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
4 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
8 months, 2 weeks
Intel's Clear Linux optimizations
by František Zatloukal
Hi,
Phoronix recently release article[1] about Intel's Clear Linux with some
cool graphs showing nice performance gain compared to Xubuntu.
I didn't have time to dig in and look how it's performing against Fedora,
but I'd assume Fedora can be compared to Xubuntu in terms of compiler
settings.
I think i'll be interesting to look into it and find out if Fedora can't
tweak compiler settings (eg use LTO for critical things like Mesa, Kernel,
...). I think it could be interesting fo Fedora users to have this enabled
if there are not any disadvantages other than compile time, compile memory
usage and so on.
What do you think?
[1]
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-clr-opengl&num=1
--
Best regards / S pozdravem,
František Zatloukal
Project Coordinator
Red Hat
3 years, 3 months
Python3 will be in next major RHEL release, please adjust %if
statements accordingly
by Troy Dawson
Hello,
Python3 will be in the next major RHEL release. I don't mean RHEL
7.6, but with numbers higher than 7.
There are many, many packages with something like the following
if 0%{?fedora}
%define with_python3 1
%endif
If you have something like that, please change it to something like this.
if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7
%define with_python3 1
%endif
Thank You
3 years, 7 months
kcov: code coverage for programs and python/shell scripts
by Dridi Boukelmoune
Greetings developers,
I just submitted a review request [1] for kcov [2] that I recently
discovered. It has no relation to Linux's kcov and is more akin to
lcov, except that all it needs is a binary with DWARF debuginfo
instead of requiring compile-time instrumentation.
I came across kcov when I was looking for a way to measure code
coverage in a Rust project and I'm impressed. It supposedly has a low
overhead, but so far I've been monitoring small single-threaded
programs so I can't really tell. I haven't tested python and shell
support, although I have cases where it would be relevant, but I don't
have time yet.
The package itself is simple, but it bundles javascript and doesn't
build on all main platforms so I may have to be granted an exception
from some group starting with an F. Been busy lately, I'm a little
behind on anything Fedora. If that's the case, please RTFM me a link
to the wiki, and if you want to take the review I'll gladly take one
in return.
Cheers,
Dridi
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=kcov
[2] https://simonkagstrom.github.io/kcov/index.html
3 years, 9 months
RANT: Packaging is changing too fast and is not well documented
by Richard Shaw
<RANT>
So I went to request a new branch of an existing package only to find out
fedrepo-req-branch, which hasn't been around that long is already
depreceated and the facility brought into fedpkg... so:
$ fedpkg request-branch <branch>
Could not execute request_branch: The "token" value must be set under the
"fedpkg.pagure" section in your "fedpkg" user configuration
Ok, so where does that get stored?
$ man fedpkg
(not in there...)
$ vi /usr/share/doc/fedpkg/README
(not in there...)
I figured out somewhere else that the default config is in
/etc/rpkg/fedpkg.conf (In /etc/rpkg? That's intuitive!) but I didn't want
to add my token to the site wide config so the search continues...
$ rpm -ql fedpkg
(pokes around)
$ vi /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/fedpkg/__main__.py
...
def main():
default_user_config_path = os.path.join(
os.path.expanduser('~'), '.config', 'rpkg', '%s.conf' % cli_name)
...
Found it!
Now which token do I need? The one from the src.fedoraproject.org pagure or
pagure.io?
Oh and the tokens expire all the time and don't seem to have any helper
scripts to automate updating of the tokens so I have to remember where they
all are and manually edit them every time...
</RANT>
Not coming from a programming background I found the learning curve pretty
steep when I first tried to become a packager, I'm not sure I wouldn't have
given up if I had to do it now.
Thanks,
Richard
4 years
[RFC] Replace glibc's libcrypt with libxcrypt for Fedora 29/30
by Björn 'besser82' Esser
Hello everyone,
since there has been some discussion in the last time about removing
libcrypt from glibc in some time [1,2,3,4] and splitting it out into a
separate project which can evolve quicker, I'd like to hear your
oppinion about replacing glibc's libcrypt with libxcrypt [5] for Fedora
29 (or 30).
libxcrypt will be fully binary compatible with software linked against
glibc's libcrypt and does not require any rebuilds. However, the
converse is not true: programs linked against libxcrypt will not work
with glibc's libcrypt. It comes with a set of extended interfaces
pioneered by Openwall Linux, crypt_rn, crypt_ra, crypt_gensalt,
crypt_gensalt_rn, and crypt_gensalt_ra. Also, programs that use
certain legacy APIs supplied by glibc's libcrypt (encrypt, encrypt_r,
setkey, setkey_r, and fcrypt) cannot be compiled against libxcrypt.
The crypt and gensalt functions are supporting all (except for Crypt16,
which was used on Ultrix and Tru64, only) widely used password hashing
algorithms [6], which before were specific to just some operating
system's implementations of libcrypt [7].
There are preperations to add password hashing with PBKDF2 using HMAC-
SHA3-512 to libxcrypt as well.
Anyways, before this can happen, there is still some work to be done
with libxcrypt, like adding a FIPS mode or FIPS compliance in a
different way.
Cheers,
Björn
[1] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-06/msg00055.html
[2] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-06/msg00079.html
[3] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-08/msg01257.html
[4] https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2017-08/msg01408.html
[5] https://github.com/besser82/libxcrypt
[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypt_(C)#Key_derivation_functions_s
upported_by_crypt
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypt_(C)#Support_in_operating_syste
ms
4 years, 1 month
