devel August 2014

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

181 participants
197 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

ca-certificates 2014.2.1 will remove several still valid CA certificates with weak keys
by Kai Engert 21 Nov '14

21 Nov '14

Hello, this is a heads-up for an update to the ca-certificates package that I've just submitted for updates-testing for Fedora 19 and 20. The upstream Mozilla CA list maintainers have decided to start removing CA certificates that use a weak 1024-bit key. Although those certificates are still valid, Mozilla has worked with the CAs, and they did agree that it's OK to remove them. However, there are end-entity and intermediate-CA certificates which have been issued by the removed CAs, which are still valid, and they might still be used by some - despite the CAs having attempted to reach out to all their customers and getting them to reconfigure their systems. This means, when installing the updated ca-certificates package version 2014.2.1, some SSL/TLS connections might suddenly fail, because the related CA certificate is no longer trusted. If you experience such situations, the right approach is to contact the owner of the certificate (or the server), and ask them to get a replacement certificate, or to install a replacement certificate on their SSL/TLS server. Additional details can be found in the update description, which I'll paste at the end of this message. (I have disabled karma-automation for this update, in case there's a need for a longer testing period. Note that this updated set of CA certificates is currently planned to be part of Firefox 32, which will get released around SEP 02.) Regards Kai Update description: =================== This is an update to the latest released set of CA certificates according to the Mozilla CA Policy. It's the same set that has been released in NSS versions 3.16.4 and 3.17. It's noteworthy that several CA certificates with a weak key size of 1024-bits have been removed, prior to their expiration. (It is expected that additional CA certificates with weak 1024-bit keys will be removed in future releases.) The removed CA certificates have been used to issue end-entity and intermediate-CA certificates which are still valid. Those certificates are likely to be rejected when using this upated ca-certificates package. The owners of affected certificates should contact their CA and ask for replacement certificates. In some scenarios it might be sufficient to install an alternative intermediate CA certificate (e.g. on a TLS server), allowing an alternative trust chain to another root CA certificate to be found. More information about the affected CA certificates and other recent modifications can be found in the NSS release notes for version 3.16.3 at https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Projects/NSS/NSS_3.16.3_re… with amendments to the changes as explained in the NSS release notes for version 3.16.4 https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Projects/NSS/NSS_3.16.4_re…

10 44

Firefox Gtk3 test package
by Martin Stransky 06 Nov '14

06 Nov '14

Hi guys, first $SUBJ is available at: http://stransky.fedorapeople.org/FirefoxGtk3/ It's just a src.spm and plugin support it not finished (don't browse youtube ;-)) but may work as a preview. I'll provide Fedora builds and repo later. ma.

18 58

Re: Broken dependencies: freesteam
by Antonio Trande 16 Oct '14

16 Oct '14

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all. On 08/25/2014 01:39 PM, buildsys(a)fedoraproject.org wrote: > freesteam has broken dependencies in the F-21 tree: On x86_64: > freesteam-ascend-2.1-6.20140724svn753.fc21.x86_64 requires > libascend.so.1()(64bit) On i386: > freesteam-ascend-2.1-6.20140724svn753.fc21.i686 requires > libascend.so.1 On armhfp: > freesteam-ascend-2.1-6.20140724svn753.fc21.armv7hl requires > libascend.so.1 Please resolve this as soon as possible. > buildsys(a)fedoraproject.org sends me above message via mail. It's okay to me: $repoquery -R freesteam-ascend --enablerepo=updates-testing ascend-libs(x86-64) freesteam(x86-64) = 2.1-6.20140724svn753.fc20 libascend.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libfreesteam.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) $repoquery --whatprovides libascend.so.1* - --enablerepo=updates-testing --archlist=x86_64 ascend-libs-0:0.9.8-10.20140710svn4695.fc20.x86_64 I don't know what's the problem... - -- Antonio Trande mailto: sagitterATfedoraproject.org http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/ https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter GPG Key: D400D6C4 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJT+y1PAAoJED2vIvfUANbEv/cP+QG2OQj6MBAeg0C7WowrrOqU n7x789PtBZnxpkOiIvItqyL/Tm4Mg0W7u3ylQpcXzSYRnhyQtNQQfFzEL+EiPWRX Vm12tTtjyqSgYC3A3fY5ycIHlLz1IhbmNV9Rd8oSWc7CVLOiADat1ocWrhm+1xN7 2sC2scpCvVaJXxOh3j/4WaStmHxANUShTeTIV5e6AKpMx3RGBTgSRdeXqN4zu5uG zJ4tzzodQKv4R510oSlsKotuY2apP3ccpqq0DrGIExXsMvSd3DbQxT7qK4GPoaOj mfXaxW1dZMsJ8HaTXJVwj71aUqaG4k4XIE1izx8RRwR9/OuHshxGh24cGuGIuE65 Q+QHArIKAioZvCLURJfZZUG/ODaOzVNvYK9FK91E6WDsTD0cy3KUWf8DSoGyy1Je DQ0WTc24wfoN8V27h0/alxw8v1jI8eKbY+0hJBc0OaKQ14VBKfHczgkRjSFHoqeJ xeqp74D2wnmaty4AM119oaCO5g0rVJooVXUgsdFvERDby2Bb5lGCv/a2dZ6e+Y0q C2nGmL5sTN+wBHwHi2JejbdHKh6mSL9JyXf7YouRkPs1GuuOfed0IpSHKRKLcsB0 Syej5dVc1qXq34Gnf1kviifVmZHFEW/bkNC3nxNUOLO/foOqfaeQUx8dByXgb0tQ vmGe4BAmbVKVHOKOqJRl =g0XH -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 2

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 August 2014