I agree, when yafti is a bit more mature (its issues page has some jank), it should probably be part
I agree, when yafti is a bit more mature (its issues page has some jank), it should probably be part of main too.
FI always installed flatpak version 1st, so I did not encounter that
ABtw @hermmm this is ready for review/discussion if you have time. There's two components to it: Merging, and then changing the branch name of
https://github.com/ublue-os/startingpoint/pull/76
startingpoint:main to startingpoint:template. Then we'll have a much easier system for users who fork the template.https://github.com/ublue-os/startingpoint/pull/76
AIt's part of the planned website update which will have a guide about how to fork and easily update the template.
BAt the moment, even if Yafti had all bugs fixed and dreams achieved, I'm still not sure it belongs in main or nvidia...
Reason: what's the scope of main/nvidia? currently it's hardware enablement/quality-of-life things which Fedora can't/won't provide, but otherwise stock Silverblue(etc).
If/when a first-boot tool fits into that scope, cool... but I think the scope may need to be adjust/clarified to make tha thappen.
Reason: what's the scope of main/nvidia? currently it's hardware enablement/quality-of-life things which Fedora can't/won't provide, but otherwise stock Silverblue(etc).
If/when a first-boot tool fits into that scope, cool... but I think the scope may need to be adjust/clarified to make tha thappen.
JGitHub
Wooting's current rules are a bit dangerous. I have fixed the rules and reported the issue upstream. I've also created a small development tool we use to instantly generate fixed rules unti...
J@ChaiQi are you around by any chance?
BI kinda wanted Kyle to chime in, but otherwise, I'm good with it, seems like a good approach
Joh ok, I was tagged on it
Jok so we should probably start using the assign thing in github then
Byeah, and maybe slow the roll a tiny bit 
that went out pretty fast though, scope, just wooting, was pretty small
that went out pretty fast though, scope, just wooting, was pretty smallJack, yeah, you're right
CAm now
Jok the full set of rules was merged but we need someone with the hardware to double check all the stuff
Bto be clear, we'd already merged the extra rules, i added them with
wheelWill have to find and move my own patch to check. Can do
Bthis change was around using
uaccess instead of group wheelthis is rules.final.(final).final.doc
Crules.final(final).final.v2.doc
JI can't test these rules until june because I ordered one now I'm obsessed
CWhere would I have patched in the udev rules? lol
CWhat got you hooked? lol
Bj0rge: doesn't have hardware for a month, can't wait 5 minutes to merge PR for said hardware 
Jat this rate we'll need to find a few more people so my access can be removed. 
B
Jok I kicked off main and then I'll do nvidia and then I promise no new things
Bi think that's actually your plan
JUNTIL THE TRAIN COMES TO THE STATION, then no promises
Joh the train was here, ok one more
CDoes anyone remember where manually added udev rules go? I have been preoccupied and don't know where the file is that I need to remove to test that things are working
J/etc/udev/rules.dJiirc your plan was to put your rules there until we sorted them out
CYep, found them. Good to update and reboot to check?
Bnot yet
Byou are on nvidia right?
CYeah
Bit'll be a bit
CFigured
Bmainnvidia
RI was just looking at the packit.dev service. has anyone looked at it before?
rpm build as a service to aim for getting packages to Fedora and CentOS
rpm build as a service to aim for getting packages to Fedora and CentOS
AYeah, I was just thinking that when Yafti is more mature, it might be useful to have it in main to do some post-install setups, but you're right, it's too opinionated for main.
Bdid you see that Fedora 39 has a proposed first-boot service?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AutoFirstBootServices
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/AutoFirstBootServices
AThis should be fine since it's correct modern way to define input device rules.
And if I've even understood Fedora correctly, they dynamically assign people to the access
So I don't think anyone needs to add themselves to
And if I've even understood Fedora correctly, they dynamically assign people to the access
inputSo I don't think anyone needs to add themselves to
inputI looked into these firstboot services last cycle
Jit won't work for us but I don't remember why
AYou mean yafti, right?
Jno this thing
AAhh it seems similar to yafti, but silent. Probably more limited.
ARegarding device rules... Our
Source: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815093#c4
70-u2f.rules is a bit wonky too, which is a separate issue to look at later... It currently requires the plugdev group. Here's what a Fedora dev said about that:Sure, we must entirely get rid of that crap. "plugdev" is a very misguided
and fundamentally wrong Ubuntuism. Fedora must not solve problems that way,
we do not put users in system groups to grant access to devices, especially
do not define non-sensical groups like: "the group of users that can plug
devices into the system".
Fedora uses individually managed ACLs for granting ordinary user access
to devices. The ACLs are seat (multiple users working simultaneously on
the same host), and they track session activity. It depends on the type
of devices how to hook up the device in the ACL handling:
http://cgit.freedesktop.org/systemd/systemd/tree/src/login/70-uaccess.rules
Please just patch the rules not to use "plugdev" at all, we can do better and
don't want "plugdev" in Fedora. Thanks!
Source: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815093#c4
