devel September 2021

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

181 participants
389 discussions

Claim delve
by Alejandro Saez Morollon 29 Jun '22

29 Jun '22

Hi there, folks. Delve[0] (a Golang debugger) was retired due to the impossibility of building a new version of delve for dependencies issues. I would like to claim the package and fix the situation. I already have one of the dependencies[1] in the works. I already talked with the original maintainer (he's in cc) and he is OK with it. Thanks. [0] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/delve [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/golang-starlark

2 2

[HEADS UP] -Wl,--as-needed is added in rawhide
by Igor Gnatenko 26 Jun '22

26 Jun '22

It's in redhat-rpm-config-118-1.fc30. If it causes any problems for you - let me know. In the meantime, you can use `%undefine _ld_as_needed` to disable it. Thanks for attention! -- -Igor Gnatenko

4 4

Wine MinGW system libraries
by Zebediah Figura 11 Jun '22

11 Jun '22

Hello all, I'm a contributor to the Wine project. To summarize the following mail, Wine needs special versions of some of its normal dependencies, such as libfreetype and libgnutls, built using the MinGW cross-compiler, and I'm sending out a mail to major distributions in order to get some feedback from our packagers on how these should be built and packaged. For a long time Wine has built all of its Win32 libraries (DLLs and EXEs) as ELF binaries. For various reasons related to application compatibility, we have started building our binaries as PE instead, using the MinGW cross-compiler. It is our intent to expand this to some of our dependencies as well. The list of dependencies that we intend to build using MinGW is not quite fixed yet, but we expect it to include and be mostly limited to the following: * libvkd3d * libFAudio * libgnutls * zlib (currently included via manual source import) * libmpg123 * libgsm * libpng * libjpeg-turbo * libtiff * libfreetype * liblcms2 * jxrlib and dependencies of the above packages (not including CRT dependencies, which Wine provides). There is currently some internal discussion about how these dependencies should be built and linked. There are essentially three questions I see that need to be resolved, and while these resolutions have a significant impact on the Wine building and development process, they also have an impact on distributions, and accordingly I'd like to get input from our packagers to ensure that their considerations are accurately taken into account. (1) Should we build via source import, or link statically, or dynamically? Static linking and source imports are dispreferred by Fedora [1] [2], as by many distributions, on the grounds that they cause duplication of libraries on disk and in memory, and make it harder to update the libraries in question (see also question 2). They also make building and bisecting harder. Note however that if they are linked dynamically, we need to make sure that we load our packages instead of MinGW builds of open-source libraries with applications ship with. Accordingly we need each library to be renamed, and to link to renamed dependencies. For example, if application X ships with its own copy of libfreetype-6.dll, we need to make sure that our gdi32.dll links to libwinefreetype-6.dll instead, and that libwinefreetype-6.dll links to libwineharfbuzz-0.dll and winezlib.dll. I think, although I haven't completely verified yet, that this can be done just with build scripts (i.e. no source patches), by using e.g. --with-zlib=/path/to/winezlib.dll. Accordingly, although static linking and source imports are generally disprefered, it may quite likely be preferable in our case. We don't get the benefits of on-disk deduplication, since Wine is essentially the only piece of software which needs these libraries. (2) If we use dynamic libraries, should dependencies be included in the main wine package, or packaged separately? This is mostly a question for packagers, although it also relates to (3). I expect that Fedora (and most distributions) want to answer "packaged separately" here, on the grounds that this lets them update (say) Wine's libgnutls separately, and in sync with ELF libgnutls, if some security fix is needed. There is a snag, though: we need libraries to be copied into the prefix (there's some internal effort to allow using something like symlinks instead, but this hard and not done yet). Normally we perform this copy every time Wine is updated, but if Wine and its dependencies aren't updated on the same schedule, we may end up loading an old version of a dependency in the prefix, thus missing the point of the update. (3) If dependencies are packaged separately, should Wine build them as part of its build tree (e.g. using submodules), or find and link (statically or dynamically) to existing binaries? Linking to existing binaries is generally preferable: it avoids duplication on disk; it reduces compile times when compiling a single package from source (especially the first time). However, we aren't going to benefit from on-disk duplication. And, most importantly, unlike with ELF dependencies, there is no standardized way to locate MinGW libraries—especially if it comes to Wine-specific libraries. We would need a way for Wine's configure script to find these packages—and ideally find them automatically, or else fall back to a submodule-based approach. If we rely on distributions to provide our dependencies, the best idea I have here would be something like a x86_64-w64-mingw32-pkg-config. And if we use shared libraries rather than static, things get worse: we need to know the exact path of each library and its dependencies so that we can copy (or symlink) them into a user's WINEPREFIX. For what it's worth, the current proposed solution (which has the support of the Wine maintainer) involves source imports and submodules. There's probably room for changing our approach even after things are committed, but I'd still like to get early feedback from distributions, and make sure that their interests are accurately represented, before we commit. In short, it's not clear whether distributions want their no-static-library policies to apply to us as well, or whether we're enough of a special case and would be enough of a pain to package that they'd rather we deal with the hard parts, and I don't want us to make any assumptions. ἔρρωσθε, Zebediah [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#packaging-static… [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bundled_Libraries

9 28

OpenJDK and unremoved directories
by Vitaly Zaitsev 25 May '22

25 May '22

Hello. I have a lot of unremoved directories and files in /usr/lib/jvm/: $ ls -l /usr/lib/jvm/ total 140 drwxr-xr-x. 5 root root 4096 Sep 10 14:32 java-11-openjdk-11.0.12.0.7-4.fc34.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Mar 14 2017 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.121-10.b14.fc25.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Apr 21 2017 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.131-1.b12.fc25.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Oct 25 2017 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.151-1.b12.fc26.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Oct 25 2017 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.151-1.b12.fc27.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Jan 24 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.161-0.b14.fc27.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Feb 6 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.161-5.b14.fc27.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Mar 29 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.162-3.b12.fc27.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Apr 18 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.171-1.b10.fc27.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Apr 25 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.171-4.b10.fc27.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Apr 25 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.171-4.b10.fc28.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Jul 3 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.172-12.b11.fc28.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Jun 18 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.172-9.b11.fc28.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Jul 23 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.181-7.b13.fc28.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Sep 5 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.181.b15-0.fc28.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Oct 4 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.181.b15-5.fc28.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Oct 11 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.181.b15-6.fc28.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Oct 11 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.181.b15-6.fc29.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Nov 29 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.191.b12-11.fc29.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Nov 1 2018 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.191.b12-8.fc29.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Jan 14 2019 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.191.b13-0.fc29.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Feb 6 2019 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.201.b09-2.fc29.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Mar 26 2019 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.201.b09-6.fc29.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Apr 23 2019 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.212.b04-0.fc29.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Apr 23 2019 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.212.b04-0.fc30.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Jul 31 2019 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.222.b10-0.fc30.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Oct 16 2019 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc30.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Oct 16 2019 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.232.b09-0.fc31.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Jan 28 2020 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.242.b08-0.fc31.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Mar 23 2020 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.242.b08-1.fc32.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 May 4 2020 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.252.b09-0.fc32.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 May 22 2020 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.252.b09-1.fc32.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Jul 17 2020 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.262.b10-1.fc32.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Jul 28 2020 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.265.b01-1.fc32.x86_64 drwxr-xr-x. 3 root root 4096 Oct 21 2020 java-1.8.0-openjdk-1.8.0.272.b10-0.fc32.x86_64 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 21 Sep 10 14:32 jre -> /etc/alternatives/jre lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 24 Sep 10 14:32 jre-11 -> /etc/alternatives/jre_11 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 32 Sep 10 14:32 jre-11-openjdk -> /etc/alternatives/jre_11_openjdk lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 41 Aug 31 18:50 jre-11-openjdk-11.0.12.0.7-4.fc34.x86_64 -> java-11-openjdk-11.0.12.0.7-4.fc34.x86_64 lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 29 Sep 10 14:32 jre-openjdk -> /etc/alternatives/jre_openjdk I think the OpenJDK's scriplets need to be adjusted to remove everything. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vitaly(a)easycoding.org)

2 1

Heads-up: grpc 1.41.0 coming to Rawhide with C (core) and C++ soname bumps
by Ben Beasley 09 May '22

09 May '22

In one week (October 6), or slightly later, I will build grpc 1.41.0 for Rawhide (F36). Fedora 35 will remain on 1.39.1. As is traditional for minor releases of grpc, the C++ ABI was broken (soversion bumped from 1.40 to 1.41). This time, the C (core) ABI was also broken (soversion bumped from 18 to 19). I will coordinate builds in a side tag of packages that use the C (core) and/or C++ libraries. Maintainers of the following packages should have received this email directly: • bear • frr • perl-grpc-xs Packages that use the Python bindings should be unaffected, as there should be no incompatible API changes: • buildstream • python-chirpstack-api • python-etcd3 • python-google-api-core • python-google-cloud-core • python-grpc-google-iam • python-opencensus (orphaned) • python-opencensus-proto • python-opentelemetry • python-pytest-grpc • python-xds-protos

1 1

GNOME only: KeepassXC quirks
by Germano Massullo 01 Mar '22

01 Mar '22

KeepassXC comaintainer here. There are many Fedora GNOME Wayland users experiencing quirks in using KeepassXC. Textboxes not showing text that is being written, other quirks with GNOME, etc. Upstream developers said many times that this only happen with Fedora users. Myself I do use KDE Spin and I do not experience these issues (tested on Wayland too) I don't paste bugs titles since they are misleading https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1925130 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1941731 (CentOS 8) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1954742 https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc/issues/5608 plus others that I cannot find again at the moment I would like to ask if you have any idea about why this happens on GNOME only (and not on other distros too) Thank you

10 30

Release criteria proposal: networking requirements
by Adam Williamson 01 Mar '22

01 Mar '22

Hi folks! So at this week's blocker review meeting, the fact that we don't have explicit networking requirements in the release criteria really started to bite us. In the past we have squeezed networking-related issues in under other criteria, but for some issues that's really difficult, notably VPN issues. So, we agreed we should draft some explicit networking criteria. This turns out to be a big area and quite hard to cover (who'd've thought!), but here is at least a first draft for us to start from. My proposal would be to add this to the Basic criteria. I have left out some wikitext stuff from the proposal for clarity; I'd add it back in on actually applying the proposed changes. It's just formatting stuff, nothing that'd change the meaning. Anyone have thoughts, complaints, alternative approaches, supplements? Thanks! === Network requirements === Each of these requirements apply to both installer and installed system environments. For any given installer environment, the 'default network configuration tools' are considered to be those the installer documents as supported ways to configure networking (e.g. for anaconda-based environments, configuration via kernel command line options, a kickstart, or interactively in anaconda itself are included). ==== Basic networking ==== It must be possible to establish both IPv4 and IPv6 network connections using DHCP and static addressing. The default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops must work well enough to allow typical network connection configuration operations without major workarounds. Standard network functions such as address resolution and connections with common protocols such as ping, HTTP and ssh must work as expected. Footnote titled "Supported hardware": Supported network hardware is hardware for which the Fedora kernel includes drivers and, where necessary, for which a firmware package is available. If support for a commonly-used piece or type of network hardware that would usually be present is omitted, that may constitute a violation of this criterion, after consideration of the [[Blocker_Bug_FAQ|hardware-dependent- issues|normal factors for hardware-dependent issues]]. Similarly, violations of this criteria that are hardware or configuration dependent are, as usual, subject to consideration of those factors when determining whether they are release-blocking ==== VPN connections ==== Using the default network configuration tools for the console and for release-blocking desktops, it must be possible to establish a working connection to common OpenVPN, openconnect-supported and vpnc-supported VNC servers with typical configurations. Footnote title "Supported servers and configurations": As there are many different VPN server applications and configurations, blocker reviewers must use their best judgment in determining whether violations of this criterion are likely to be encountered commonly enough to block a release, and if so, at which milestone. As a general principle, the more people are likely to use affected servers and the less complicated the configuration required to hit the bug, the more likely it is to be a blocker. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net

9 22

F36 Change: Enable exclude_from_weak_autodetect by default in LIBDNF (System-Wide Change proposal)
by Ben Cotton 07 Feb '22

07 Feb '22

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ExcludeFromWeakAutodetect == Summary == exclude_from_weak_autodetect enables autodetection of unmet weak dependencies (Recommends or Supplements) of installed packages and blocks installation of packages satisfying already unmet dependencies. In other words: When you don't have the recommended package installed, it won't be automatically installed with future upgrades of the recommending package. == Owner == * Name: [[User:jmracek| Jaroslav Mracek]] * Email: jmracek(a)redhat.com == Detailed Description == The feature is designed to prevent an install of removed weak dependencies from the system by users and to not install weak dependencies missing after system deployment. It will change the behavior of DNF, microdnf, and PackageKit. The feature will be backported to all Fedoras, but in default, the feature will be off. Additional information: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672 The default value for exclude_from_weak_autodetect configuration can be overridden in `/etc/dnf/dnf.conf` == Feedback == The feature was requested by [[User:Churchyard|Miro Hrončok]] and supported by many others: See [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672 rhbz#1699672] for more feedback. == Benefit to Fedora == After the installation of a fresh system, the first upgrade will not install a lot of weak dependencies. Some of them were excluded from the kick-start installation set for good reasons (security, image size, minimal functional set, ...), but after the first update, all weak dependencies are installed, therefore some features of deployment simply disappear. == Scope == * Proposal owners: ** The feature is ready in Pull Request - https://github.com/rpm-software-management/libdnf/pull/1279 ** PRs only wait for a release of libsolv ** The Feature will be enabled in upstream as default, therefore from Fedora 36, we start to release libdnf without a revert patch of default in comparison to upstream. * Other developers: The change requires a new release of libsolv. * Release engineering: * Policies and guidelines: A packaging guideline should be added that discourages or forbids weak dependencies on fully versioned (sub)packages (see [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1699672#c44 the details]). * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) * Alignment with Objectives: == Upgrade/compatibility impact == No manual changes will be required. After the libdnf update, this feature will be on by default. == How To Test == 1. Install package without satisfied weak dependencies 2. Upgrade the upgrade. With exclude_from_weak_autodetect=true, it will not install weak dependencies of already installed packages. With exclude_from_weak_autodetect=false, weak dependencies will be installed during upgrades. == User Experience == The change in default will help to keep some values for particular deployments (a minimal system will be still minimal without disabling weak dependencies). Users will be able to remove particular weak dependencies and they will be not installed on the first upgrade. In case when the feature will not work according to the user expectation it can be switched off in the dnf configuration file. == Dependencies == libsolv - Required code changes are already in the libsolv upstream. We only wait for the next libsolv release. == Contingency Plan == There are no external dependencies, therefore we can easily postpone the feature and the change of default behavior. * Contingency mechanism: (What to do? Who will do it?) * Contingency deadline: beta freeze * Blocks release? No == Documentation == The feature will be documented in dnf man pages. -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

13 35

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

Self Introduction: Jan Baudisch
by Jan Baudisch 14 Jan '22

14 Jan '22

Hi, I am a computer science student from Germany and have used Fedora for at least 2 years by now. Using COPR I gained some experience in buidling packages but recently I wanted to try building packages conforming to the guidelines and getting them into Fedora. My interest is mostly in Rust and that is why I would like to contribute Rust packages. I already got started here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/janbaudisch/rust/packages For now my main interest would be to get the Rocket framework packaged, as many projects rely on it and on the way I discovered some key Rust crates not packaged yet. I feel like some of them are ready for submission and will file the first review requests soon. Looking forward to working on this! Jan

3 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 September 2021