$ mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 install system-config-firewall ... Error: Problem: conflicting requests - nothing provides python2-slip-dbus >= 0.2.7 needed by system-config-firewall-1.2.29-21.fc29.noarch Please fix this or retire the package.
A week has passed and this bug is still in the NEW state and the package does not install. Please fix this or indicate that you are working ona fix by setting the state to ASSIGNED. After 3 such reminders, this package may be orphaned. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F31_Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal#Removing_non-installable_packages_from_the_distro Thanks
In preparation for the Python 2 EOL, we are removing all non-installable Python 2 packages: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/F31_Mass_Python_2_Package_Removal#Removing_non-installable_packages_from_the_distro This bug is still in the NEW state and the package does not install. Please indicate you are working on a fix by setting the state to ASSIGNED. When this bug is four weeks in the NEW state, the package may be orphaned. Note that you don't have to actually fix this right now, setting the bug to ASSIGNED will just mark this as being worked on, so I'll know it is being taken care of. If this happens too quickly, feel free to reach to me any time for help (with specific problems). (My previous comment might have come across a bit too aggressive. I'm sorry, that was not my intention.) (If you know for sure this package shall be removed, consider doing it.) Thank You!
This bug is still in the NEW state and the package does not install. Please indicate you are working on a fix by setting the state to ASSIGNED. When this bug is four weeks in the NEW state, the package may be orphaned.
Wow, this is unbelievable! This ticket, with a real issue, hasn't been touched for over 2 months already. Who is responsible for the system-config-firewall package?
BTW @Miro why did you set version to `rawhide` if this is actually happening on FC30?
> Who is responsible for the system-config-firewall package? Nobody, it has been orphaned. Or it should have been. > BTW @Miro why did you set version to `rawhide` if this is actually happening on FC30? because rawhide is where I figured this out.
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #6) > > Who is responsible for the system-config-firewall package? > > Nobody, it has been orphaned. Or it should have been. It was orphaned on April 29, but seems to have been picked up by someone else. It is unmaintained and abandoned upstream. All the URLs to upstream are dead.
Readding needinfo I mistakenly removed.
Update: I installed a copy of Fedora 30 for testing with this package. I managed to patch the spec file and some source files to get it to build. (Shebangs must now point to /usr/bin/python2) It installs OK, but I cannot test it. To use system-config-firewall, you must first remove firewalld. When I tried to remove firewalld, it wants to also remove "kernel". Clearly this is a problem.
You've taken the package for EPEL, correct? Maybe it's time to drop it from Fedora?
This bug is for the graphical user interface GUI. But, there are also problems with the TUI. It uses newt, which it now being built against python3 instead of python2. The TUI is part of a larger echo system which includes setuptool, system-config-network-tui & authconfig-tui. system-config-network-tui has been replaced by nmtui, authconfig replaced by authselect So right now it appears like even though setuptool itself installs, there is nothing left for it. The one thing that still remains that does work on RHEL8 is the command line utility lokkit. (Provided by system-config-firewall-base) lokkit has largely been replaced by firewalld-cmd I'm still not sure how to do port-forwarding with firewalld in ansible and that's the primary I've been using lokkit for some time now (still today on EL7) Now I am looking at EL8 and I don't think that lokkit has a place there. Therefore I don't see any reason why this package should not be dropped completely. If anyone wants to know how to run lokkit on EL8 they can contact me directly.
> Therefore I don't see any reason why this package should not be dropped completely. Please retire it then.
This package has been retired
*** Bug 1728185 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1763141 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***