fesco/tickets
13
2
Fork 1
Code Issues 19 Pull requests Activity

Change: Drop low-memory-monitor package #3671

New issue
Closed
opened 2026-08-03 13:42:23 +00:00 by amoloney · 17 comments
amoloney commented 2026-08-03 13:42:23 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Modern GLib (GMemoryMonitor) introduces memory monitor backends that run independently without relying on an external daemon to send low-memory signals to applications. Previously, low-memory-daemon was the sole provider of these events. Since GLib no longer requires low-memory-monitor to deliver these notifications and it is an archived project, low-memory-monitor can be dropped.

Owners, do not implement this work until the FESCo vote has explicitly ended.
When a FESCo member has marked this ticket as APPROVED, you may proceed with the implementation. See the FESCo ticket policy and the Changes policy for more information.
If no decision has been rendered after 7 days from the filing of this ticket and no indication (such as a -1 vote) that this will be taken up at a FESCo meeting, please feel free to ping for a status update.

REMINDER: This ticket is for FESCo members to vote on the proposal. Further discussion should happen in the Discourse discussion linked above. Additional discussion may happen on the Fedora Devel mailing list.

Modern GLib (GMemoryMonitor) introduces memory monitor backends that run independently without relying on an external daemon to send low-memory signals to applications. Previously, low-memory-daemon was the sole provider of these events. Since GLib no longer requires low-memory-monitor to deliver these notifications and it is an archived project, low-memory-monitor can be dropped. * [Change proposal](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DropLowMemoryMonitorFromDefaultInstallation) * [devel post](https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/SDNF6VAYCSDUBJX7Z3HCIDJ3KVG4GVG2/) * [Discourse discussion](https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/f46-change-proposal-deprecate-low-memory-monitor-package-system-wide/197427) * Owners: @smallorange **Owners, do not implement this work until the FESCo vote has explicitly ended.** When a FESCo member has marked this ticket as APPROVED, you may proceed with the implementation. See the [FESCo ticket policy](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/#_ticket_policy) and the [Changes policy](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/program_management/changes_policy/) for more information. If no decision has been rendered after 7 days from the filing of this ticket and no indication (such as a -1 vote) that this will be taken up at a FESCo meeting, please feel free to ping for a status update. **REMINDER**: This ticket is for FESCo members to vote on the proposal. Further discussion should happen in the Discourse discussion linked above. Additional discussion may happen on the [Fedora Devel](https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/) mailing list.
amoloney commented 2026-08-03 13:42:32 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

cc @smallorange

cc @smallorange
decathorpe commented 2026-08-03 16:17:13 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I have updated the ticket title to reflect the changed title of the proposal:

-Change: Deprecate low-memory-monitor package
+Change: Drop low-memory-monitor package

(Also fixed up two formatting mistakes in the ticket body - typo in the URL for the wiki page, and missing ) for the discourse thread.)

I have updated the ticket title to reflect the changed title of the proposal: -Change: Deprecate low-memory-monitor package +Change: Drop low-memory-monitor package (Also fixed up two formatting mistakes in the ticket body - typo in the URL for the wiki page, and missing `)` for the discourse thread.)
decathorpe changed title from Change: Deprecate low-memory-monitor package to Change: Drop low-memory-monitor package 2026-08-03 16:17:20 +00:00
kevin commented 2026-08-03 16:53:07 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

+1

+1
decathorpe commented 2026-08-04 10:42:10 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I left some more confused feedback on the discussion thread 🙃

I left some more confused feedback on the discussion thread 🙃
decathorpe commented 2026-08-10 07:58:03 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I'm still a bit confused about this change. Peeling back layers from "deprecate low-memory-monitor package" all that seems to be left is "retire the package in f46+", since the package has been an unused leaf package since Fedora 44. I don't entirely understand why this is a change proposal at all, the package could just get retired from f45+ right now. But if the Change owners want to wait for another 6 months to drop the package, why not ... +1

I'm still a bit confused about this change. Peeling back layers from "deprecate low-memory-monitor package" all that seems to be left is "retire the package in f46+", since the package has been an unused leaf package since Fedora 44. I don't entirely understand why this is a change proposal at all, the package could just get retired from f45+ **right now**. But if the Change owners want to wait for another 6 months to drop the package, why not ... +1
gotmax23 commented 2026-08-10 18:47:07 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

After one week, there are not enough ticket votes to approve or reject this Change.

After one week, there are not enough ticket votes to approve or reject this Change.
gotmax23 commented 2026-08-10 19:17:49 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

decathorpe wrote in #3671 (comment):

I'm still a bit confused about this change. Peeling back layers from "deprecate low-memory-monitor package" all that seems to be left is "retire the package in f46+", since the package has been an unused leaf package since Fedora 44. I don't entirely understand why this is a change proposal at all, the package could just get retired from f45+ right now. But if the Change owners want to wait for another 6 months to drop the package, why not ... +1

Agreed, retiring a leaf package generally does not require a Change.But sure, +1 from me as well. (EDIT: See below)

decathorpe wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3671#issuecomment-1262757: > I'm still a bit confused about this change. Peeling back layers from "deprecate low-memory-monitor package" all that seems to be left is "retire the package in f46+", since the package has been an unused leaf package since Fedora 44. I don't entirely understand why this is a change proposal at all, the package could just get retired from f45+ **right now**. But if the Change owners want to wait for another 6 months to drop the package, why not ... +1 Agreed, retiring a leaf package generally does not require a Change.~~But sure, **+1** from me as well.~~ (EDIT: See below)
gotmax23 commented 2026-08-10 19:19:55 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

gotmax23 wrote in #3671 (comment):

decathorpe wrote in #3671 (comment):

I'm still a bit confused about this change. Peeling back layers from "deprecate low-memory-monitor package" all that seems to be left is "retire the package in f46+", since the package has been an unused leaf package since Fedora 44. I don't entirely understand why this is a change proposal at all, the package could just get retired from f45+ right now. But if the Change owners want to wait for another 6 months to drop the package, why not ... +1

Agreed, retiring a leaf package generally does not require a Change. But sure, +1 from me as well.

CC @smallorange. Is there a reason that a standard package retirement is significant enough to require a Change Proposal?

gotmax23 wrote in https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3671#issuecomment-1263188: > decathorpe wrote in #3671 (comment): > > > I'm still a bit confused about this change. Peeling back layers from "deprecate low-memory-monitor package" all that seems to be left is "retire the package in f46+", since the package has been an unused leaf package since Fedora 44. I don't entirely understand why this is a change proposal at all, the package could just get retired from f45+ **right now**. But if the Change owners want to wait for another 6 months to drop the package, why not ... +1 > > Agreed, retiring a leaf package generally does not require a Change. But sure, **+1** from me as well. CC @smallorange. Is there a reason that a standard package retirement is significant enough to require a Change Proposal?
smallorange commented 2026-08-12 04:06:07 +00:00
Copy link

Hi,

This affects users who use the Glib2 GMemoryMonitor API, since low-memory-monitor is one of the backends for this API. Moreover, I'm not the package maintainer, and I can't manage or retire the package, so requesting an agreement is better.
I was on vacation last week, and I'm sorry for the delay.

Hi, This affects users who use the Glib2 GMemoryMonitor API, since low-memory-monitor is one of the backends for this API. Moreover, I'm not the package maintainer, and I can't manage or retire the package, so requesting an agreement is better. I was on vacation last week, and I'm sorry for the delay.
gotmax23 commented 2026-08-12 04:10:06 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Hmm, I didn't realize the Change owner wasn't the package's maintainer. Did you try to reach them? CC @mcbeeffx

Hmm, I didn't realize the Change owner wasn't the package's maintainer. Did you try to reach them? CC @mcbeeffx
gotmax23 commented 2026-08-12 04:12:15 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Changing my vote to -1 for now. I'd prefer not to go over the primary maintainer's head unless there's a very compelling reason to retire the package (e.g., legal reasons) or they are unreachable (in which case, there's a separate process for nonresponsive maintainers).

Changing my vote to **-1** for now. I'd prefer not to go over the primary maintainer's head unless there's a very compelling reason to retire the package (e.g., legal reasons) or they are unreachable (in which case, there's a separate [process for nonresponsive maintainers](https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers/)).
salimma commented 2026-08-17 17:23:46 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

yeah, and unless there is a serious issue with a package, it would feel odd to do the non-responsive process simply to retire a package

-1

yeah, and unless there is a serious issue with a package, it would feel odd to do the non-responsive process simply to retire a package -1
gotmax23 commented 2026-08-18 19:43:17 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

This was discussed in today's meeting (meeting log).

  • AGREED: Approve this Change, have a provenpackager retire low-memory-monitor, and add it to fedora-obsolete-packages. At the same time, start the nonresponsive maintainer process for the package's maintainer in a separate ticket (+6, 1, -0)
  • ACTION: gotmax23 to retire the package and update fedora-obsolete-packages
This was discussed in today's meeting ([meeting log](https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2026-08-18/fesco.2026-08-18-17.00.log.html)). * AGREED: Approve this Change, have a provenpackager retire low-memory-monitor, and add it to fedora-obsolete-packages. At the same time, start the nonresponsive maintainer process for the package's maintainer in a separate ticket (+6, 1, -0) * ACTION: gotmax23 to retire the package and update fedora-obsolete-packages
gotmax23 commented 2026-08-18 19:44:10 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I'll keep this ticket open to track my remaining action items.

I'll keep this ticket open to track my remaining action items.
gotmax23 commented 2026-08-18 23:54:00 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

I'll also note that https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2388963 was filed a year ago with no response.

I'll also note that https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2388963 was filed a year ago with no response.
smallorange commented 2026-08-19 02:08:40 +00:00
Copy link

Thank you for your work :)

Thank you for your work :)
gotmax23 commented 2026-08-19 03:01:50 +00:00
Owner
Copy link

Thanks. All my actions should be done here:

Thanks. All my actions should be done here: - [Package retirement](https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/low-memory-monitor/c/3565ffe5feb28f0a4ddd5a87976213e4ffc15042?branch=rawhide) - [fedora-obsolete-packages PR](https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages/pull-request/137) - [Nonresponsive maintainer ticket](https://forge.fedoraproject.org/fesco/tickets/issues/3680)
gotmax23 2026-08-19 03:01:54 +00:00
  • closed this issue
  • removed the
    meeting
         label
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag specified
Branches Tags
main
No results found.
Labels
Clear labels   
document it
A new policy/recommendation needs to be documented

  
fast track
A swift resolution is critical, +7,-0 immediately approves the ticket

  
meeting
This ticket will be on the meting agenda

  
next release
The Change was postponed to next release

  
nonresponsive maintainer
Tickets about nonresponsive maintainers

  
packager revocation
Tickets about revoking packager privileges

  
pending announcement
Approved/rejected tickets to be announced alongside the next meeting agenda

  
provenpackager
A request to become a provenpackager

  
python 2 exception
An exception request to continue to use Python 2 in Fedora 32+

  
self contained change
Tickets with Self Contained Change proposals

  
stalled
Tickets that are stalled, FESCo won't regularly triage them

  
Status
Accepted
 Ticket contains a proposal that was accepted

  
Status
Duplicate
 Ticket rejected for being a duplicate

  
Status
Insufficient data
 Ticket rejected due to insufficient information being available

  
Status
Invalid
 Ticket rejected due to being invalid or misfiled

  
Status
Rejected
 Ticket contains a proposal that was rejected

  
system wide change
Tickets with System Wide Change proposals

  
updates policy exception
Tickets for exceptions from the Updates Policy

  
vote-in-progress
Vote is currently in progress in the ticket

No labels
document it
fast track
meeting
next release
nonresponsive maintainer
packager revocation
pending announcement
provenpackager
python 2 exception
self contained change
stalled
Status
Accepted
Status
Duplicate
Status
Insufficient data
Status
Invalid
Status
Rejected
system wide change
updates policy exception
vote-in-progress
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Fedora Linux 46
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
6 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
fesco/tickets#3671
No description provided.