devel May 2014

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

194 participants
220 discussions

Outage Notification - 2009-07-01 01:00 UTC
by Mike McGrath 24 Aug '23

24 Aug '23

There will be an outage starting at 2009-07-01 01:00 UTC, which will last approximately 2 hours. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2009-07-01 01:00 UTC' Affected Services: Buildsystem CVS / Source Control Unaffected Services: Database DNS Fedora Hosted Fedora People Fedora Talk Mail Mirror System Torrent Translation Services Websites Ticket Link: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1496 Reason for Outage: Final migration step for new cvs server. It will hopefully be offline for only 30-45 minutes. The additional time is for some further tuning if needed and some verification steps. Contact Information: Please join #fedora-admin in irc.freenode.net or respond to this email to track the status of this outage. _______________________________________________ Fedora-devel-announce mailing list Fedora-devel-announce(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce

2 1

upgrading RH 9 system->Fedora with iso files and apt only
by Didier Casse 17 Jan '22

17 Jan '22

I have the yarrow's iso files on my HD in a RH9 system. Let's say I want to upgrade selected packages using an "apt-get install" pointing to my iso-mounted files, how do I do it? i.e I mount the iso into some /mnt/yarrow1, /mnt/yarrow 2 etc.. Then what is the complete procedure to make my apt look into my own HD to upgrade packages. Can anybody redirect me to the correct resource or some literature hanging on the web? Thanks. Assume also that I do not wish to burn CDs! I do not want to use apt-cdrom. Thanks. With kind regards, Didier. --- PhD student Singapore Synchrotron Light Source (SSLS) 5 Research Link, Singapore 117603 Email: slsbdfc at nus dot edu dot sg \or\ didierbe at sps dot nus dot edu dot sg Website: http://ssls.nus.edu.sg

6 9

pdftk retired?
by Michael J Gruber 08 Sep '21

08 Sep '21

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 maintainership. 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. Michael

17 26

git push permission denied
by Neal Becker 10 Feb '21

10 Feb '21

I just had to setup a new machine, and new ssh keys. I visited https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/user/edit/xxxx I chose my new id_rsa.pub to upload. But I get: git push --verbose Pushing to ssh://nbecker@pkgs.fedoraproject.org/mercurial Permission denied (publickey). fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly Hints?

4 5

apitrace, bundled libbacktrace
by Sandro Mani 17 Dec '17

17 Dec '17

Hi, 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 request? Thanks, Sandro

8 9

F21 Self Contained Change: Replace Bacula with Bareos
by Jaroslav Reznik 09 Apr '15

09 Apr '15

= Proposed Self Contained Change: Replace Bacula with Bareos = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/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 abandoned. == 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 "core" daemons. * Gaphical (and buggy) console has not received any update in almost two years. * 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 Windows versions. 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: * http://www.bareos.org/en/whats_new.html 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 following links: * http://www.bareos.org/en/faq/items/why_fork.html 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. * http://www.bareos.org/en/faq/items/bareos_bacula_compatibility.html == Scope == To accomplish the goal, the following Bacula packages need to be replaced with Bareos equivalents: bacula bacula-docs 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: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/slaanesh/bacula/README.txt 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 new release. Policies and guidelines: N/A (not a System Wide Change) _______________________________________________ devel-announce mailing list devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce

6 8

Configurable version of suexec in Debian but not Fedora?!
by Neal Gompa 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

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 isn't configurable. Then he finds out that Debian actually has a version of suexec[1] 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[1][2], but Fedora cannot? 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? [1]: https://packages.debian.org/sid/apache2-suexec-custom [2]: https://packages.debian.org/sid/apache2-suexec-pristine -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!

3 3

Firefox Gtk3 test package
by Martin Stransky 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

Hi guys, first $SUBJ is available at: http://stransky.fedorapeople.org/FirefoxGtk3/ 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. ma.

18 58

BerkeleyDB 6 symbol versioning and associated problems
by Jan Staněk 22 Jul '14

22 Jul '14

One of the planned parts of the F21 System Wide Change: BerkeleyDB 6 [1] 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 [2]. However, if we introduce downstream versioning (as upstream is generally unresponsive), then we face the problem similar to [3]. 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 is which). 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 even possible. 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 [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/BerkeleyDB_6 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=768846 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045013 -- Jan Stanek - Red Hat Associate Developer Engineer - Databases Team

11 13

Expanding the list of "Hardened Packages"
by Dhiru Kholia 22 Jul '14

22 Jul '14

Hi, 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 default." 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 or remotely). 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 hardened? 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! -- Dhiru

39 140

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel May 2014