Review swap
Hi, if anyone is willing to make a review for wasi-sdk - build require for the Firefox rlbox sandboxing of the used c/c++ libraries, please have a look and let me know about your package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2267683 -- Jan Horak Senior Software Engineer Red Hat -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Adding/creating wasi-libc++ into the wasi-libc package
Hi, I'm trying to make the sandboxing using the wasi available for the Firefox and for that I need the wasi-sdk [1] in the build root. Currently there's wasi-libc [2] available which is fine and it almost contains all the headers and libraries needed by the wasi-sdk, but there's libc++ stuff missing, namely: wasi-sysroot/include/c++/v1/* wasi-sysroot/lib/wasm32-wasi/libc++.a wasi-sysroot/lib/wasm32-wasi/libc++abi.a The Arch distro is dealing with that by having extra packages: wasi-libc++ and wasi-libc++abi: https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/wasi-libc++/ https://archlinux.org/packages/extra/any/wasi-libc++abi/ They use the llvm sources to build the c++ wasi package [3]. Could you help me out with that? [1] https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-sdk [2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2288202 [3] https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/wasi-libcplusplus/-/blob/main/PKGBUILD?ref_type=heads -- Jan Horak Senior Software Engineer Red Hat fedo -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Proposal to deprecated `fedpkg local`
Hi, please don't force me to change my workflow which I'm using regularly without having any benefit from it. -- Jan Horak On 1/27/21 5:17 PM, Vít Ondruch wrote: Hi, I wonder, what would be the sentiment if I proposed to deprecated the `fedpkg local` command. I don't think it should be used. Mock should be the preferred way. Would there be anybody really missing this functionality? Vít ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Firefox crashing in updated F25: consider this fix
On 03/09/2017 10:43 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote: Hi, on my updated F25, Firefox has been crashing (sometimes on startup, during restore session), and one time it was able to crash Xorg too. I found that this patch solves the problem: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=8839990&action=diff I do not see it included in koji builds, please consider adding it. My rebuilt rpm is working fine. Regards. Attachment #8839990: clean gtk window's surface provider before it gets destroyed. r=karlt for bug #1335827 That should be fixed in Firefox 52, currently stuck in bodhi, please test. Do not hesitate to use bugzilla for the next time. It gets more attention than fedora-devel list from us. Thanks. -- jh ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: thunderbird-24.0.2 reverted - why? (Use the commit log..., Luke)
On 09/24/2013 10:16 AM, Michael J Gruber wrote:
Hi there,
I can see that thunderbird 24 had been built successfully and then
reverted on the fc18 branch (and others). The git commit log and the
spec changelog say
Revert to 17.0.8
and nothing else. I do understand that more than a "successful build" is
necessary for a package to be pushed, but can we please agree on putting
some substantial information on "why" (not just "what") into the git log
or change log?
As a guidance, in many git based project, the following standard for git
messages has proven useful:
1st line: short description of "what"
1st paragraph: long description of "what" along the lines of:
So far, "foo" does "bar". Change "froz" so that it does "baz".
2nd paragraph (or mixed in with 2nd): answer "why"
The problem with "bar" is this. "baz" solves the problem by doing that.
This information could also be in bugzilla and linked to from the git
log or changelog, of course. All of this is easier than answering
e-mails or posts, and better for record keeping anyways.
Cheers,
Michael
We've decided to revert package because it broke dependencies with
thunderbird-lightning. Decision to rebase package to 24 was made a bit
in a hurry and since we wasn't able to rebase to lightning 2.6 fast
enough we decide to use 17.0.9 ESR to keep our users secure. We're
trying to deliver security updates as fast as we can because we think
that's most important for users. I'm a bit unsure if keeping max version
(ie. Requires: thunderbird < %{thunderbird_next_version}) for dependent
packages is fruitful here because older plugin doesn't make Thunderbird
unusable, it only disables addons which is not compatible with newer
version (a nuisance but at least security issues are fixed) and this
affect only some users.
For the next rebase time (Thunderbird 31?), I'll consider update to
another 24.0.X ESR to make transition more smooth. So sorry for
confusion and thanks everyone who let us know by karma.
--
jh
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Delay in pushing to update-testing with critical security updates
Why it takes 12-20 hours to submit critical security update to updates-testing repository? Do we have such long queue or is the push done regularly in long period? I think we should prioritize 0day security updates a little more if possible. We're struggling with getting enough positive feedback and this is another 12-20 hours delay and we can't start the build nor make and update the day before Mozilla officially releases it. See: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1606/thunderbird-10.0.1-1.fc15,xulrunner-10.0.1-1.fc15,firefox-10.0.1-1.fc15?_csrf_token=2687aa88f9c75370a673f0b53ca2cbb1fcda5f68 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1650/thunderbird-10.0.1-1.fc16,xulrunner-10.0.1-1.fc16,firefox-10.0.1-1.fc16?_csrf_token=2687aa88f9c75370a673f0b53ca2cbb1fcda5f68 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1845/xulrunner-10.0.1-3.fc15?_csrf_token=2687aa88f9c75370a673f0b53ca2cbb1fcda5f68 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-17408/xulrunner-9.0.1-1.fc16,firefox-9.0.1-1.fc16?_csrf_token=2687aa88f9c75370a673f0b53ca2cbb1fcda5f68 for pushing schedule. -- jh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Delay in pushing to update-testing with critical security updates
Why it takes 12-20 hours to submit critical security update to updates-testing repository? Do we have such long queue or is the push done regularly in long period? I think we should prioritize 0day security updates a little more if possible. We're struggling with getting enough positive feedback and this is another 12-20 hours delay and we can't start the build nor make and update the day before Mozilla officially releases it. See: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1606/thunderbird-10.0.1-1.fc15,xulrunner-10.0.1-1.fc15,firefox-10.0.1-1.fc15?_csrf_token=2687aa88f9c75370a673f0b53ca2cbb1fcda5f68 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1650/thunderbird-10.0.1-1.fc16,xulrunner-10.0.1-1.fc16,firefox-10.0.1-1.fc16?_csrf_token=2687aa88f9c75370a673f0b53ca2cbb1fcda5f68 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-1845/xulrunner-10.0.1-3.fc15?_csrf_token=2687aa88f9c75370a673f0b53ca2cbb1fcda5f68 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2011-17408/xulrunner-9.0.1-1.fc16,firefox-9.0.1-1.fc16?_csrf_token=2687aa88f9c75370a673f0b53ca2cbb1fcda5f68 for pushing schedule. -- jh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Thunderbird bz 579023 still not fixed even though there is an upstream fix available
On 04/25/2010 10:00 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > I wrote: >> Those packages are also sometimes not compliant with Fedora policies such >> as usage of system libraries because any patches to use a system library >> need trademark approval. > > Another one: Thunderbird STILL bundles its own Gecko instead of using the > system xulrunner, another blatant violation of our packaging guidelines. > Nothing is done to fix this issue because upstream does not care and we > can't change what they ship. > Hi, Thunderbird is unable to use system xulrunner yet. We are working with upstream to fix it. Believe me, it's not a trivial task: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=377319 (see also depends bugs). -- jh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
