devel July 2013

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

308 participants
303 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

Moving xine-lib and dependent apps to RPM Fusion Free for F17?
by Kevin Kofler 24 Oct '13

24 Oct '13

Hi, the current xine-lib maintainer speaking. :-) The Xine project: http://www.xine-project.org/home has recently released a new major version, version 1.2.0. Unfortunately, among the list of changes: http://sourceforge.net/projects/xine/files/xine-lib/1.2.0/README.txt.asc/vi… there are these new "features": * Use libavutil-provided implementations for CRC, SHA1 and BASE64 algorithms, this makes use of libavutil even outside the FFmpeg decoding plugin, but avoid duplication of algorithms between different plugins. * Use av_mallocz() when xine_xmalloc_aligned() wouldn't be needed. * FFmpeg is now required as an external dependency; if you want to build xine-lib from source, please download a copy of FFmpeg from their SVN server. which basically mean that xine-lib now has a global, non-optional dependency on FFmpeg's libavutil library. So there are 4 possible ways forward: (a) Stick with 1.1.x forever. I don't think that's a good idea in the long run, upstream won't be providing security fixes for the old branch forever. (b) Package libavutil (and only libavutil) from FFmpeg in Fedora. (I don't think libavutil, as opposed to libavcodec, is actually patent-encumbered, though that'd also have to be checked.) The issue there is that FFmpeg upstream obviously doesn't support this. It would need some more black packaging magic of the kind already done in xine-lib, and more legal auditing. I don't think I want to investigate going down that road. (c) Bundle parts or all of libavutil with xine-lib. Yuck!!! (d) Move the whole thing (back) to RPM Fusion (where it originally was, before we started needing xine-lib for Amarok and Phonon, which both no longer use it). It would go to the Free section, of course. My proposal is to go with (d). The following packages currently depend on xine-lib: * gxine * (k9copy – already in RPM Fusion, not affected) * kaffeine (my package, the reason why I maintain xine-lib in the first place) * oxine * xine-plugin * xine-ui These packages would have to move to RPM Fusion along with xine-lib. In Kaffeine's case, upstream is switching from xine-lib to MPlayer in their git repository, so it will likely have to move to RPM Fusion sooner or later anyway. This means the affected packages are basically *xine*. So my plan is to retire (for my packages, resp. have the respective maintainer retire) the listed packages in Fedora for Fedora ≥ 17 and get (or have the respective maintainer get) them into RPM Fusion Free instead. (I'd take care of xine-lib and kaffeine myself, I hope the maintainers of the other packages will take care of them.) Comments? Objections? Kevin Kofler

4 15

F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture
by Jaroslav Reznik 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

= Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary Change owner(s): Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us>, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com> Make ARM a primary architecture. Add armv7hl to the i686 and x86_64 as arches that we build and support. This will mean that all packages supported by the ARM architecture must build for ARM to be released. With the release of Fedora 19 we have deprecated support for software floating support (ARMv5tel sfp) so the only proposed addition to primary architectures is currently ARMv7 hardware floating point 32 bit support (ARMv7 hfp 32bit). == Detailed description == The Changing IT landscape has started to focus on greener technologies as well as cheaper mass produced devices that allow for fully functional cheap devices for lower socio-economic areas and other markets like education and "makers". ARM SoCs have traditionally been the domain of embedded and mobile applications but are now finding their way into more traditional computing devices like desktop, notebook and server markets. Fedora ARM currently works on many different devices with wider support coming with each new mainline kernel release. For this change we will enable armv7hl builds on primary koji, and compose arm trees as with the other primary architectures. Fedora has in the Phoenix data centre 96 quad core Calxeda EnergyCore server nodes. Some of these nodes will remain allocated to the arm secondary architecture koji instance for building updates for the current Fedora 18 and 19 releases. When Fedora 18 goes end of life the ARMv5 softfp nodes will able to be be reallocated to other tasks. Infrastructure has expressed an interest in testing and experimenting with some of its workloads on ARM, some are allocated to QA and some for releng. There is currently 24 nodes configured in primary koji ready to go as builders, there is the capacity to add up to 24 more when ARM becomes primary if desired. The kernel is now a multi platform unified ARMv7 kernel supporting a number of SoCs with support expanding with each new upstream release. We build a base and LPAE variant similar to i686. There is an ARM specific (ARMv7 and aarch64) kernel maintainer working in collaboration with the Fedora kernel team. The releases are composed using the exact same tooling as used for the primary architectures. Disk images for development boards are generated by appliance- creator and the kickstarts live in spin-kickstarts, they take a similar format as the livecds on primary but are shipped as an OEM disk image, and like primary initial-setup is used to do final user configuration. Like primary pungi is used to generate an install tree, PXE install trees are created but current bootloaders don't support isofs so ISO images aren't currently created. == Scope == Add armv7hl to list of arches for f20-build and future build tags in koji compose armhfp trees with i386 and x86_64. Requisite build hardware already exists in phx2 and is configured to work with mainline koji. Proposal owners: change the arches in koji, import the matching ARMv7 rawhide builds into koji. Update Release Engineering scripts to automatically build armhfp trees along with i686 and x86_64. Other developers: submit builds as normal, in the event of unexpected build failures liaise with the ARM Team to help debug and fix issues. Release engineering: Will need to add armhfp to the release processes and make arm install trees and disk images with each milestone compose. Release Engineering are part of the team of people proposing the Change. Policies and guidelines: armv7hl builds will be required to complete for builds to be successful in koji _______________________________________________ devel-announce mailing list devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce

48 256

anaconda / initial-setup / gnome-initial-setup: can we do this better?
by Adam Williamson 15 Oct '13

15 Oct '13

So I'm writing a blog post on this topic ATM, and that really kinda brought home how messy this design is at present. Quick refresher for anyone who hasn't looked at it much yet: in F19, anaconda can create user accounts, and 'firstboot' has been replaced with two alternative tools, 'initial-setup' which is used in any graphical install other than a GNOME install and just replicates anaconda's 'root password', 'user creation' and 'date/time' spokes, and gnome-initial-setup, which is used in GNOME installs and is its own whole thing that can also do user creation. I mapped out all the potential paths through this maze, and got this - 16(!!!) paths: anaconda: root pw, no user - g-i-s: admin user i-s: admin user i-s: regular user console: root anaconda: root pw, regular user - g-i-s: user mode i-s: edit root pw or user i-s: leave intact console: regular user + root anaconda: root pw, admin user - g-i-s: user mode i-s: edit root pw or user i-s: leave intact console: admin user + root anaconda: no root pw, admin user - g-i-s: user mode i-s: edit root pw or user i-s: leave intact console: admin user + root Note the paths marked "i-s: edit root pw or user" are pretty messy and open ended in themselves - initial-setup always runs if installed, no matter what you set in anaconda, and at least theoretically lets you change the settings you picked in anaconda. This is...kinda nuts, and a QA nightmare. Can we maybe take a step back and look if there's a more sensible way to design this, ideally with the GNOME and anaconda teams working together? If we imagined initial-setup didn't exist and we only had the anaconda/g-i-s case, the proliferation of trees at least looks rather better, because g-i-s can't set the root password or change what anaconda did; if you create a user account during anaconda, g-i-s runs only after you log in with that user account and just lets you configure various settings for that user account, it doesn't let you create other user accounts (this is what I've labelled as 'g-i-s: user mode' in the tree). So the anaconda/g-i-s paths are broadly sane already. It's the anaconda/i-s paths that are really complicating things. Still, it might help to just take a step back and decide if we really need all this flexibility. We could, for instance, simply force user creation during anaconda, dump initial-setup entirely, and use only gnome-initial-setup's "user mode" (desktops other than GNOME could implement something like this "user mode" if they wanted to, or not). That would be a hell of a lot simpler to code, test, support and explain, with the minor(?) drawback that you couldn't install without a user account and then create it on first boot any more. Xkcd Law tells us that someone will not be happy about this: https://xkcd.com/1172/ but still, it seems to be worth considering. Alternatively, we could make i-s behave a lot more like g-i-s: it could dump its 'root password' and 'date/time' spokes, and only run at all, and only to allow user creation, if you didn't create a user during anaconda. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net

14 37

GPG verification in SPECs
by Till Maas 11 Oct '13

11 Oct '13

Hi, upstream of pam_mount pointed me to OpenSUSE's gpg-offline RPM macros at https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/Base:System/gpg-offline They allow to use a keyring and detached signature as additional source in SPECs to get both verified. Since gpg-offline's upstream is willing to create a proper release to allow easy packaging for Fedora, I wonder if I will find any obstacles when I package it. The packaging guidelines allow packaging RPM macros, therefore this should be fine. Also I am interested whether there are better options available. Regards Till

9 13

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 July 2013