devel November 2009

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

330 participants
291 discussions

Kernel-2.6.31.6-134 seems to have a bug on R600 DRM
by Liang Suilong 05 Dec '09

05 Dec '09

After updating the package, compiz crashed and glxgears can not run. However, KMS and plymouth can still run well. Here is dmesg message that I grabbed: [drm:r600_cs_packet_next_reloc_mm] *ERROR* No packet3 for relocation for packet at 47. [drm:r600_packet3_check] *ERROR* bad SET_CONTEXT_REG 0x28014 [drm:radeon_cs_ioctl] *ERROR* Invalid command stream ! But I reboot with kernel-2.6.31.5-127. All the thing return to normal. My desktop is running on Fedora 12 x86_64. My graphic card is HD3650. ATi display drivers: xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.13.0-0.11.20091119git437113124.fc12 Kernel: 2.6.31.6-134.fc12.x86_64 Mesa: 7.6-0.15.fc12 Does any guy meet the same situation? -- <url>http://www.liangsuilong.info</url> Fight for freedom!!!!(3F） Ask not what your Linux distro can do for you! Ask what you can do for your Linux distro!

8 12

Head-up - new firefox in rawhide
by Martin Stransky 03 Dec '09

03 Dec '09

Hi, a new firefox (3.6 beta 2) just hit rawhide (a.k.a f13). There are some changes which affect everyone who builds with xulrunner-devel-unstable package. Mozilla decided to merge all include directories to one (mozbz#398573) and stop shipping stable/unstable packages. So all headers/libraries are merged to one big xulrunner-devel package (with respective pkgconfig files) and xulrunner-devel-unstable has been removed. What does it mean for you? 1) Change xulrunner-devel-unstable to xulrunner-devel in spec. file BuildRequires. 2) Switch libxul-embedding-unstable.pc to libxul-embedding.pc or libxul-unstable.pc to libxul.pc in make/configure scripts. 3) Rebuild the package and report any problem to BZ. ma.

8 12

Final F-10 updates push
by Josh Boyer 03 Dec '09

03 Dec '09

Hi All, Fedora 10 will go EOL on December 17th. The final day for updates to be submitted will be December 14th. Please make sure any final updates you want pushed to the F10 repos are submitted by this date. Thanks, josh _______________________________________________ Fedora-devel-announce mailing list Fedora-devel-announce(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce

1 1

livecds in the future
by Ben Williams 02 Dec '09

02 Dec '09

If release engineering would like to release liveusb.iso for people to use to install or just to look at the new features, that is fine But from the #fedora channel the # of people installing off of the livecd images are very high (if you want to search the logs i am sure they can be provided, and yes the # installing useing the livecd.iso on usb is high as well.) the current livecd isos need to continue (yes i know the size sux, but not everyone has highspeed internet thats why they are downloading the livecd and not the dvd) I say if you want to offer more choice, that is great, but do not shoot yourself in the foot yet, for f13 we can always try a liveusb image as well as the livecd iso if someone is willing to help release engineering make this happen so much the better for all of us if the people wanting a localized spin step up and do and maintain one for your locale. -- Ben Williams Windows-Linux Specialist 460 McBryde Hall Blacksburg VA 24061-0123 540 231-2739

15 31

Security testing: need for a security policy, and a security-critical package process
by Adam Williamson 01 Dec '09

01 Dec '09

Hi, everyone. I'm sending this email as a result of a discussion in the Fedora QA meeting this morning. You can find a log of the meeting here: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-11-23/fedora-meeting.2… the discussion takes place from 16:14:09 onwards. We discussed the recent PackageKit kerfuffle from a QA perspective, which means we talked about how we could have meaningful security testing. We came to some basic conclusions about this which require co-ordination with the security and development groups. We can't do any meaningful security testing without knowing exactly what we should be testing for, in which packages. I believe Seth Vidal's upcoming proposal for covering 'major changes' may touch on this, but I doubt they'll cover exactly the same ground. So, if we are to have meaningful security testing in future releases - which QA believes would be a good thing - we need the project to define a security policy. We believe there's a genuine need for this anyway, as the introduction and widespread adoption of PolicyKit will likely lead to much more complex and significant potential changes in security posture than any previous change. It's not QA's role to define exactly what the security policy should look like or what it should cover, but from the point of view of testing, what we really need are concrete requirements. The policy does not have to be immediately comprehensive - try and cover every possible security-related issue - to be valuable. Something as simple as spot's proposed list of things an unprivileged user must not be able to do - http://spot.livejournal.com/312216.html - would serve a valuable purpose here. The second thing QA would require, aside from a policy with concrete and testable requirements, is a list of security-sensitive components to test. Obviously we couldn't test every package in the entire distribution for compliance with even such a simple list as spot's, and it would be a waste of time to try. Focussing on the relatively simple issues for now, we believe it would be reasonably simple to generate a list of all packages in the distribution that attempt privilege escalation. We believe this would be a list of packages that contain suid binaries, that invoke su, sudo or consolehelper, or that contain PolicyKit policies. This list of packages would be what the QA team would test with regard to the security policy. We also believe there ought to be a process for maintaining this list, and additions to the packaging guidelines for any new package which would be on this list or any existing package for which a proposed change would add it to this list. We could also hook AutoQA into this process, to run additional tests on security-sensitive packages or alert us when a package change was submitted which added security-sensitive elements to an existing package. Will Woods has indicated he is prepared to help work on the tools necessary to generate the security-sensitive package list. The QA group as a whole is happy to contribute what input we can to any discussion of a general security policy. Mostly, we wanted to make it clear that we believe security testing would be of benefit to the distribution, but these things need to be in place before any meaningful such testing could be done. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net

13 40

What questions would you like to ask the Candidates for the Fedora Board, FESCo, and FAMSCO?
by Thorsten Leemhuis 01 Dec '09

01 Dec '09

Hi! As you may have heard already, several seats of the Fedora Board, FESCo, and FAMSCO are up for election soon(¹). Right now we are in the nomination period, which will be followed by a "Candidate Questionnaire." That means we'll give candidates a list of questions to answer by private mail within one week after the nomination period closed; the results will be publish soon after that to make sure they are available to the public before the Town Hall meetings on IRC happen. Candidates may choose to answer (or not) those questions as they see fit. Voters can use the answers to get an impression of what the candidate think or plan to do while serving for the committees they are nominated for. That should help to get a interesting discussion running during the IRC Town Hall meetings; furthermore, those people that can't or don't want to participate in the IRC meetings can use the answers to make a more informed vote. Hence we need to prepare a few good questions that we can send to the candidates once the nomination period ends. And that's where I need *your help* now: If you have one or more questions you'd like to send to the candidates simply go and add them to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections/F13_Questionnaire It just takes a minute or two, so best to do it right now -- otherwise you might get distracted and forget about it. ;-) I'll take care of the remaining work to review, sort, and clean up the questions(²); after that I'll send them to the candidates soon after the nomination period ended. Hence, I need your question suggestions by around the 15th November 17:00 UTC latest to get a chance to prepare everything in time. So please go to the wiki now and add at least one hard question! The answers will help Fedora contributors to chose whom to vote for! Thanks in advance for your help . CU knurd (¹) If you haven't read about it yet see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Elections for details. (²) If you want to get involved or review the questions before I send them please drop me a line and I'll try to get that arranged; maybe we can arrange a quick, informal IRC meeting on Sunday evening if there is interest

4 7

Notification of uploads to the lookaside cache
by Jon Stanley 01 Dec '09

01 Dec '09

As part of our ever vigilant stance towards security around our packaging process, we have added a new feature to upload.cgi (which accepts file uploads into the lookaside cache) which will email the package owner (<package>-owner(a)fedoraproject.org, specifically) and fedora-extras-commits(a)redhat.com whenever a file is uploaded to the lookaside cache. Previously this was a big black box and an area of concern. The message will contain the name of the file, the package concerned, the md5sum, and the user that uploaded it. An example is below: File upload.cgi for package sportrop-fonts has been uploaded to the lookaside cache with md5sum 26489f9e92601f0f84cfbb278c2b98e1 by jstanley Please let me know if you have any questions, comments, or room for improvement! Thanks! -Jon

7 8

Re: [RFA] Your [PACKAGE_NAME] did not pass QA
by Jerry James 01 Dec '09

01 Dec '09

On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 AM, repo-font-audit <nicolas.mailhot(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear packager, [snip] > To stop receiving this message, you need to: > 1. drop the font files or fix their packaging; > 2. relay the fonts issues to the fonts upstream to get them revised; > 3. work with the code upstream to improve the way it accesses font > files (usually by making it use fontconfig through a higher-level > text library such as pango, pango-cairo, harfbuzz, or QT) I maintain multiple packages that use core fonts. I do not have the expertise to migrate those packages, all of which are large and complex, to a new font system. I have neither the time nor the interest to gain that expertise. The upstreams, save one, have expressed 0 interest in doing that work themselves. The one that has expressed interest, XEmacs, currently has a half-baked fontconfig/Xft implementation that is stalled because the programmers that started it went on to other things without finishing it. So it appears to me that this message is really saying: 1) I'm going to nag you forever about a problem you can't fix. 2) There is no way to make me stop nagging you. I want a switch that says, "Yes, I know this application uses core fonts. It isn't going to change. Shut up, please." -- Jerry James, who thought he was doing the Fedora community a favor when he rescued gcl from the bit bin http://www.jamezone.org/

18 39

Fedora 12: Emacs is not for software development
by Sam Varshavchik 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

I just did a new install on a spare laptop. I chose the "Software Development" option. Emacs did not get installed. Also, although neither mysql-devel, nor postgresql-devel, nor even libtool-ltdl-devel got installed, I ended up with a huge number of -devel packages, many of whom, from my viewpoint would like have an audience much smaller than emacs' potential audience. Although an argument could be made about mysql and postgresql, I suppose, leaving emacs off is rather depressing, if that accurately represents the contemporary general opinions.

22 30

Fedora Release Engineering meeting summary for 2009-11-30
by Jesse Keating 30 Nov '09

30 Nov '09

Minutes: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-11-30/fedora-releng.20… Minutes (text): http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-11-30/fedora-releng.20… Log: http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-11-30/fedora-releng.20… Meeting summary --------------- * Roll Call (Oxf13, 18:00:55) * Fedora 13 Schedule (Oxf13, 18:03:24) * https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-infrastructure-list/2009-November/ms… (poelcat, 18:12:40) * oxf13 has forwarded John's mail to mirror-list for discussion (Oxf13, 18:29:22) * LINK: http://poelstra.fedorapeople.org/schedules/f-13-draft/f-13-two-more.html (poelcat, 18:53:02) * IDEA: Extend development time by 2 weeks in order to push our schedule 2 weeks later and avoid Ubuntu release conflicts for both our release and our staging. (Oxf13, 18:53:34) * AGREED: schedule will be moved 2 weeks later by adding 2 weeks to development time in order to clear conflicts with ubuntu release. (Oxf13, 19:06:51) * LXDE respin (Oxf13, 19:07:00) * New information regarding LXDE update, seems only a .ks change is required to fix the original issue. THe updated package is for a separate and non-fatal issue. (Oxf13, 19:20:59) * IDEA: Given new information, I propose the FESCo ticket gets updated and another vote happens at the FESCo level as to ship just the .ks change or include the questionable security update. (Oxf13, 19:21:53) * AGREED: LXDE respin decision kicked back up to FESCo in light of new information. (Oxf13, 19:29:12) * Updates (Oxf13, 19:29:18) * open floor (Oxf13, 19:40:29) Meeting ended at 19:45:31 UTC. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating

1 0

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 November 2009