upgrading RH 9 system->Fedora with iso files and apt only
by Didier Casse
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
1 year, 10 months
pdftk retired?
by Michael J Gruber
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
2 years, 3 months
apitrace, bundled libbacktrace
by Sandro Mani
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
5 years, 11 months
F21 Self Contained Change: Replace Bacula with Bareos
by Jaroslav Reznik
= 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
8 years, 8 months
Configurable version of suexec in Debian but not Fedora?!
by Neal Gompa
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!
8 years, 9 months
BerkeleyDB 6 symbol versioning and associated problems
by Jan Staněk
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
9 years, 4 months
Expanding the list of "Hardened Packages"
by Dhiru Kholia
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
9 years, 4 months
