Bug 1910017

Summary:	vncserver split out?
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	david08741
Component:	tigervnc	Assignee:	Jan Grulich <jgrulich>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	34	CC:	fedora, jgrulich, vonsch
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Reopened
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	tigervnc-1.11.0-12.fc34	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2021-06-24 16:52:25 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description david08741 2020-12-22 10:29:19 UTC

I have read the other bugs about the missing vncserver (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1879739, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1882295, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1883027) but I think one issue that hasn't been mentioned, is that starting via systemd requires root permissions, which I do not have.

I just wanted to ask whether I got this right:
/usr/bin/vncserver is about to be dropped, but is still working.

If you do not want to maintain this, should this be split out into its own package?

Are there good reasons to drop this executable?

Comment 1 Jan Grulich 2021-01-05 09:01:22 UTC

The reason is that it is not supported upstream anymore. I will keep it probably as part of tigervnc until there are issues for which I won't have time to fix them. I don't also think it should be a separate package as it's easier for me to maintain it there.

Comment 2 david08741 2021-06-16 11:24:50 UTC

I am confused.

You say it is easier for you to maintain, but then you just break it.

I can understand to not be bother about it, but systemd is just not an option for me.

Would you be willing - now that you dropped support - to remove the file so that I can provide a separate package that just provides the wrapper?

Comment 3 Jan Grulich 2021-06-16 11:33:03 UTC

(In reply to david08741 from comment #2)
> I am confused.
> 
> You say it is easier for you to maintain, but then you just break it.
> 
> I can understand to not be bother about it, but systemd is just not an
> option for me.
> 
> Would you be willing - now that you dropped support - to remove the file so
> that I can provide a separate package that just provides the wrapper?

I'm sorry, I somehow missed to drop the condition enabling it on F34+. A new build is on the way bringing it back as it was not really intentional. Thank you for letting me know.

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2021-06-16 11:55:11 UTC

FEDORA-2021-b0e56093c3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b0e56093c3

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2021-06-17 01:29:49 UTC

FEDORA-2021-b0e56093c3 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-b0e56093c3`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b0e56093c3

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2021-06-24 16:52:25 UTC

FEDORA-2021-b0e56093c3 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.