devel October 2017

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

191 participants
377 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

Remove old GPG keys?
by Miroslav Suchý 04 May '21

04 May '21

I just stumbled upon https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/400634/does-anyone-bother-to-remov… with the nice link to: https://blog.laimbock.com/2014/05/02/how-to-remove-an-imported-gpg-key-from… And I wonder: is it a good idea to keep old gpg keys in RPM db? Or should we automate the removal of old keys? Mirek

15 29

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

Orphaning pykka
by Jonathan Dieter 05 Jan '20

05 Jan '20

I've just orphaned pykka (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package /rpms/pykka/) as I'm no longer using it. Jonathan

3 4

Intel's Clear Linux optimizations
by František Zatloukal 09 Feb '19

09 Feb '19

Hi, Phoronix recently release article[1] about Intel's Clear Linux with some cool graphs showing nice performance gain compared to Xubuntu. I didn't have time to dig in and look how it's performing against Fedora, but I'd assume Fedora can be compared to Xubuntu in terms of compiler settings. I think i'll be interesting to look into it and find out if Fedora can't tweak compiler settings (eg use LTO for critical things like Mesa, Kernel, ...). I think it could be interesting fo Fedora users to have this enabled if there are not any disadvantages other than compile time, compile memory usage and so on. What do you think? [1] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-clr-opengl&num=1 -- Best regards / S pozdravem, František Zatloukal Project Coordinator Red Hat

15 50

kcov: code coverage for programs and python/shell scripts
by Dridi Boukelmoune 23 Aug '18

23 Aug '18

Greetings developers, I just submitted a review request [1] for kcov [2] that I recently discovered. It has no relation to Linux's kcov and is more akin to lcov, except that all it needs is a binary with DWARF debuginfo instead of requiring compile-time instrumentation. I came across kcov when I was looking for a way to measure code coverage in a Rust project and I'm impressed. It supposedly has a low overhead, but so far I've been monitoring small single-threaded programs so I can't really tell. I haven't tested python and shell support, although I have cases where it would be relevant, but I don't have time yet. The package itself is simple, but it bundles javascript and doesn't build on all main platforms so I may have to be granted an exception from some group starting with an F. Been busy lately, I'm a little behind on anything Fedora. If that's the case, please RTFM me a link to the wiki, and if you want to take the review I'll gladly take one in return. Cheers, Dridi [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=kcov [2] https://simonkagstrom.github.io/kcov/index.html

1 1

Package review requests: Splitting the "sustmi" GNOME Shell extensions into separate packages
by Andrew Toskin 26 Jan '18

26 Jan '18

I'm the RPM package maintainer for these two GNOME Shell extensions: * gnome-shell-extension-sustmi-windowoverlay-icons * gnome-shell-extension-sustmi-historymanager-prefix-search They're both currently subpackages of the main "sustmi" package, because upstream had been developing them in a single git repository. The two shell extensions have nothing to do with each other, though, and upstream finally decided to split them into separate repositories. So I think it now makes sense to also split them into separate packages. I'm not entirely clear on the procedure. This wiki page https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrade_paths_%E2%80%94_renaming_or_splittin… talks at first about *font* packages, but otherwise seems relevant. So, I've started by splitting and updating the spec files, and creating these review requests. As I understand it, because the packages were already accepted into Fedora, and the extension code hasn't changed, just the packaging, I think all a reviewer should really need to check is whether the upgrade path is sane and works properly. * HistoryManager Prefix Search -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506428 * WindowOverlay Icons -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1506429 Please take a look, and let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks, ~ Andrew / terrycloth

2 3

F28 System Wide Change: Annobin
by Jan Kurik 24 Jan '18

24 Jan '18

= Proposed System Wide Change: Annobin = https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Annobin Change owner(s): * Nick Clifton <nickc AT redhat DOT com> This change causes extra information to be stored in binary files compiled by gcc. This information can be used by scripts to check on various features of the file, such as the hardening options used of potential ABI conflicts. == Detailed Description == The plan is to use a plugin to gcc to record extra information in the object files it creates. This information can then be examined by static analysis tools. The information is recorded in a compact, extensible format, described here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Toolchain/Watermark The Fedora annobin package is an implementation of the plugin for gcc. It also includes some example scripts that demonstrate how the recorded information can be used to, for example, check that an executable has been compiled with the correct hardening options, or detect if any conflicting ABI options have been used when compiling various parts of the executable. To enable this change it is proposed that the redhat-rpm-config package should be extended to add the "-fplugin=annobin" option to the __global_compiler-flags macro. In theory such a change will be completely invisible to Fedora users but should prove to be very helpful to Fedora Release Management, assuming that they like the idea of these annotated binaries. == Scope == * Proposal owners: Make sure the annobin plugin is ready. * Other developers: An update is needed to the redhat-rpm-config package in order for the plugin to be invoked when gcc is used to compile programs, and to add a dependency upon the annobin package. * Release engineering: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7069 - Coordination with release engineering is needed. - A mass rebuild will be required. * List of deliverables: All delivered images are affected, however there no changes to the list it self. * Policies and guidelines: No updates needed * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) -- Jan Kuřík Platform & Fedora Program Manager Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkynova 99/71, 612 45 Brno, Czech Republic

4 5

Rstudio
by Steve Grubb 20 Jan '18

20 Jan '18

Hello, I like to have everything on my system in a package. So, I looked around and found no recipe or rpm for Rstudio. This is really a shame because every tutorial on R kinda tells you to install it. Even the Coursera classes in the Data Science track make you install it and send a screenshot to prove it. So, I spent some time getting it packaged and working. I am placing the spec file and necessary patch here so that google finds it and saves other people the trouble. I'm not wanting to submit the package to Fedora because its more work than I have time for. If anyone else wants to take it from here and submit and/or maintain it, feel free. http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/files/Rstudio/ Enjoy... -Steve

11 10

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 2017