devel November 2014

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

213 participants
218 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

pdftk retired?
by Michael J Gruber 08 Sep '21

08 Sep '21

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

17 26

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

apitrace, bundled libbacktrace
by Sandro Mani 17 Dec '17

17 Dec '17

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

8 9

DNF 0.6.0 Released
by Ales Kozumplik 10 Apr '15

10 Apr '15

Hello, New minor version was released yesterday. All summed up on our blog: http://dnf.baseurl.org/2014/08/12/dnf-0-6-0-released/ Cheers, Ales

2 5

F21 Self Contained Change: Replace Bacula with Bareos
by Jaroslav Reznik 09 Apr '15

09 Apr '15

= 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

6 8

Configurable version of suexec in Debian but not Fedora?!
by Neal Gompa 18 Feb '15

18 Feb '15

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!

3 3

RFC: xserver update strategy in F21+
by Adam Jackson 13 Feb '15

13 Feb '15

Since the modular X repackaging in FC5, we have limited X server updates such that the ABI does not change. F20 shipped with xserver 1.14.4, for example, so we might update it to 1.14.7 but not to 1.15.0. With the reduced driver set in F21 it's now much more reasonable to push updates to older releases as well. With that in mind, I ask for feedback on how we'd actually like that to work. The kernel rebase policy seems like a pretty reasonable model: F21 would stay on 1.16.x until there's an upstream 1.17.1 release, and (if F20 were to be affected by this policy) F20 would wait until 1.17.1 had been tested in F21. One thing we might have to play by ear is the interaction with binary drivers. The nvidia legacy driver, for instance, does not always have builds available for arbitrarily new servers, which means updating the X server might change you to an nvidia driver that no longer supports your hardware. Depending on how severe that cutoff is, it might be cause to pin a particular Fedora release at a given server version. I don't think this is presently a problem, but it could be in the future. This would also want some coordination with the various desktop environments; the version of KDE in F21 might have latent bugs only exposed by switching to F22's X, for example. I have a reasonable idea of how to test Gnome for that kind of thing, but for the others I'd need some pointers. So what do we think? Good idea? Bad idea? Other things to watch for? - ajax

9 11

Best way to use zram in Fedora 21?
by Juan Orti Alcaine 13 Jan '15

13 Jan '15

Hi, I know how to manually configure the zram, but what's the best way to do it? I've seen the unit zram.service of anaconda-core, and it gets activated when booting with inst.zram=on, but it looks like very anaconda-centric. Should something like [1] be packaged and included in the distro? or maybe we should spin off the anaconda zram.service and do it more generic. I think this is a very interesting feature for memory constrained VMs and other devices. [1] https://github.com/mystilleef/FedoraZram

9 22

upcoming libtool rebase (2.4.2 ~> 2.4.3)
by Pavel Raiskup 09 Jan '15

09 Jan '15

Libtool upstream was able to cut the new release! I'll rebase the Rawhide package probably by the end of the next week or so, if there are no objections. Upstream maintainer calls this update fearless :) and that it needs a bit of luck [1] (asking for possible downstream cooperation); however after cutting F21 from rawhide we have probably good time for this rebase (the update should be more like bugfix anyway). There are some known incompatibilities; see the official announcement [2]. There is also scratch build for testing [3]. [1] http://osdir.com/ml/libtool-gnu/2014-10/msg00011.html [2] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/autotools-announce/2014-10/msg00000.html [3] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7975615 Regards, Pavel

3 5

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 2014