devel October 2013

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

239 participants
281 discussions

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

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

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

Strange ssh / openldap linking problem
by Richard W.M. Jones 21 Mar '14

21 Mar '14

I'm not sure whether or not this is a bug, but it sure looks strange. $ rpm -qf /usr/bin/ssh openssh-clients-6.1p1-6.fc18.x86_64 $ ldd /usr/bin/ssh|grep ldap libldap-2.4.so.2 => /lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 (0x00007fad274fc000) /usr/lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 is a symbolic link to a symbolic link which passes through a -devel package. /usr/lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 -> libldap.so # openldap-2.4.34-1.fc18 /usr/lib64/libldap.so -> libldap-2.4.so.2.9.0 # openldap-devel-2.4.34-1.fc18 /usr/lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2.9.0 is a real file # openldap-2.4.34-1.fc18 To cut a long story short, I fixed this by uninstalling openldap-devel and reinstalling it. Now there is no -devel package in the chain: $ ldd /usr/bin/ssh | grep ldap libldap-2.4.so.2 => /lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 (0x00007fe8caf69000) /lib64/libldap-2.4.so.2 -> libldap-2.4.so.2.9.0 I'd like to understand how the original situation happened, because it broke a supermin-built appliance (RHBZ#954185). I assume ldconfig must have something to do with it. There is nothing unusual in the %scripts of openldap (it just runs ldconfig as you'd expect), nor is there any special openssh/openldap config file in /etc/ld.so.conf.d. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones virt-df lists disk usage of guests without needing to install any software inside the virtual machine. Supports Linux and Windows. http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-df/

3 7

F20 Self Contained Change: Snapshot and Rollback Tool
by Jaroslav Reznik 07 Mar '14

07 Mar '14

= Proposed Self Contained Change: Snapshot and Rollback Tool = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rollback Change owner(s): Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>, Colin Walters <walters(a)redhat.com> With the advent of thinly-provisioned LVM pools, it has become possible for us to implement full-system LVM snapshotting for recording rollback points. We are planning to support this for yum updates and eventually fedup upgrades going forwards. This change request notes the addition of new tools provided by the roller-derby project to present an interface and a CLI for managing and initiating rollbacks. == Detailed description == The roller-derby project will be providing a library and a CLI for creating, labeling and managing LVM snapshots (plus non-LVM backups of /boot), oriented primarily towards rpm-managed data, but useful beyond that. The yum plugin "yum-plugin-fs-snapshot" will be updated to consume this library and save the system state in a compatible format. The roller-derby CLI tool will provide an interactive and scriptable interface for manipulating these snapshots and determining when to remove older ones. It will also allow the tagging of snapshots as "known-good", to be skipped when automatically-trimming for space. The roller-derby project will likely provide a small daemon to keep track of the available space in the LVM pool to proactively clean up snapshots before the system runs out of space. In order to prevent "loss" of data when rebooting into an snapshot, the roller-derby CLI will allow saving a snapshot of the current state before rolling back and will provide tools to allow mounting of that current state to recover changes that have occurred since the rollback point. == Scope == The scope of this project is the completion of the initial release of the roller-derby project and the inclusion of thinly-provisioned LVM as an option in the Anaconda installer [1]. Proposal owners: We need to complete the roller-derby project. Other than the Anaconda change referenced above, all dependencies are available in Fedora already. Other developers: OS Installer Support for LVM Thin Provisioning Release engineering: N/A (not a System Wide Change) Policies and guidelines: N/A (not a System Wide Change) [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/InstallerLVMThinProvisioningSupport _______________________________________________ devel-announce mailing list devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce

7 12

Q: webfonts:
by Alec Leamas 06 Dec '13

06 Dec '13

Hi! I'm trying to package a web application with bundled fonts. These fonts are used by the web clients (browsers), and just served from the Fedora webapp. The case is similar to javascript .js files. Trying to package the webfonts as dependencies I have run into problem together with my reviewer. Basically, we don't know what to do. Some questions: - Where should webfonts be stored? A specific dir would be good, since some fonts exists in both a webfont and desktop variant with the same filenames. - How shoulld webapps get access to the system webfont? Is the apache config file approach used for ..js files, where the webapp gets access to specific system paths, usable also here? - Given that the primary concern about fonts seems to be licensing, is it really meaningful to unbundle them? This is the short story. The somewhat longer: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/277 Any help, out there? --alec

10 30

--Wl,-z,relro in LDFLAGS required?/Inconsistency when not using %configure
by Till Maas 02 Dec '13

02 Dec '13

Hi, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines… mentions only %optflags to be required for packages but I noticed that %configure sets LDFLAGS to a value different than %optflags: rpm --eval %configure [...] LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS:--Wl,-z,relro }"; export LDFLAGS; [...] Also using '%global _hardened_build 1' modifies %configure to add -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-ld to LDFLAGS. Therefore it seems that packages with a single Makefile where a package maintainers set the CFLAGS according to the current guidelines are built differently than packages using autoconf. Do we need a %ldflags macro for packages not using %configure (or other build systems with proper RPM macros)? Or do the LDFLAGS not matter if CFLAGS are set properly? Regards Till

8 11

openssl multilib broken
by Reindl Harald 15 Nov '13

15 Nov '13

currently on a x86_64 system distro-sync to F19 is broken i saw the same in F18 with updates-testing enabled on a machine with i686 packages some days ago and download the openssl packages for both archs from koji and doing a "yum localupdate" worked fine Error: Package: 1:openssl-1.0.1e-29.fc18.i686 (@/openssl-1.0.1e-29.fc18.i686/18) Requires: openssl-libs(x86-32) = 1:1.0.1e-29.fc18 Removing: 1:openssl-libs-1.0.1e-29.fc18.i686 (@/openssl-libs-1.0.1e-29.fc18.i686/18) openssl-libs(x86-32) = 1:1.0.1e-29.fc18 Updated By: 1:openssl-libs-1.0.1e-30.fc19.i686 (updates) openssl-libs(x86-32) = 1:1.0.1e-30.fc19 Available: 1:openssl-libs-1.0.1e-4.fc19.i686 (fedora) openssl-libs(x86-32) = 1:1.0.1e-4.fc19

6 14

I would like to become the owner of gnome-colors-icon-theme
by Miro Hrončok 12 Nov '13

12 Nov '13

Hi, according to [1] I should "Announce on devel which packages you would like to become the owner of." So that's it. BTW Was this really necessary? The Review request is at [2]. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1003009 -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok

1 1

Is Gnome Software ready for primetime ?
by Tim Lauridsen 06 Nov '13

06 Nov '13

I have tested gnome-software to see the current state, compaired to gpk in F19, there is a lot stuff there cant be done. 1. You cant install backgrounds / icons 2. Not all application found in the menu, can be found under installed, you can search for them and find them, but cant remove them (ex. Document viewer) 3. if you search for 'icons' you get at lot of wrong positives, where there is no visible relation to icons in the text shown 4. Description is missing from almost every application. This is just a few of the issues i have made bug reports on, but the main question is gnome-software ready for the one an only software manager for the primary desktop for Fedora ? I think the current state will make Fedora look limitted for new Fedora users. PS. Please dont turn this into a flame war for/against gnome :) Tim

25 87

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel October 2013