|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

Fedora 36 released

[Posted May 10, 2022 by corbet]

The Fedora 36 release is now available. Improvements include GNOME 42, Wayland support by default on systems with NVIDIA graphics, Podman 4.0, Ansible 5, the removal of support for legacy ifcfg configuration files, GCC 12, and more; see the release notes for details.
to post comments

Fedora 36 ChangeSet

Posted May 10, 2022 18:21 UTC (Tue) by xose (subscriber, #535) [Link]

More changes at: Fedora 36 ChangeSet

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 11, 2022 4:43 UTC (Wed) by rolexhamster (guest, #158445) [Link] (6 responses)

A heads up to anybody using Gnome extensions in Fedora / CentOS / RHEL.

By default, gnome-extensions-app will regularly and automatically update all your extensions without intervention. This cannot be disabled within the the app itself, other than removing the entire app (i.e., dnf remove gnome-extensions-app).

Automatically updating extensions can result in a borked system (new/changed/removed features), or worse, a security breach. Say a previously "trusted" extension is installed, and an attacker manages to compromise the extension (e.g., by breaching the account of the author of the extension) which results in obtaining local access on your machine.

Not sure if not having a "disable automatic updates" option in an extensions management program is the greatest idea ever.

There is an open bug report (2 years old!!), but so far there is no concrete solution other than removing gnome-extensions-app from the system. https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-shell/-/issues/2514

The gnome-extensions-app is part of CentOS 9 stream, so presumably this is also in the soon-to-be-released RHEL 9, making this an enterprise level problem.
http://mirror.stream.centos.org/9-stream/AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 11, 2022 6:19 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (5 responses)

That’s crazy. Why doesn’t Fedora package GNOME extensions as RPMs and update them through the normal distribution mechanisms? They are pretty strict about following that approach for everything else.

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 11, 2022 7:01 UTC (Wed) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Is it like Firefox, where the extensions update mechanism is built into Firefox? I build Firefox from source (gentoo), but it still automatically downloads and updates extensions. There are a couple which are a right pain in the arse opening tabs to tell me "look at me! I'm new and upgraded and improved!", and screwing up my browsing experience as suddenly I'm not where I think I am ...

Cheers,
Wol

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 11, 2022 7:22 UTC (Wed) by zdzichu (subscriber, #17118) [Link] (2 responses)

We do. `dnf search gnome-shell-extension` shows over 40 extensions packaged and updated through distro repository.
Unfortunately users tend to go to sites like extensions.gnome.org and install stuff bypassing the distribution. Although I heard webinstall mechanism is broken with flatpak'd browsers, so we probably have this channel plugged.

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 11, 2022 8:16 UTC (Wed) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

Thanks, that's good to know. I have to admit that I, too, have used an application-specific extensions mechanism, in Firefox, simply because it's so convenient. And with the same problems: the Greasemonkey user scripts site was cracked, a script I was using got taken down, and "auto-update" thus removed it from the browser. There's no way to get back the older version I was running before the breakin.

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 11, 2022 10:41 UTC (Wed) by rolexhamster (guest, #158445) [Link]

    We do. `dnf search gnome-shell-extension` shows over 40 extensions packaged and updated through distro repository.
Alas, that's not a guarantee that these packaged extensions actually work. People may simply take the easiest path and install an extension from extensions.gnome.org if the rpm packaged extension doesn't work.

I took a recent F36 RC (from last week) for a spin. In my experience the rpm packaged gnome-shell-extension-vertical-overview extension didn't work. gnome-extensions-app reported that the extension was incompatible with the installed version of gnome-shell.

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 12, 2022 4:27 UTC (Thu) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]

That is how Debian approaches GNOME extensions (and Firefox ones too).

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 11, 2022 20:57 UTC (Wed) by cesarb (subscriber, #6266) [Link] (8 responses)

Am I the only one who dislikes the new "Common Bugs" page? In previous versions of Fedora, it was a single wiki page you could scroll through; now, each issue has its own page, so you have to open them one by one to see if it's something which would apply to your systems once you upgrade them, and whether it's already solved.

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 11, 2022 21:02 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

> Am I the only one who dislikes the new "Common Bugs" page? In previous versions of Fedora, it was a single wiki page you could scroll through; now, each issue has its own page

Nope, you aren't the only one. I created and maintained the single wiki page format for several years before, so I am only slightly biased.

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 11, 2022 22:06 UTC (Wed) by johannbg (guest, #65743) [Link] (4 responses)

Yup forwarding people to the ask fedora forum is nonsense as well as it being placed under Developer section in the release note like "Common Bugs" dont affect "Common People" only Developers.

In any case the documentation team must have a dialog someplace discussing why they decided to move it.

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 13, 2022 23:27 UTC (Fri) by AdamW (subscriber, #48457) [Link] (3 responses)

It's not the documentation team. After Rahul, I mostly maintained the wiki pages for years, with kparal helping out in recent years.

Moving it to ask.fp.o was Matthew Miller's idea, the initial discussion is here: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists....
and the follow-up is here: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@lists....

I wasn't super keen on the idea either - I think the wiki page works fine, and I had a bunch of scripts and muscle memory for updating it - but didn't want to be a source of stop energy, so didn't protest too hard. At least this way other people are doing more of the work on it and relieving some of the burden from me and Kamil.

I've sent Matthew a link to this discussion so he can chime in if he likes (bit late, I know).

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 14, 2022 15:16 UTC (Sat) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] (2 responses)

I appreciate the indulgence, Adam. :) In seriousness, it's an experiment open to change.

My reason for trying this are:

• I noticed that a lot of people were not seeing the Common Bugs wiki page, no matter how much we linked to it. Things that were already documented were getting asked about over and over on Ask Fedora and in other places.

• I know Adam's wiki magic is strong, but a lot of it was still manual (including running the wiki magic scripts). The burden _was_ mostly landing on Adam and Kamil, and they've got a lot of other things to do.
That means updates were kind of sporadic. This is designed so that the scripts run automatically and provide some updates without needing someone to find time to do it. And I hope also that it's structured so more people feel comfortable helping.

• Our wiki is a minefield. Every well-maintained, well-organized page is just one or two clicks away from landing on something that _looks_ indistinguishable but which is actually old and unmaintained, or a draft version that never was realized, or someone's random idea that looks official but might not be, or ... really anything else. So, I don't think we should be sending users there. (You may argue: but wikis can be great! And other things can be terrible! Sure. But without blowing up the current wiki and getting a dedicated and constant 'gardening' effort going, that's not what we have.)

• I want, in general, to consolidate as many things as we can, because the sprawl of our very large project is hard for people, and since we didn't succeed with going-it-alone with writing "Fedora Hubs", and people didn't bite on centralizing around Taiga, Discourse in general is my hope for a lot of that. It's 100% open source, it's getting a lot of constant improvement, and we have a nice supported hosted platform.

Overall, I think this _is_ working. There is a lot more visibility, and more activity. (Kamil is still doing a lot -- thanks Kamil! -- but it's other people too.) But I also know that it's not perfect, and I'm very open it any ideas for improvement. And if we do decide that it's not working, we could do something else entirely too.

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 15, 2022 12:57 UTC (Sun) by sammythesnake (guest, #17693) [Link]

It's there a way to programmatically create a "summary" page from the individual bug pages, similar in format/contents to the previously available Common Bugs page...?

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 18, 2022 15:03 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

FWIW, RPMFusion is doing a single page at https://rpmfusion.org/CommonBugs and atleast for my purposes this is more usable.

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 14, 2022 14:58 UTC (Sat) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] (1 responses)

I'll reply more to Adam down below, but on this in specific: the use case of proactively reading everything in advance wasn't my main thought in doing this. I'm not sure how many people actually do that, but I don't want to discourage people who do. :) It wouldn't be terribly hard to generate a single-page view... that's something I could work on if that would help.

Fedora 36 released

Posted May 14, 2022 14:59 UTC (Sat) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link]

Eh, I guess it will be "above" in the threading. Well, anyway. :)


Copyright © 2022, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds