Re: [arch-general] AppArmor support
On 9/27/18 8:28 PM, Michal Soltys wrote: > That's not precisely like that - spectre & friends workarounds can be > trivially disabled (e.g.: pti, spectre_v2, spec_store_bypass_disable, > l1tf) - bringing "old" nominal performance back (whether good/bad idea, > that of course depends on what/how you run your linux on for what > purpose). Not mentioning cpus that will eventually come not needing > those workarounds. > > So in this context audit=0 is a very viable thing - if one (and that's > probalby crushing majority of users) doesn't need this feature (directly > or indirectly). Even if you disable the mitigations, the fast path we're talking about here was simply deleted from linux.git -- it doesn't exist anymore, zero, zilch, squat, nada. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [arch-general] AppArmor support
On 2018-09-10 00:13, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: > > It is definitely not useless! It's historically been disabled because it > did not have any good way to enable support, but keep it turned off by > default. And having it turned on by default came with mandatory > slowdowns for *all* users. > > Ironically, Spectre has proven to be our friend here -- due to all the > mitigations, there is now no fast path for these system calls, so your > kernel is just as slow whether AUDIT is enabled or not. Therefore, we > ended up simply enabling it. > That's not precisely like that - spectre & friends workarounds can be trivially disabled (e.g.: pti, spectre_v2, spec_store_bypass_disable, l1tf) - bringing "old" nominal performance back (whether good/bad idea, that of course depends on what/how you run your linux on for what purpose). Not mentioning cpus that will eventually come not needing those workarounds. So in this context audit=0 is a very viable thing - if one (and that's probalby crushing majority of users) doesn't need this feature (directly or indirectly).
Re: [arch-general] AppArmor support
On 2018-09-23 11:56:11 (+0200), Geo Kozey wrote: > There are no other differences so in conclusion I think it's safe for us to > leave logprof.conf untouched. That's good then! :) > I also recommend to backport upstram 'binmerge' patch rather than using > custom sed rules as it will further reduce our diff and bring us as close to > upstream as we can get. I prepared PKGBUILD in case you're interested Thanks for the feedback! I added many of the changes in 2.13.0-8. Feel free to test and let me know if there's any more changes required. > BTW: every interaction with PKGBUILD spits: > > find: ‘etc/apparmor.d/’: No such file or directory Hm, not for me. Are you using devtools to build in a clean chroot environment? Best, David -- https://sleepmap.de signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [arch-general] MariaDB package version
On 9/27/18 3:29 PM, Vladimir Lomov via arch-general wrote: Hello, ** leoutat...@gmx.fr [2018-09-27 13:04:53 +0200]: On 9/26/18 9:55 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: On 9/26/18 3:31 PM, Kevin Dodd via arch-general wrote: I recently noticed Arch Linux's mariadb package is still on the 10.1 release series, even though upstream has considered the 10.2 and 10.3 release series to be "stable" for at least 4 months. Arch is usually so good about keeping everything up-to-date, so I am curious what the reason for this is. Something to do with compatibility? https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2017-September/044255.html If you have further news, feel free to share. :) Mariadb 10.2 and 10.3 are available in all distro except Arch https://downloads.mariadb.org/mariadb/repositories/#mirror=cnrs I'm sorry but you are wrong! See https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=mariadb&searchon=names&suite=cosmic§ion=all (cosmic is not released even!) https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=mariadb&searchon=names&suite=unstable§ion=all (and this is unstable!) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mariadb/commits/el6 (el6, centos 6) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mariadb/commits/f27 (10.2.17) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mariadb/commits/f28 (10.2.17) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mariadb/commits/f29 (10.3.9, next release, not released yet). And why you are refering to mariadb.org site? Do they provide distro packages on distro official mirrors? If I understand that site correctly this is not official repositories (except Archlinux, they just give usual receipt how to install package). Hi You're true. Mariaddb site gives partial or wrong information about distro mariadb packages. Nobody stops you to build mariadb package locally (I do that for some packages). Me too for many Aur packages. Concerning Mariadb, it's another story... Regards
Re: [arch-general] MariaDB package version
Am 27.09.18 um 15:36 schrieb Genes Lists via arch-general: > On 9/27/18 7:04 AM, leoutat...@gmx.fr wrote: > >>> If you have further news, feel free to share. :) >>> >> Mariadb 10.2 and 10.3 are available in all distro except Arch >> https://downloads.mariadb.org/mariadb/repositories/#mirror=cnrs > > The link Eli provided references lots of client programs having problems > - but I didn't find a list of which client programs. > > Given how long this has been, I would like to suggest that the problem > lies with the clients at this juncture and not with mariadb. > > I see 3 basic options to choose from for each offending client package: > > (i) Drop client > (ii) Compile the client statically linked > ( removes the need to provide and older mariadb. ) > (iii) Provide 2 mariadb packages > Current and the older one needed for the clients to run using > shared libraries. > > > Hard to say without knowing which clients. And I don't know how much > work keeping both versions might be. This seems a bit similar to the > python situation where we still seem to have couplings to python 2. > > Does anyone have a list of the 'problematic clients' so a reasonable > decision can be made how to move forward and update mariadb? > > Eli how do you think we should proceed at this point? > > > thanks! > > gene Hello, I just looked at the sources for libmariadb (Connector/C) and it seems that there is an option to build it with compatibility symlinks for libmysqlclient: WITH_MYSQLCOMPAT. I am not sure which sonames are provided for compatibility, but according to mariadb.org the client library should always be binary compatible with the corresponding mysql release. Did anyone test if there are still incompatible clients with the most recent mariadb release? I have a fourth option if the symlinks cause problems. (iv) Ship mariadb with libmariadb only and provide an additional libmysqlclient package that contains a compiled copy of the real libmysqlclient. -- Andreas
Re: [arch-general] Owncloud client compatibility with Nextcloud server
Hi, > > Today I updated my owncloud-client package to latest version > (2.5.0.10650-1) and now I have the following message: "The server > version 14.0.0-Nexcloud is unsupported! Proceed at your own risk." > > Seems that the owncloud-client only will have support to > owncloud-server. Since in Archlinux the owncloud-server was replaced > by nextcloud-server, maybe is time to drop owncloud-client and replace > with nextcloud-client? What do you think? There was a recent discussion regarding nextcloud-client on aur-general: https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/aur-general/2018-September/034274.html Kind regards Bjoern
Re: [arch-general] MariaDB package version
On 9/27/18 7:04 AM, leoutat...@gmx.fr wrote: If you have further news, feel free to share. :) Mariadb 10.2 and 10.3 are available in all distro except Arch https://downloads.mariadb.org/mariadb/repositories/#mirror=cnrs The link Eli provided references lots of client programs having problems - but I didn't find a list of which client programs. Given how long this has been, I would like to suggest that the problem lies with the clients at this juncture and not with mariadb. I see 3 basic options to choose from for each offending client package: (i) Drop client (ii) Compile the client statically linked ( removes the need to provide and older mariadb. ) (iii) Provide 2 mariadb packages Current and the older one needed for the clients to run using shared libraries. Hard to say without knowing which clients. And I don't know how much work keeping both versions might be. This seems a bit similar to the python situation where we still seem to have couplings to python 2. Does anyone have a list of the 'problematic clients' so a reasonable decision can be made how to move forward and update mariadb? Eli how do you think we should proceed at this point? thanks! gene
Re: [arch-general] MariaDB package version
Hello, ** leoutat...@gmx.fr [2018-09-27 13:04:53 +0200]: > On 9/26/18 9:55 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: >> On 9/26/18 3:31 PM, Kevin Dodd via arch-general wrote: >>> I recently noticed Arch Linux's mariadb package is still on the 10.1 >>> release series, even though upstream has considered the 10.2 and 10.3 >>> release series to be "stable" for at least 4 months. Arch is usually so >>> good about keeping everything up-to-date, so I am curious what the >>> reason for this is. Something to do with compatibility? >> >> https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2017-September/044255.html >> >> If you have further news, feel free to share. :) >> > Mariadb 10.2 and 10.3 are available in all distro except Arch > https://downloads.mariadb.org/mariadb/repositories/#mirror=cnrs I'm sorry but you are wrong! See https://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=mariadb&searchon=names&suite=cosmic§ion=all (cosmic is not released even!) https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=mariadb&searchon=names&suite=unstable§ion=all (and this is unstable!) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mariadb/commits/el6 (el6, centos 6) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mariadb/commits/f27 (10.2.17) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mariadb/commits/f28 (10.2.17) https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mariadb/commits/f29 (10.3.9, next release, not released yet). And why you are refering to mariadb.org site? Do they provide distro packages on distro official mirrors? If I understand that site correctly this is not official repositories (except Archlinux, they just give usual receipt how to install package). Nobody stops you to build mariadb package locally (I do that for some packages). --- WBR, Vladimir Lomov -- Deliberate provocation of mystical experience, particularly by LSD and related hallucinogens, in contrast to spontaneous visionary experiences, entails dangers that must not be underestimated. Practitioners must take into account the peculiar effects of these substances, namely their ability to influence our consciousness, the innermost essence of our being. The history of LSD to date amply demonstrates the catastrophic consequences that can ensue when its profound effect is misjudged and the substance is mistaken for a pleasure drug. Special internal and external advance preparations are required; with them, an LSD experiment can become a meaningful experience. -- Dr. Albert Hoffman, the discoverer of LSD signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[arch-general] Owncloud client compatibility with Nextcloud server
Hi people! Today I updated my owncloud-client package to latest version (2.5.0.10650-1) and now I have the following message: "The server version 14.0.0-Nexcloud is unsupported! Proceed at your own risk." Seems that the owncloud-client only will have support to owncloud-server. Since in Archlinux the owncloud-server was replaced by nextcloud-server, maybe is time to drop owncloud-client and replace with nextcloud-client? What do you think? Greetings. -- Óscar García Amor | ogarcia at moire.org | http://ogarcia.me
Re: [arch-general] MariaDB package version
On 9/26/18 9:55 PM, Eli Schwartz via arch-general wrote: On 9/26/18 3:31 PM, Kevin Dodd via arch-general wrote: I recently noticed Arch Linux's mariadb package is still on the 10.1 release series, even though upstream has considered the 10.2 and 10.3 release series to be "stable" for at least 4 months. Arch is usually so good about keeping everything up-to-date, so I am curious what the reason for this is. Something to do with compatibility? https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2017-September/044255.html If you have further news, feel free to share. :) Mariadb 10.2 and 10.3 are available in all distro except Arch https://downloads.mariadb.org/mariadb/repositories/#mirror=cnrs
