devel October 2004

devel@lists.stg.fedoraproject.org

280 participants
287 discussions

QA at Fedora asleep? Many i386 packages in x86_64 FC2 updates
by Bob Deblier 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

There's a whole list of i386 packages in the core/updates/2/x86_64 directory (on download.fedora.redhat.com and ftp.belnet.be - please check other mirrors): -rw-r--r-- 103151 Jun 3 16:52 cups-libs-1.1.20-11.1.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 103405 Sep 28 16:34 cups-libs-1.1.20-11.3.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 103504 Oct 5 17:10 cups-libs-1.1.20-11.4.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 487384 Oct 19 15:44 glib2-2.4.7-1.1.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 4571957 Oct 19 15:45 gtk2-2.4.13-2.1.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 4416526 Sep 15 17:52 gtk2-2.4.7-2.4.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 4415614 Sep 16 06:51 gtk2-2.4.7-2.5.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 4415644 Sep 23 18:16 gtk2-2.4.7-2.6.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 494316 Jun 4 20:50 krb5-libs-1.3.3-7.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 495462 Aug 31 20:11 krb5-libs-1.3.4-6.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 152706 Jun 18 16:05 libpng-1.2.5-5.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 153140 Aug 4 17:38 libpng-1.2.5-8.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 197502 Oct 14 18:48 libtiff-3.5.7-20.2.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 9416513 Aug 6 00:15 mozilla-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 9417523 Sep 22 22:52 mozilla-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 168779 Aug 6 00:15 mozilla-chat-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 168855 Sep 22 22:52 mozilla-chat-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 3430668 Aug 6 00:15 mozilla-devel-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 3431150 Sep 22 22:52 mozilla-devel-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 129375 Aug 6 00:15 mozilla-dom-inspector-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 129476 Sep 22 22:52 mozilla-dom-inspector-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 216249 Aug 6 00:15 mozilla-js-debugger-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 216304 Sep 22 22:52 mozilla-js-debugger-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1837821 Aug 6 00:15 mozilla-mail-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 1837765 Sep 22 22:52 mozilla-mail-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 105703 Aug 6 00:15 mozilla-nspr-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 105804 Sep 22 22:52 mozilla-nspr-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 182713 Aug 6 00:15 mozilla-nspr-devel-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm-rw-r--r-- 182832 Sep 22 22:52 mozilla-nspr-devel-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm-rw-r--r-- 642446 Aug 6 00:15 mozilla-nss-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 642551 Sep 22 22:52 mozilla-nss-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 426276 Aug 6 00:15 mozilla-nss-devel-1.7.2-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 426427 Sep 22 22:52 mozilla-nss-devel-1.7.3-0.2.0.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 45384012 Oct 21 16:20 openoffice.org-1.1.2-10.fc2.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 116156909 Oct 21 16:22 openoffice.org-i18n-1.1.2-10.fc2.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 40707893 Oct 21 16:22 openoffice.org-libs-1.1.2-10.fc2.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 260729 Oct 7 20:14 pango-1.4.1-1.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 4653801 May 7 00:56 redhat-artwork-0.96-1.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 14116065 Sep 13 22:16 samba-3.0.7-2.FC2.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 5372296 Jul 6 18:42 xorg-x11-devel-6.7.0-5.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 5380547 Sep 29 02:16 xorg-x11-devel-6.7.0-9.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 2452335 Jul 6 18:42 xorg-x11-libs-6.7.0-5.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 2458616 Sep 29 02:16 xorg-x11-libs-6.7.0-9.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 338313 Jul 6 18:42 xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.7.0-5.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 344304 Sep 29 02:16 xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.7.0-9.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 409220 Jul 6 18:42 xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.7.0-5.i386.rpm -rw-r--r-- 415215 Sep 29 02:16 xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.7.0-9.i386.rpm This wouldn't be a critical problem, but the corresponding x86_64 versions seem to be missing. What gives? Should I report this on BugZilla - if yes, under what component? Bob Deblier

4 4

Packaging question time
by Gianluca Sforna 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

Hi all, I am trying to package my first rpm. After the appearance of Inventor in fedora.us my "natural" choice is OpenMOIV (http://www.tecn.upf.es/openMOIV/) since it is a 3D molecular visualization library used by several products of my company and it is based on Inventor. Of course, I read most documents about packaging at fedora.us and rpm.org, and studied some other spec files, but I still have some questions. In particular my biggest doubt is about BuildRequires: for compilation, the upstream authors provides either a cmake file (but AFAIK we do not have a cmake package) or a qmake .pro file, so I guess I have three options. 1. lobbying for inclusion of cmake 2. use qmake then make in the %build section 3. Include a pre-generated Makefile now 1 does not seems to be a short term solution (besides, did anyone ever propose cmake as a new package??) 2 seems to me the most obvious option but this raises another question: what should I put in BuildRequires?? qmake, qt-devel or what? 3 would make sense but I guess it will be detrimental to the package configurability (my chosen options will be hardcoded in the Makefile). Moreover, how would I deal with the additional file in the .spec?? Of course I guess I will have more questions in the future, but maybe this is enough for now... Thanks in advance Gianluca

2 2

Rawhide on PPC
by Ralf Ertzinger 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

Hi. I installed the current fedora devel tree on my iBook2 this weekend, and all in all things are working amazingly well. There are a few nags on my list which will dutifully end up in bugzilla. There is one question I'd like to ask here, though: xorg on ppc seems to come without DRI modules. Why is that? -- For the purpose of copyright in this country, software is regarded as a work of art. -- Acorn application note 058

3 3

Lock screen does not work for root in gnome
by Paul Ionescu 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

Hi, I discovered that xscreensaver and lock screen does not work in gnome if the current user is "root". Is this a bug or a "feature" ? And another question, is there an options to change the unlock prompt from xscreensaver ? The default one is UGLY, and does not fit in Gnome desktop. Thanks,

26 76

rawhide signing and other such things
by seth vidal 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

I've been reading the thread of complaints about rawhide being unsigned. The problem is, of course, a feasibility of getting the pkgs signed in a semi-secure format. What if we did the following: we added functions to anything that reads repomd.xml to check for a gpg signature in a detached file. Then we could verify that the repomd.xml file is the original one. That lets us know that the sha1 or md5 checksums in the repomd.xml file pointing to the primary, filelists, other and groups metadata are valid. if the metadata.xml files match the checksum from the signed and verified repomd.xml then we know those files are valid. Now Each package entry contains a package id in the metadata. that id is either and md5sum or a sha1sum of the package file itself. So now, if we download that file and the md5sum or sha1sum matches what is in the metadata xml files then we know it is valid too. This at least gets us to a point where we can reasonably trust the packages from the repository based on a single signature for the repomd.xml file. What do y'all think? Would that be workable? -sv

2 1

Re: warning to list
by Paul Iadonisi 26 Oct '04

26 Oct '04

On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 00:53, Gregory G Carter wrote: [snip] > Not something many would like to hear, but I think security in general > has not improved in computing because we have all of these not required > methods that make us THINK the code is safe (i.e. Oooo...the package is > digitally signed so its OK....), but in reality do not address the > primary issues of why executables are a risk....lack of source code. [snip] Interesting. How about this idea for a start. First, please note that I've added fedora-devel-list as I think this sub-thread, of sorts, is more on-topic for that list. Please send followups there. (Dang it! Why doesn't Evolution allow me to add custom headers?! Argh! Don't answer that...or if you do, please start a new thread. This one has morphed quite enough, already. :-)) How about this: 1) Build source package. 2) Sign source package. 3) Build binary package. 4) Embed SHA1 hash of signed source package in header of binary package. (Should be automatically built into the 'rpmbuild --rebuild' command and equivalents.) 5) Sign binary package. This would at least help ensure that a particular binary rpm did indeed come from a particular source package. As it stands, the SOURCERPM name is stored in the header, but that's not verification, it's only FYI type info that has no other src.rpm info in it (that I know of). Of course, with my luck, I'll find it write after hitting Send for this message. -- -Paul Iadonisi Senior System Administrator Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist Ever see a penguin fly? -- Try Linux. GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets

1 0

Self-Introduction: Nigel Wetters Gourlay
by Nigel Gourlay 25 Oct '04

25 Oct '04

Nigel Wetters Gourlay Witley, Surrey, UK Professional programmer, currently taking a career break to raise a child. Looking to package my Perl modules from CPAN. Most particularly, I would like to see perl-ip-country in fedora core, so that SpamAssassin 3 can use country data of relays for filtering. Most of my programming work has been commercial, non-free software. I worked on the UK's worst-managed digital terrestrial TV provider (ITV Digital), until they went bankrupt. Before that, I built content-management systems for some of London's shortest-lived dot-coms. My most popular free software is the javainetlocator project on sourceforge. I have a lots of code on sourceforge and CPAN that is 'proof of concept' - i.e. looks interesting, but doesn't work well enough to be useful to many people - Apache::Emulator and the type 2 jdbc driver for MySQL fall into this category. I also have some code that works well, but is so obscure that it's unlikely to be used by many people (e.g. Class::Decorator, Geo::Approx, and GSLWrap). And I have a few projects on sourceforge that have a great name but little else. I don't have a lot of spare time at the moment, but I wouldn't mind helping out on other projects that look interesting. I'm fluent in C and C++, but my strengths are in Perl and Java. Many otherwise sane people are using my IP geolocation code in production, which might be a reason to trust me. --nigel pub 1024D/18BDD00E 2004-10-25 Nigel Wetters Gourlay (CPAN ID: NWETTERS) <nwetters(a)cpan.org> Key fingerprint = 43D3 E205 B568 4F13 2DE4 243C DB33 7BA7 18BD D00E sub 1024g/1C9949A4 2004-10-25 [expires: 2006-10-25]

1 0

FC3 release candidate tree - try it, you'll possibly like it!
by Elliot Lee 25 Oct '04

25 Oct '04

There's a tree available that looks pretty close to what FC3 will be. The main URL is http://testing.fedora.redhat.com/tree/ and there's a mirror at http://fedora.linux.duke.edu/FC3-rc1/3/ Please try to break it. Especially interesting are bugs in the kernel, and any installer bugs resulting from kernel changes. Have fun, -- Elliot We're so busy putting out fires that we don't take time to stop kids from playing with matches.

8 10

cron: fixfiles.cron: daily message
by Dario Lesca 25 Oct '04

25 Oct '04

The /etc/cron.daily/fixfiles.cron send a message on stdout: logging to /dev/null Null message body; hope that's ok then this message is send to root from cron every day ... Perhaps it would be better to avoid useless messages with a: /sbin/fixfiles -l /dev/null -o $OUTFILE $CRONTYPE >/dev/null or modify the /sbin/fixfiles script. Thanks -- Dario Lesca <d.lesca(a)solinos.it>

1 0

rawhide report: 20041025 changes
by Build System 25 Oct '04

25 Oct '04

Updated Packages: rpmdb-fedora-3-0.20041025 -------------------------

1 0

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
29
Older →

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 2004