebuild ===
=== Orphans Purged ===


Some complications resulting from the inconsistent application of Fedora Packaging Guidelines were manifested when the mass rebuild discussed last week(FWN#163<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue163#Mass_Rebuild_Coming_Soon</ref>) gained<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild</ref> a more concrete shape. [[JesseKeating|Jesse Keating]] posted<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01281.html</ref> a request that all maintainers would read the wiki page describing what needs to be done, especially the Maintainer Actions section.
It sounded<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00093.html</ref> like Dickensian cruelty when [[User:Jkeating|Jesse Keating]] announced that he would be purging the orphans. All that it meant however was that those packages which were not blocked and had no owners would be "[...] blocked, and will not be shipped with F11." The initial list mistakenly listed <code>EPEL</code> packages and a shorter revised list was posted<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00103.html</ref>.


The rebuild should kick-off this Monday (2009-02-23). The wiki page describes the relatively narrow timeframe in which maintainers can attempt their own rebuilds and the way in which they can avoid the auto-rebuild.
A follow-up posted<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00474.html</ref> states that packages listed therein will be removed on 2009-03-09 unless volunteers are found to maintain them.


Concern was expressed by [[TomLane|Tom Lane]] that the rebuilds were non-ordered. Jesse responded<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01287.html</ref> that ordered builds were "[...] generally only are necessary when bumping sonames or otherwise bootstrapping items.  Given that neither of those apply for this rebuild, effort spent trying to order and chain builds would be effort wasted." [[RalfCorsepius|Ralf Corsepius]] challenged<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01297.html</ref> this with the observation that <code>pkgconfig</code> BuildRequires are added automatically. Ralf suggested<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01303.html</ref> the problem could be solved by "[...] checking which packages in current rawhide contain *.pc's but do not Provide nor Require pkgconfig(foo) and to rebuild them (in manually presorted order) in advance to the mass rebuild."
<references/>


[[JonMasters|Jon Masters]] appreciated<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01298.html</ref> Jesse's work and worried that the rebuild might leave some statically built binaries using i386 instead of the promised i586 (see FWN#162<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue162#Fedora_11_Will_Support_i586_Instruction_Set</ref>). Subsequent rebuilds were suggested as a means to work around the problem but Jesse preferred to identify specific problems and stated<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01300.html</ref>: "I think the most I'd be willing to do would be a second build pass across the static packages.  IMHO everything else should be left up to testing discovery and fixing the assumptions rather than hiding them."
=== Fedora 11 to Ship Tiger VNC ===


Another approach was suggested by [[User:Konradm|Conrad Meyer]] based on using <code>BuildRequires: *-static</code>. When Ralf replied that this would not work because many packagers who had not used static subpackages Conrad pointed<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01307.html</ref> to the guidelines. [[NicolasMailhot|Nicolas Mailhot]] ruefully responded<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01312.html</ref> that his experience with the fonts guidelines suggested that enforcement was necessary. Later discussion with [[JakubJelinek|Jakub Jelínek]] about the presence of <code>libc.a</code> in <code>glibc-devel</code> suggested<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01322.html</ref> that it will not be simple to apply this particular guideline to <code>glibc</code> without <code>gcc -static</code> ceasing to behave as expected.
[[AdamTkac|Adam Tkac]] wrote<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00213.html</ref> to explain why he had decided "one minute before the beta freeze" to replace <code>TightVNC</code> with the <code>TigerVNC</code> fork. Adam has a history of very actively seeking to merge improvements upstream which in the past led<ref>http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue119#Baracuda_To_Replace_VNC_.3F</ref> to the replacement of <code>RealVNC</code> with <code>TightVNC</code> when it seemed that the latter was more willing to evolve. The glacial pace of <code>RealVNC</code> development seemed to be correlated with the presence of a non-Free enterprise edition. Adam reported that unfortunately a lack of co-ordination of the <code>TightVNC</code> project had led to the <code>TurboVNC</code> and <code>TightVNC</code> projects deciding that a fork was necessary. An initial mail posted<ref>http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=alpine.LFD.2.00.0902271116020.25749%40maggie.lkpg.cendio.se&forum_name=tigervnc-users</ref> by PeterÅstrand on @tigervnc-users provides some more details.
 
One specific outcome anticipated<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00217.html</ref> by KingInuYasha was a "[...] proper implementations of VNC 4 for UNIX like systems [...] Having a VNC implementation that actually is kept up to date with the VNC protocol and is optimized with extensions is something I have been waiting for awhile now."
 
Another hint of good things which may come from a more rapid pace of development was revealed<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00221.html</ref> when Daniel Berrange asked about Adam's plans to include the <code>VeNCrypt</code> server-side SSL/TLS extension. This would result in a "[...] consistent TLS extension that's inter operable across all the VNC clients & servers in Fedora." Daniel also mentioned that he had "[...] recently defined & implemented another VNC auth extension based on SASL. This provides for a good extendable authentication capability, most importantly including GSSAPI Kerberos for single sign on. I've got it implemented for QEMU, KVM, GTK-VNC and VINO already, so again it'd be good to plan for adding it to TigerVNC too so we have a widely interoperable strong authentication system."
 
All in all it looks as though contrary to their slogan "The VNC that bites" TigerVNC will be superb.


<references/>
<references/>


=== Virtual Provides for Login Managers ===
=== Ready for a New RPM Version ? ===


Following problems reported<ref>https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485789</ref> with booting to runlevel 5 by default with the <code>slim</code> login-manager [[http://translate.fedoraproject.org/people/clumens|Chris Lumens]] sugges:ted<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01237.html</ref> that "[...] all packages containing a login manager include a special Provides: that we can query on." This would allow <code>anaconda</code> to determine whether a login-manager is installed without the difficulties of curating a list.
On 2009-02-26 [[PanuMatilainen|Panu Matilainen]] asked<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02117.html</ref> if it would be possible to introduce <code>RPM-4.7</code> at this late stage of the <code>Fedora 11</code> release cycle. This new version decreases memory use and improves performance. Panu emphasized that it was not as large an upgrade as the "[...] 4.4.2.x -> 4.6.0 leap-of-faith upgrade last year [.]"


[[User:Pertusus|Patrice Dumas]], and others, provided<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01399.html</ref> a good deal of feedback which seems to have led to a consensus that <code>Provides: service(graphical-login)</code> will be added to all packages which provide a login manager.
[[User:Notting|Bill Nottingham]] was among those who expressed concern that <code>rpm-4.7</code> would be completely ready for the final release of <code>Fedora 11</code>. He also wondered if there would be incompatibilities with previous <code>rpm</code> version. Panu answered<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02161.html</ref> that <code>rpm-4.7</code> was expected to be ready for the final release and that incompatibilities would only result if packagers used the <code>POSIX</code> file capabilities. This latter is protected against with an <code>rpmlib()</code> dependency.


An interesting sub-thread developed in which [[ColinWalters|Colin Walters]] argued<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01400.html</ref> that adding display managers (other than <code>gdm</code> and <code>kdm</code> should be strongly discouraged. This was met<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01403.html</ref> with a good deal of disagreement from [[User:Spot|Tom Callaway]] and [[User:Skvidal|Seth Vidal]].  
A certain amount of disquiet at the idea of "[g]oing with a beta version of critical infrastructure like RPM [...]" based on the recent changes to RPM was voiced<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02134.html</ref> by [[TomLane|Tom Lane]]. Upon a challenge from [[User:Skvidal|Seth Vidal]] some problems with the process of upgrading <code>rpm</code> to handle stronger hashes were listed<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02142.html</ref> by [[User:Notting|Bill Nottingham]]. These included including "No solution for handling packages natively on F9" and [[TomLane|Tom Lane]] expanded<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02146.html</ref> on the point: "I'm personally still ticked off that I'm being forced to update my development workstation to F-10 immediately in order to continue doing useful work on rawhide packages.  I don't have time for that right now.  Since F-9 is still supported, isn't it a management failing to have allowed this to happen without a plan to make mock on F-9 work?" The general response seemed to be that developers need to use one of the virtual machine solutions in order to be able to build for <code>rawhide</code>.


Colin explained<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01404.html</ref> that the ramifications of changing such an integral part of the OS were complex and that while anyone should be free to add such software it should also be "[...] within the rights of the people working on the desktop to close any bugs filed by people using something else WONTFIX." [[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating]] and [[User:Skvidal|Seth Vidal]] seemed<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01407.html</ref> to agree that it should be possible for the Fedora Project do define specs to which login managers should conform.
A substantial sub-thread on the rate of change in <code>rawhide</code> and whether or not developers should use it or stick to the current stable release with a virtualized instance of <code>rawhide</code> developed<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02213.html</ref> following some thoughts from [[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]].  


The thread blossomed into several discussions. One focused on the technical challenges occasioned<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01408.html</ref> by the interaction of <code>GDM</code>, <code>PAM</code>, <code>gnome-keyring</code>, <code>NetworkManager</code> and <code>ConsoleKit</code>. Another saw<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01434.html</ref> [[User:Toshio|Toshio Kuratomi]] and Colin debating the strategic merits of making it more or less easy for interested parties to add their software to the Fedora Project ecosystem.
[[User:Sundaram|RahulSundaram]] asked<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02156.html</ref> for more information on the use of <code>LZMA</code> compression as this is one of the new features of <code>rpm-4.7</code>. Panu replied<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02173.html</ref> <code>LZMA</code> will not be used by default as it would make even the current <code>Fedora 10</code> <code>rpm</code> unable to read packages produced with such compression.  
 
A FESCo decision made on 2009-03-06 confirmed<ref>http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2009-03-06.html</ref> that <code>rpm-4.7</code> would be the version shipping in <code>Fedora 11</code>.


<references/>
<references/>


=== Reducing the Number of (Dis)Charge Cycles for Laptop Batteries ===
=== Windows Cross-compiler Added to comps.xml ===


A certain amount of excitement resulted when [[BradLongo|Brad Longo]] asked<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01194.html</ref>: "[...] if Fedora's power management tool has something built in so that when the battery reaches full charge, it will then discharge to lets say around 95% before beginning to charge again." The excitement arose from Brad's premise that "[...] leaving your laptop plugged in and charging with a full battery charge is harmful for the battery."
Following from a FESCo 2009-03-06 decision [[RichardJones|Richard W.M. Jones]] asked<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00365.html</ref> to add a "Windows cross-compiler" group to <code>comps.xml</code> before the rapidly approaching 2009-03-10 string freeze.


Several responses rejected<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01201.html</ref> the premise and pointed out that smart chargers implement trickle-mode charging. [[MatthewGarrett|Matthew Garrett]] replied<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01202.html</ref> with some specific information about how laptop battery charging happens at a firmware-controlled threshold level. Matthew speculated that Brad wanted "[...] presumably an interface to modify that threshold. This is device specific. The tp_smapi driver (which is not in the kernel for exceedingly dull reasons) allows this to be configured on Thinkpads. I don't believe that we know how to on any other systems." [[HansUlrichNiedermann|Hans Ulrich Niedermann]] had<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01257.html</ref> an out-of-kernel module for <code>tm_smapi</code> which was configurable via <code>/etc/sysconfig</code>.  
[[User:Kkofler|Kevin Kofler]] asked why Richard did not call it "MinGW cross compiler" and Richard responded<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00384.html</ref> that he wanted to avoid trademarks and leave open the possibility to broaden support to other non-embedded platforms. He came up with either "Consumer cross-compilers (CCC) or Consumer cross-compiler collection (CCCC)." Kevin had some other interesting questions about the legality of possible <code>OS X</code> cross-compilers and the desirability of one group per OS. Richard pointed<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00397.html</ref> to an earlier thread on the latter question.


[[MatthewSaltzman|Matthew Saltzman]] reported<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01269.html</ref> some experiences with <code>Windows</code> setting the charge-threshold to 85% which is supposed to lengthen the battery life. [[CallumLerwick|Callum Lerwick]] referenced<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01304.html</ref> a Wikipedia article which claimes that the "[...] optimal storage charge for a Li-Ion is %40. Also, heat causes Li-Ion batteries to degenerate much faster, so if you're really worried about preserving your battery, don't leave it in the laptop while it's running. Yet another argument for less power usage. Less power, less heat, longer battery service life. Fewer toxic batteries going in to the land fill if you like that angle."
=== Anaconda Default of Separate / and /home Partitions ===


<references/>
A long-standing bugzilla entry was referenced<ref></ref> by Lex Hider as background for the idea that <code>anaconda</code> should support separate <code>/home</code> and <code>/</code> partitions in order to support clean installs during upgrades. Lex's detailed post included links to relevant previous discussion.
 
=== config.guess Reporting Incorrect Configuration Name ? ===


[[PanuMatilainen|Panu Matilainen]] asked<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01338.html</ref> if it was a problem that the <code>config.guess</code> script from <code>autotools</code> no longer reported "redhat" as the manufacturer part of the configuration triplet. Panu referenced the documentation which suggests that "[...] the manufacturer part of the configuration name is the manufacturer of the CPU, not `OS vendor' so the former `redhat' was always incorrect. I don't know the history behind the decision to stomp `redhat' in there to begin with nor why it was then dropped later on. But having gotten used to it, people occasionally think the `unknown' (or `pc' for that matter) is a bug."
[[User:Adamwill|Adam Williamson]] was very much in favor of the idea and in response to [[User:Jkeating|Jesse Keating]] suggested<ref></ref> some heuristics which might allow <code>anaconda</code> to determine the relative sizes of the <code>/</code> and <code>/home</code> partitions. [[User:Bruno|Bruno Wolff III's]] <code>/</code> partition size (circa 40GB) proved<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01976.html</ref> to be surprisingly large due to multiple languages installed. [[MichelSalim|Michel Salim]]<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02167.html</ref> and [[CallumLerwick|Callum Lerwick]]<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02021.html</ref> both brought up the necessity to have a large <code>/</code> partition in order to be able to run <code>preupgrade</code>.


While [[JakubJelinek|Jakub Jelínek]] thought that providing the "redhat" string provided more information than "pc" or "unknown" [[StepanKaspal|Stepan Kaspal]] argued<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01355.html</ref> strongly that reverting to maintaining such a patch was wrong. He suggested that either upstream should be convinced to change the use of "manufacturer" or that the <code>%configure</code> macro in the specfile could be used to explicitly avoid calling <code>config.guess</code>. 
Lex elaborated<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg02356.html</ref> on possible space requirements for such a scheme.
From here on the thread became too technically detailed to summarize although it is relatively brief as of going to press. Those learned in the lore of autotools and cross-compilation will find much to gladden their hearts.


<references/>
<references/>


=== Build-time Trapping of Python Syntax Errors ===
=== Beta Freeze and String Freeze this Tuesday 2009-03-10 ===


[[User:Twaugh|Tim Waugh]] initiated<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01563.html</ref> verification that Python code can be parsed correctly: "[...] since we are already byte-compiling Python code at build time, it is no extra effort to verify that it can be parsed and fail if not."
[[User:Ausil|Dennis Gilmore]] posted<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00430.html</ref> a heads up on 2009-03-06 that "[...] anything that needs translations needs to be done by COB [Tuesday]. This is a blocking Freeze any packages you need included in the Beta release must be requested via release engineering [.]"  


Reaction was<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01574.html</ref> uniformly positive and when [[PanuMatilainen|Panu Matilainen]] explained the simple errors which the byte compile would catch and suggested<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01584.html</ref> a simple method of determining affected packages [[User:Ffesti|Florian Festi]] took up the challenge.
A brief amount of confusion occurred<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00425.html</ref> due to the misnaming of the day of the week.  [[User:Till|Till Maas]] also wondered exactly what Close Of Business meant exactly for an international project like <code>Fedora</code>.


<references/>
<references/>


=== YUM Plans for Transition to Fedora 12 i686 Architecture ===
=== Fedora 11 Default Mediaplayer Not Banshee. Mono to Blame ? ===
 
When [[User:Pghmcfc|Paul Howarth]] asked<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01533.html</ref>: "Now that Fedora 11 x86_32 is going to be based on i586 packages rather than i386 packages, does it follow that yum's $basearch will change from i386 to i586 and hence repository directory layouts changing too, or will it stay at i386?" a brief discussion between [[User:Skvidal|Seth Vidal]] and [[User:Jwboyer|Josh Boyer]] started<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01551.html</ref> with a discussion over whether repositories should be named after specific architectures.


[[User:Skvidal|Seth Vidal]] differentiated between <code>$arch</code> and <code>$basearch</code> and explained<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01557.html</ref>: "The whole reason I liked used $arch was that it meant when fedora stopped producing a 586 compatible tree, we didn't stop any one else from making a 586 compat tree and having it available like secondary arches are."  [[User:jkeating|Jesse Keating]] explained<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01561.html</ref> that "i386" was a misnomer for the <code>x86</code> offering. [[User:Jwboyer|Josh Boyer]] was<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01581.html</ref> unsure whether i586 would actually "go away" for Fedora 12. [[User:Ausil|Dennis Gilmore]] was sure that it would and offered<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-February/msg01587.html</ref>: "Anyone who wants to continue i586 support post F11 i look forward to talking to about setting up i586 as a secondary arch."
A summary of FESCo deliberations posted<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00417.html</ref> by BillNottingham stirred DavidNielsen to object that he had not been alerted (as maintainer) that discussion of the <code>Banshee</code> media player was to occur. David also objected<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00426.html</ref> that the onus had been placed on him to convince the maintainer of the competitor <code>Rhythmbox</code> package to allow the replacement. He also suggested that the use of the <code>Mono</code> language was a stumbling block due to <code>RHEL</code> eschewing <code>Mono</code>: "[...] RHEL does not ship Mono, if RHEL wants to ship Rhythmbox that is their decision but what Fedora ships should not be. What else are we going to be dictated from above.. who else should bother to make proposals for what they preceive to be improvements?"


<references/>
[[User:Jkeating|Jesse Keating]] responded<ref>http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-March/msg00428.html</ref> that his understanding was that the desire to avoid <code>mono</code> in <code>Fedora</code> is to avoid bloating the <code>LiveCD</code>s with dependencies. The IRC logs bore out<ref>http://bpepple.fedorapeople.org/fesco/FESCo-2009-03-06.html</ref> this interpretation with FESCo members explicitly stating that "[...] what its written in should have no bearing on what goes in[.]" It was also clear however that <code>RHEL</code>, as the largest downstream distributor of an OS directly derived from <code>Fedora</code>, would not be ignored.

Revision as of 02:55, 9 March 2009

Developments

In this section the people, personalities and debates on the @fedora-devel mailing list are summarized.

Contributing Writer: Oisin Feeley

Orphans Purged

It sounded[1] like Dickensian cruelty when Jesse Keating announced that he would be purging the orphans. All that it meant however was that those packages which were not blocked and had no owners would be "[...] blocked, and will not be shipped with F11." The initial list mistakenly listed EPEL packages and a shorter revised list was posted[2].

A follow-up posted[3] states that packages listed therein will be removed on 2009-03-09 unless volunteers are found to maintain them.

Fedora 11 to Ship Tiger VNC

Adam Tkac wrote[1] to explain why he had decided "one minute before the beta freeze" to replace TightVNC with the TigerVNC fork. Adam has a history of very actively seeking to merge improvements upstream which in the past led[2] to the replacement of RealVNC with TightVNC when it seemed that the latter was more willing to evolve. The glacial pace of RealVNC development seemed to be correlated with the presence of a non-Free enterprise edition. Adam reported that unfortunately a lack of co-ordination of the TightVNC project had led to the TurboVNC and TightVNC projects deciding that a fork was necessary. An initial mail posted[3] by PeterÅstrand on @tigervnc-users provides some more details.

One specific outcome anticipated[4] by KingInuYasha was a "[...] proper implementations of VNC 4 for UNIX like systems [...] Having a VNC implementation that actually is kept up to date with the VNC protocol and is optimized with extensions is something I have been waiting for awhile now."

Another hint of good things which may come from a more rapid pace of development was revealed[5] when Daniel Berrange asked about Adam's plans to include the VeNCrypt server-side SSL/TLS extension. This would result in a "[...] consistent TLS extension that's inter operable across all the VNC clients & servers in Fedora." Daniel also mentioned that he had "[...] recently defined & implemented another VNC auth extension based on SASL. This provides for a good extendable authentication capability, most importantly including GSSAPI Kerberos for single sign on. I've got it implemented for QEMU, KVM, GTK-VNC and VINO already, so again it'd be good to plan for adding it to TigerVNC too so we have a widely interoperable strong authentication system."

All in all it looks as though contrary to their slogan "The VNC that bites" TigerVNC will be superb.

Ready for a New RPM Version ?

On 2009-02-26 Panu Matilainen asked[1] if it would be possible to introduce RPM-4.7 at this late stage of the Fedora 11 release cycle. This new version decreases memory use and improves performance. Panu emphasized that it was not as large an upgrade as the "[...] 4.4.2.x -> 4.6.0 leap-of-faith upgrade last year [.]"

Bill Nottingham was among those who expressed concern that rpm-4.7 would be completely ready for the final release of Fedora 11. He also wondered if there would be incompatibilities with previous rpm version. Panu answered[2] that rpm-4.7 was expected to be ready for the final release and that incompatibilities would only result if packagers used the POSIX file capabilities. This latter is protected against with an rpmlib() dependency.

A certain amount of disquiet at the idea of "[g]oing with a beta version of critical infrastructure like RPM [...]" based on the recent changes to RPM was voiced[3] by Tom Lane. Upon a challenge from Seth Vidal some problems with the process of upgrading rpm to handle stronger hashes were listed[4] by Bill Nottingham. These included including "No solution for handling packages natively on F9" and Tom Lane expanded[5] on the point: "I'm personally still ticked off that I'm being forced to update my development workstation to F-10 immediately in order to continue doing useful work on rawhide packages. I don't have time for that right now. Since F-9 is still supported, isn't it a management failing to have allowed this to happen without a plan to make mock on F-9 work?" The general response seemed to be that developers need to use one of the virtual machine solutions in order to be able to build for rawhide.

A substantial sub-thread on the rate of change in rawhide and whether or not developers should use it or stick to the current stable release with a virtualized instance of rawhide developed[6] following some thoughts from Adam Williamson.

RahulSundaram asked[7] for more information on the use of LZMA compression as this is one of the new features of rpm-4.7. Panu replied[8] LZMA will not be used by default as it would make even the current Fedora 10 rpm unable to read packages produced with such compression.

A FESCo decision made on 2009-03-06 confirmed[9] that rpm-4.7 would be the version shipping in Fedora 11.

Windows Cross-compiler Added to comps.xml

Following from a FESCo 2009-03-06 decision Richard W.M. Jones asked[1] to add a "Windows cross-compiler" group to comps.xml before the rapidly approaching 2009-03-10 string freeze.

Kevin Kofler asked why Richard did not call it "MinGW cross compiler" and Richard responded[2] that he wanted to avoid trademarks and leave open the possibility to broaden support to other non-embedded platforms. He came up with either "Consumer cross-compilers (CCC) or Consumer cross-compiler collection (CCCC)." Kevin had some other interesting questions about the legality of possible OS X cross-compilers and the desirability of one group per OS. Richard pointed[3] to an earlier thread on the latter question.

Anaconda Default of Separate / and /home Partitions

A long-standing bugzilla entry was referencedCite error: Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no name must have content by Lex Hider as background for the idea that anaconda should support separate /home and / partitions in order to support clean installs during upgrades. Lex's detailed post included links to relevant previous discussion.

Adam Williamson was very much in favor of the idea and in response to Jesse Keating suggestedCite error: Invalid <ref> tag; refs with no name must have content some heuristics which might allow anaconda to determine the relative sizes of the / and /home partitions. Bruno Wolff III's / partition size (circa 40GB) proved[4] to be surprisingly large due to multiple languages installed. Michel Salim[5] and Callum Lerwick[6] both brought up the necessity to have a large / partition in order to be able to run preupgrade.

Lex elaborated[7] on possible space requirements for such a scheme.

Beta Freeze and String Freeze this Tuesday 2009-03-10

Dennis Gilmore posted[1] a heads up on 2009-03-06 that "[...] anything that needs translations needs to be done by COB [Tuesday]. This is a blocking Freeze any packages you need included in the Beta release must be requested via release engineering [.]"

A brief amount of confusion occurred[2] due to the misnaming of the day of the week. Till Maas also wondered exactly what Close Of Business meant exactly for an international project like Fedora.

Fedora 11 Default Mediaplayer Not Banshee. Mono to Blame ?

A summary of FESCo deliberations posted[1] by BillNottingham stirred DavidNielsen to object that he had not been alerted (as maintainer) that discussion of the Banshee media player was to occur. David also objected[2] that the onus had been placed on him to convince the maintainer of the competitor Rhythmbox package to allow the replacement. He also suggested that the use of the Mono language was a stumbling block due to RHEL eschewing Mono: "[...] RHEL does not ship Mono, if RHEL wants to ship Rhythmbox that is their decision but what Fedora ships should not be. What else are we going to be dictated from above.. who else should bother to make proposals for what they preceive to be improvements?"

Jesse Keating responded[3] that his understanding was that the desire to avoid mono in Fedora is to avoid bloating the LiveCDs with dependencies. The IRC logs bore out[4] this interpretation with FESCo members explicitly stating that "[...] what its written in should have no bearing on what goes in[.]" It was also clear however that RHEL, as the largest downstream distributor of an OS directly derived from Fedora, would not be ignored.