I just git a "broken dependencies" notice for a package that I maintain.
The reason is that "pdftk" got retired just the other day.
I may have missed a corresponding post on fedora-devel, but I think a
heads up notice to maintainers of depending packages may be in order
before you retire a package, as a general idea.
You see, unretiring a package is so much more work than changing
As for pdftk: I see 2 failed builds for version 1.45 and none for the
current version 2.02 (which probably breaks the api anyways). What are
the plans? Retire pdftk completely? Start fresh with pdftk2?
pdflabs, the maker of pdftk, provide binary as well as source rpms for
pdftk 2.02, by the way. I might even look into packaging it but don't
want to duplicate any existing efforts.
I just had to setup a new machine, and new ssh keys.
I chose my new id_rsa.pub to upload.
But I get:
git push --verbose
Pushing to ssh://firstname.lastname@example.org/mercurial
Permission denied (publickey).
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
apitrace 5.0 bundles libbacktrace, which looks like is living within the
gcc sources. libbacktrace is not build as a shared library from the gcc
sources, and not packaged.
Is it feasible to build libbacktrace as a shared library and ship it in
a corresponding package? Or should I rather go for a bundling exception
= Proposed Self Contained Change: Replace Bacula with Bareos =
Change Owner(s): Simone Caronni <negativo17 at gmail.com>
The powerful Bacula network backup solution has switched from being Open
Source friendly to being almost closed source. Originally the project was
conceived totally as Open Source, but since the creation of Bacula Systems and
its proprietary Bacula Enterprise Edition product, the Open Source (now called
"Community Edition") has received less and less updates and is mostly
== Detailed description ==
The most important points that are left "abandoned" are the following:
* Installation scripts and updates to makefiles are not updated anymore.
* New plugins and functionalities are not added anymore, except those in the
* Gaphical (and buggy) console has not received any update in almost two
* Patches and bugs opened in the bug tracker are mostly left abandoned. Even
trivial fixes are not imported in the source.
* Windows binaries are no longer provided, nor the source for the clients has
been updated. Even if compiled with difficulties, there is no support for recent
A former Bacula developer, frustrated by the situation created the fork Bareos
a long time ago from Bacula 5.2.x (the current Fedora and RHEL 7 version).
This version has now received '''a lot of bugfixes''' compared to the original
Bacula source. This makes compilation and installation a lot easier than it
was with Bacula.
On top of this, a '''lot of new features''' have been added; some unique to
Bareos but many available only in the closed source Bacula Enterprise.
Here is the list of new features compared to the current Bacula 5.2.13:
Some highlights include NDMP support for enterprise class storage (NetApp,
etc.), support for enterprise class tape libraries and Windows support
(including Windows Server 2012) with Bareos generated binaries.
For further details on why a Bacula fork was created please look at the
Bareos can also be '''fully compatible with Bacula''' by setting a specific
configuration directive in the Daemon configuration files; thus providing the
option for RHEL 6/7 users to interoperate with Fedora systems.
== Scope ==
To accomplish the goal, the following Bacula packages need to be replaced with
Currently, the same Fedora packages can be rebuilt as they are, to work also
on CentOS/RHEL 5 and 6, upgrading the EPEL or official Bacula packages in the
distributions. This is to have a consistent backup infrastructure across all
the Fedora/CentOS/RHEL ecosystem.
To ease installation, a repository for installing those packages on a
CentOS/RHEL system do exist:
The idea is the same for Bareos: import into Fedora 21 packages that can be
rebuilt for all supported Fedora/RHEL/CentOS releases and provide a repository
that can upgrade any Bacula release currently installed in the system with the
new one. In detail; the upgrade scenarios supported when going from Bacula to
Bareos would be:
From Bacula 2.4:
* RHEL/CentOS 5 with EPEL repository
From Bacula 5.0:
* RHEL/CentOS 6
From Bacula 5.2.13:
* Fedora 18+
* RHEL/CentOS 5
* RHEL/CentOS 6
As written before, the change is impacting only Fedora 21, the list of
upgrades supported are only for users who want a consistent backup solution
across the enterprise.
=== External activities ===
Proposal owners: I'm the current Bacula mantainer in Fedora and will complete
the transition in time for the release.
Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change)
Release engineering: the release engineering team should make sure the new
Bareos packages are in place instead of the current Bacula packages for the
Policies and guidelines: N/A (not a System Wide Change)
devel-announce mailing list
So a friend of mine has been wrangling with suexec trying to configure it
for his needs, and he has become quite furious over the fact that suexec
Then he finds out that Debian actually has a version of suexec that lets
you use a conf file to configure suexec. My question is, why the heck isn't
this in Fedora? How is it that Debian can offer both versions, but
I'm honestly surprised that Fedora doesn't offer this little piece of
flexibility. I would think that this would be in Fedora and RHEL, because
of how useful this would be. So what's going on here?
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
first $SUBJ is available at:
It's just a src.spm and plugin support it not finished (don't browse
youtube ;-)) but may work as a preview.
I'll provide Fedora builds and repo later.
One of the planned parts of the F21 System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 
is the introduction of downstream symbol versioning of both versions of
the libraries (libdb with v6 and libdb5 with v5). This part is planned
in order to not introduce bugs similar to . However, if we introduce
downstream versioning (as upstream is generally unresponsive), then we
face the problem similar to .
In short, if we introduce the downstream versioning, we will ship
library with ABI incompatible with upstream ABI. If we won't,
applications with modules/plugins (ie. Apache with mod_perl) that each
use different version of the library may break due to double symbols
(one from the v5 and other from v6, and ld would not know which symbol
I'd like to ask for suggestions on how to resolve this problem.
The ideal solution would be to convince upstream to version their
symbols (and I will contact them about it), but from my experience with
them this is very unlikely. Or we could try to keep an eye on
troublesome applications and force them and all their modules/plugins to
be built with the same version of libdb, but I have no idea if this is
As I stated above, I welcome any suggestions. I would also like to hear
from someone responsible for the distro architecture which of the
aforementioned issues is more painful for us, so we know which path to
take if no complete solution is found.
Best regards and thanks for replies,
Jan Stanek - Red Hat Associate Developer Engineer - Databases Team
This proposal was originally at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1104
(mitr asked me to move the discussion to fedora-devel to get more
attention and feedback)
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Hardened_Packages page mentions
that "FESCo requires some packages to use PIE and relro hardening by
It would be great if this list could be expanded to include even more
packages which are at comparatively more risk of being exploited (locally
Such packages will typically include various system daemons, network
daemons and network enabled applications.
Lot of network daemons are already using PIE and RELRO (e.g. httpd,
MariaDB). So a natural question is why packages in same "network
daemons" class like PostgreSQL, Dovecot and MongoDB aren't being
Some of the ways to implement this proposal are,
1. Hardening flags should be turned on (by default) for all packages
which are at comparatively more risk of being exploited or which meet
some well-defined criteria (suggestions welcome).
"Packaging Guidelines" say that "Other packages may enable the flags at
the maintainer's discretion."
Thinking from a security perspective, I find "Hardening flags can only
be disabled for other packages at the maintainer's discretion provided
enough justification is given to FESCo" to be more appropriate.
2. An alternate approach is to come up with an expanded list of packages
which should be hardened.
Any feedback is welcome!
Back in 2012 there was a discussion about having Fedora default to
using a local DNS caching name server :
I think this needs to be revisited. While DNSSEC support has
historically been a driving factor for implementing this, there is an
even more fundamental need due to the poor performance of the system
in case the first listed nameserver in /etc/resolv.conf fails for some
reason. It is shameful that Linux systems and applications in general
still, after 20+ years, can't perform adequately after a primary DNS
server failure. The stub resolver in glibc which uses
/etc/resolv.conf can decide that the first listed nameserver entry is
down, but this decision has to be made over and over in every single
process on the system that is doing DNS resolution, resulting in
repeated long application hangs/delays. We need an independent,
system-wide DNS cache, and always point resolv.conf to 127.0.0.1 to
solve this fundamental design problem with how name resolution works
on a Linux system. Windows has had a default system-wide DNS cache
for over a decade. It is about time that Linux catches up.
Yesterday, a new version of dnsmasq was released  that adds full
DNSSEC support and provides an alternative to unbound which
dnssec-trigger requires. There has also been great work done to solve
the NTP/DNSSEC bootstrap problem . What options are currently
available in e.g. NetworkManager for using a local DNS cache and what
is the current status of this integration? Is it ready yet for
turning on by default in all Fedora products?
I am looking to have the following package reviewed for inclusion into
Tayga is a NAT64 implementation in userland. With the help of DNS64
(BIND), it allows an ipv6 only client to communicate with the ipv4
I have attached the SRPM of what I have created.
There are a few things that could change. First, I had thought that I
would need more selinux policy than I did. At the moment the policy just
provides a filecontext. Is there a better way to do this?
The ifup / ifdown script read their variables from the /etc/tayga
configuration file. In most scenarios, a system will run only one
instance of this. However I would like feedback on:
Should I enable it so that the ifup/down can accept a tayga.conf
parameter to read
Should the ifup/ifdown script generate the tayga.conf on the fly to
say /var/run/tmp somewhere from values provided in the ifup / ifdown?
Additionally, what I have in these scripts should really be reviewed, as
I have never written them before.
Finally, tayga is a long running process, as such, I have enabled the
hardened build. It is possible to run as an alternate user and in a
chroot of it's DB dir. What is the best way to go about adding a user
for this package for the daemon to run as?
Looking forwards to comments and advice,