Re: Non-responsive maintainer: fedpop
Updates for f31 and up submitted. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=mumble Thanks, Richard ___ 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: Non-responsive maintainer: fedpop
Pull request has been rebased and is ready to be merged. Thanks for your help with this Richard. On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 6:59 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 4:34 PM Carl George wrote: >> >> I read the policy [0] as "major (bug | security) fixes", and the CVE >> is only rated as moderate [1]. Should the policy be read as "(major >> bug | any security) fixes"? I am not opposed to building the update >> on F31 as well. >> >> [0] >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#all-other-updates >> [1] https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2020-13962 > > > I'm not worried about getting that nit-pickey... If it addresses a CVE that's > good enough for me. > > It looks like mumble was rebuilt for a new protobuf, can you update (rebase) > your pull request so it's mergeable? > > If you can do that fairly soon I'll try to make some time to merge it and > perform the builds and push new updates. > > Thanks, > Richard > ___ > 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 -- Carl George ___ 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: Non-responsive maintainer: fedpop
On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 4:34 PM Carl George wrote: > I read the policy [0] as "major (bug | security) fixes", and the CVE > is only rated as moderate [1]. Should the policy be read as "(major > bug | any security) fixes"? I am not opposed to building the update > on F31 as well. > > [0] > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#all-other-updates > [1] https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2020-13962 I'm not worried about getting that nit-pickey... If it addresses a CVE that's good enough for me. It looks like mumble was rebuilt for a new protobuf, can you update (rebase) your pull request so it's mergeable? If you can do that fairly soon I'll try to make some time to merge it and perform the builds and push new updates. Thanks, Richard ___ 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: Non-responsive maintainer: fedpop
I read the policy [0] as "major (bug | security) fixes", and the CVE is only rated as moderate [1]. Should the policy be read as "(major bug | any security) fixes"? I am not opposed to building the update on F31 as well. [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#all-other-updates [1] https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2020-13962 On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 11:17 AM Ian McInerney wrote: > > In your original email you said that this resolves CVE bug [1], which says in > it: > > "NOTE: this issue affects multiple supported versions of Fedora. While only > one tracking bug has been filed, please correct all affected versions at the > same time. If you need to fix the versions independent of each other, you > may clone this bug as appropriate." > > That to me sounds like the CVE should be patched in F31 as well - so since > this update fixes it, the update would be suitable for F31. > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849735 > > -Ian > > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:01 PM Carl George wrote: >> >> F32 is fine by me. Based on the updates policy [0], I don't believe >> this update qualifies under the "major bug fixes and security fixes" >> restriction for the previous stable release. >> >> [0] >> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#all-other-updates >> >> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:54 PM Richard Shaw wrote: >> > >> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:42 PM Carl George wrote: >> >> >> >> Yes, the patch is from an upstream pull request [0] that has already >> >> been merged to the master branch [1] and is planned to be included in >> >> their next release [2] (it's not part of the current 1.3.2 tag). The >> >> pull request includes a comment linking to said pull request, per the >> >> packaging guidelines [3]. Mumble's traditional push-to-talk >> >> functionality doesn't work under Wayland; this patch adds dbus calls >> >> that can be mapped to keyboard shortcuts as a workaround. I've built >> >> it like this in COPR [4] and it's worked great for me so far. >> > >> > >> > So next, question... Do builds need to be performed all the way back to >> > f31, or is f32 okay? >> > >> > Thanks, >> > Richard >> > ___ >> > 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Carl George >> ___ >> 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 -- Carl George ___ 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: Non-responsive maintainer: fedpop
In your original email you said that this resolves CVE bug [1], which says in it: "NOTE: this issue affects multiple supported versions of Fedora. While only one tracking bug has been filed, please correct all affected versions at the same time. If you need to fix the versions independent of each other, you may clone this bug as appropriate." That to me sounds like the CVE should be patched in F31 as well - so since this update fixes it, the update would be suitable for F31. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849735 -Ian On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 5:01 PM Carl George wrote: > F32 is fine by me. Based on the updates policy [0], I don't believe > this update qualifies under the "major bug fixes and security fixes" > restriction for the previous stable release. > > [0] > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#all-other-updates > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:54 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:42 PM Carl George wrote: > >> > >> Yes, the patch is from an upstream pull request [0] that has already > >> been merged to the master branch [1] and is planned to be included in > >> their next release [2] (it's not part of the current 1.3.2 tag). The > >> pull request includes a comment linking to said pull request, per the > >> packaging guidelines [3]. Mumble's traditional push-to-talk > >> functionality doesn't work under Wayland; this patch adds dbus calls > >> that can be mapped to keyboard shortcuts as a workaround. I've built > >> it like this in COPR [4] and it's worked great for me so far. > > > > > > So next, question... Do builds need to be performed all the way back to > f31, or is f32 okay? > > > > Thanks, > > Richard > > ___ > > 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 > > > > -- > Carl George > ___ > 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: Non-responsive maintainer: fedpop
F32 is fine by me. Based on the updates policy [0], I don't believe this update qualifies under the "major bug fixes and security fixes" restriction for the previous stable release. [0] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/#all-other-updates On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:54 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:42 PM Carl George wrote: >> >> Yes, the patch is from an upstream pull request [0] that has already >> been merged to the master branch [1] and is planned to be included in >> their next release [2] (it's not part of the current 1.3.2 tag). The >> pull request includes a comment linking to said pull request, per the >> packaging guidelines [3]. Mumble's traditional push-to-talk >> functionality doesn't work under Wayland; this patch adds dbus calls >> that can be mapped to keyboard shortcuts as a workaround. I've built >> it like this in COPR [4] and it's worked great for me so far. > > > So next, question... Do builds need to be performed all the way back to f31, > or is f32 okay? > > Thanks, > Richard > ___ > 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 -- Carl George ___ 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: Non-responsive maintainer: fedpop
On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 2:42 PM Carl George wrote: > Yes, the patch is from an upstream pull request [0] that has already > been merged to the master branch [1] and is planned to be included in > their next release [2] (it's not part of the current 1.3.2 tag). The > pull request includes a comment linking to said pull request, per the > packaging guidelines [3]. Mumble's traditional push-to-talk > functionality doesn't work under Wayland; this patch adds dbus calls > that can be mapped to keyboard shortcuts as a workaround. I've built > it like this in COPR [4] and it's worked great for me so far. > So next, question... Do builds need to be performed all the way back to f31, or is f32 okay? Thanks, Richard ___ 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: Non-responsive maintainer: fedpop
Yes, the patch is from an upstream pull request [0] that has already been merged to the master branch [1] and is planned to be included in their next release [2] (it's not part of the current 1.3.2 tag). The pull request includes a comment linking to said pull request, per the packaging guidelines [3]. Mumble's traditional push-to-talk functionality doesn't work under Wayland; this patch adds dbus calls that can be mapped to keyboard shortcuts as a workaround. I've built it like this in COPR [4] and it's worked great for me so far. [0] https://github.com/mumble-voip/mumble/pull/3675 [1] https://github.com/mumble-voip/mumble/commit/a07bb2f146883ddc725081bf5d3a802e51bcae1f [2] https://github.com/mumble-voip/mumble/issues/3243#issuecomment-602499348 [3] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_all_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment [4] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/carlwgeorge/mumble-wayland/ On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 6:57 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:30 PM Carl George wrote: >> >> Howdy folks, >> >> This is a non-responsive maintainer check for fedpop, in accordance with >> policy [0]. I submitted a pull request for the mumble package last month >> that has not been answered [1]. Merging this pull request would resolve >> several bugs [2][3][4], one of which is for a moderate CVE [4]. The >> maintainer has not responded to any of these bugs. The oldest one was >> opened on 2017-01-30. Checking the mumble commit history, the last activity >> by the maintainer was on 2015-12-07 [5]. > > > While we should let the non-responsive maintainer process work, the last > commit being in 2015 is reason enough to move forward with evaluating the > pull request. > > I'm not remotely familiar with mumble but looking at the pull request I don't > see anything major outside of the patch which is from upstream, yes? > > Thanks, > Richard > ___ > 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 -- Carl George ___ 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: Non-responsive maintainer: fedpop
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 3:30 PM Carl George wrote: > Howdy folks, > > This is a non-responsive maintainer check for fedpop, in accordance with > policy [0]. I submitted a pull request for the mumble package last month > that has not been answered [1]. Merging this pull request would resolve > several bugs [2][3][4], one of which is for a moderate CVE [4]. The > maintainer has not responded to any of these bugs. The oldest one was > opened on 2017-01-30. Checking the mumble commit history, the last > activity > by the maintainer was on 2015-12-07 [5]. > While we should let the non-responsive maintainer process work, the last commit being in 2015 is reason enough to move forward with evaluating the pull request. I'm not remotely familiar with mumble but looking at the pull request I don't see anything major outside of the patch which is from upstream, yes? Thanks, Richard ___ 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
