Re: Modern C failures in Haskell stack

Thanks Richard for the PR and Florian for the patch On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:28 PM Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:57:21PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > > For the first issue, please try this GHC patch > > I submitted it to GHC here: >

Re: Unresponsive maintainer: petersen / Pandoc package not updated since June 2023: Security vulnerability, CVE-2023-35936 (medium)

Thanks for the support. I will start to post more review requests, maybe post them on discourse too... Currently there is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2163472 (base64) which I opened 1 year ago. Jens On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 3:54 AM Christopher Klooz wrote: > On 14/02/2024

Re: Need help with incompatible pointer types on i686

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:39 PM Orion Poplawski wrote: > > We're hitting this with h5py on i686: > > /builddir/build/BUILD/h5py-3.10.0/serial/h5py/defs.c: In function > ‘__pyx_f_4h5py_4defs_H5Dread_chunk’: > /builddir/build/BUILD/h5py-3.10.0/serial/h5py/defs.c:14922:85: error: > passing argument

Need help with incompatible pointer types on i686

We're hitting this with h5py on i686: /builddir/build/BUILD/h5py-3.10.0/serial/h5py/defs.c: In function ‘__pyx_f_4h5py_4defs_H5Dread_chunk’: /builddir/build/BUILD/h5py-3.10.0/serial/h5py/defs.c:14922:85: error: passing argument 4 of ‘H5Dread_chunk’ from incompatible pointer type

Re: The semiannual "Transaction failed: Signature verification failed." exercise

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 07:57:37PM +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > It's this time of the year again: ... > > Could we please do something so that this doesn't happen? > Dunno, generate and distribute the keys earlier so that mock > and https://fedoraproject.org/fedora.gpg get updated

Re: Provides: libmupdf.so.23.10()(64bit) missing on *EL

Michael J Gruber wrote: > chmod +x'ing should be fine on Fedoras, as well. It used to be mandatory, even, exactly because of the dependency generator requiring it back then. Nowadays, you will get away with both +x or -x. The idea that shared libraries should not be executable comes from

Re: Bisecting an older kernel

On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 7:49 AM Julian Sikorski wrote: > > Am 12.02.24 um 10:03 schrieb Michael J Gruber: > > Am So., 11. Feb. 2024 um 23:14 Uhr schrieb Julian Sikorski > > : > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I am trying to bisect an issue which appears to have regressed between > >> 5.18 final and

Re: do we need CONFIG_UPROBES=y in our kernels?

Roberto Ragusa wrote: > Auditors are constantly proposing disabling features and making things > inconvenient, undebuggable, inefficient and substantially annoying to > operate. > > They should instead learn some basic concepts of security. > For example: if you are running a process, even in a

Fedora 40 compose report: 20240215.n.1 changes

OLD: Fedora-40-20240213.n.1 NEW: Fedora-40-20240215.n.1 = SUMMARY = Added images:3 Dropped images: 11 Added packages: 1 Dropped packages:5 Upgraded packages: 170 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 4.73 MiB Size of dropped packages:4.04 MiB

The semiannual "Transaction failed: Signature verification failed." exercise

It's this time of the year again: Running transaction Importing PGP key 0xA15B79CC: Userid : "Fedora (40) " Fingerprint: 115DF9AEF857853EE8445D0A0727707EA15B79CC From : file:///usr/share/distribution-gpg-keys/fedora/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-40-primary The key was successfully imported.

Re: Unresponsive maintainer: petersen / Pandoc package not updated since June 2023: Security vulnerability, CVE-2023-35936 (medium)

On 14/02/2024 17.35, Michel Lind wrote: As a pandoc user, I'm happy to help with any reviews. Is there a list where this tends to get posted, apart from devel? Thanks, Michel Once the package needs a review, the request should be found here: http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/

Re: do we need CONFIG_UPROBES=y in our kernels?

On 2/13/24 7:36 AM, Jerry James wrote: > On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 11:16 AM Marius Schwarz > wrote: >> In a german developer blog article was the topic raised, that with >> uprobes enabled, userland apps can i.e. circumvent tls security(and >> other protections), >> by telling the kernel to probe

[Bug 2261448] perl-Curses: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f40

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2261448 --- Comment #5 from Steve Traylen --- Hmm i686 build fails only: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113554205 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

[Bug 2261448] perl-Curses: FTBFS in Fedora rawhide/f40

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2261448 Steve Traylen changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value ---

[Bug 2264388] F41FailsToInstall: perl-Code-TidyAll

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264388 Fedora Fails To Install changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED

[Bug 2264388] F41FailsToInstall: perl-Code-TidyAll

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264388 Bug 2264388 depends on bug 2264398, which changed state. Bug 2264398 Summary: /usr/bin/node is gone https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264398 What|Removed |Added

Re: Modern C failures in Haskell stack

Thank you for looking into this, much appreciated, since I hadn't found proper time yet. It might be helpful to have a downstream ghc bug to track this too. Jens -- ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to

Re: Provides: libmupdf.so.23.10()(64bit) missing on *EL

Am Do., 15. Feb. 2024 um 17:43 Uhr schrieb Kalev Lember : > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 5:30 PM Michael J Gruber > wrote: >> >> Yes. That is: running `/usr/lib/rpm/elfdeps --provides` on F39 against >> the two files libmupdf.so.23.10 rpmdev-extracted from the koji scratch >> builds for fc39 and

Re: Provides: libmupdf.so.23.10()(64bit) missing on *EL

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 5:30 PM Michael J Gruber wrote: > Yes. That is: running `/usr/lib/rpm/elfdeps --provides` on F39 against > the two files libmupdf.so.23.10 rpmdev-extracted from the koji scratch > builds for fc39 and el9 yields > > libmupdf.so.23.10()(64bit) > > in both cases. I could try

Re: Provides: libmupdf.so.23.10()(64bit) missing on *EL

Am Do., 15. Feb. 2024 um 17:22 Uhr schrieb Petr Pisar : > > V Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 05:10:34PM +0100, Michael J Gruber napsal(a): > > Am Do., 15. Feb. 2024 um 17:06 Uhr schrieb Petr Pisar : > > > > > > V Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 04:57:10PM +0100, Michael J Gruber napsal(a): > > > > Hi there > > > > > >

Re: Provides: libmupdf.so.23.10()(64bit) missing on *EL

V Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 05:10:34PM +0100, Michael J Gruber napsal(a): > Am Do., 15. Feb. 2024 um 17:06 Uhr schrieb Petr Pisar : > > > > V Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 04:57:10PM +0100, Michael J Gruber napsal(a): > > > Hi there > > > > > > I recently switched mupdf to shared libraries. During test builds

Re: Does splint work for anyone?

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 at 10:15, David Cantrell wrote: > On 2/14/24 13:32, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 at 17:17, Ian Laurie > > wrote: > > > > On 2/10/24 05:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > > > > I was trying out the splint program on

Re: Provides: libmupdf.so.23.10()(64bit) missing on *EL

Am Do., 15. Feb. 2024 um 17:06 Uhr schrieb Petr Pisar : > > V Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 04:57:10PM +0100, Michael J Gruber napsal(a): > > Hi there > > > > I recently switched mupdf to shared libraries. During test builds on > > COPR for EPEL I noticed a strange difference to fedora builds which I > >

Re: Provides: libmupdf.so.23.10()(64bit) missing on *EL

V Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 04:57:10PM +0100, Michael J Gruber napsal(a): > Hi there > > I recently switched mupdf to shared libraries. During test builds on > COPR for EPEL I noticed a strange difference to fedora builds which I > can reproduce with koji scratch builds as well (epel9 vs fc39). The >

Provides: libmupdf.so.23.10()(64bit) missing on *EL

Hi there I recently switched mupdf to shared libraries. During test builds on COPR for EPEL I noticed a strange difference to fedora builds which I can reproduce with koji scratch builds as well (epel9 vs fc39). The difference is in the automatic provides for the -libs sub package: Provides:

Re: Modern C failures in Haskell stack

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:57:21PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > For the first issue, please try this GHC patch (only compile-tested with > the stage 0 compiler build this point): > > diff --git a/compiler/GHC/HsToCore/Foreign/C.hs > b/compiler/GHC/HsToCore/Foreign/C.hs > index

Re: Does splint work for anyone?

On 2/14/24 13:32, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 at 17:17, Ian Laurie > wrote: > > On 2/10/24 05:06, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > > > I was trying out the splint program on some code and found that it > > doesn't seem to work on any

[Bug 2264428] perl-Net-DNS-1.44 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264428 --- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- the-new-hotness/release-monitoring.org's scratch build of perl-Net-DNS-1.44-1.fc38.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113543556 -- You are

[Bug 2264428] perl-Net-DNS-1.44 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264428 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Created attachment 2016918 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2016918=edit Update to 1.44 (#2264428) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for

[Bug 2264428] New: perl-Net-DNS-1.44 is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264428 Bug ID: 2264428 Summary: perl-Net-DNS-1.44 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Net-DNS Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged

Re: Why branched config pointed to rolling config?

On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 15:38 +, Sérgio Basto wrote: > On Wed, 2024-02-14 at 13:38 +, Mikhail Gavrilov wrote: > > Why branched config pointed to rolling config? > > # ls -ln | grep fedora-40 > > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 0 135   26 Jan 11 20:46 fedora-40-aarch64.cfg -> > > fedora-rawhide-aarch64.cfg > >

Re: Modern C failures in Haskell stack

I did a more thorough review of all the failed ghc-* packages by submitting scratch builds for every one of them (starting from this list: https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mass-rebuild/f40-failures.html). It turns out that there is only one "class" of modern C failure, of this form:

Re: Modern C failures in Haskell stack

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:57:21PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: > For the first issue, please try this GHC patch (only compile-tested with > the stage 0 compiler build this point): > > diff --git a/compiler/GHC/HsToCore/Foreign/C.hs > b/compiler/GHC/HsToCore/Foreign/C.hs > index

Re: Modern C failures in Haskell stack

* Richard W. M. Jones: > We noticed that some ghc-* packages FTBFS with Modern C failures eg > these two picked at random: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113534568 > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113534602 > > I think what's happening here is

Re: Modern C failures in Haskell stack

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 12:24:22PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:13:08AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > We noticed that some ghc-* packages FTBFS with Modern C failures eg > > these two picked at random: > > > >

Re: Modern C failures in Haskell stack

On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 11:13:08AM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > We noticed that some ghc-* packages FTBFS with Modern C failures eg > these two picked at random: > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113534568 >

Modern C failures in Haskell stack

We noticed that some ghc-* packages FTBFS with Modern C failures eg these two picked at random: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113534568 https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=113534602 I think what's happening here is that ghc is generating C FFI code which

[Bug 2264268] F40FailsToInstall: perl-Alien-pkgconf

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264268 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|---

Fedora rawhide compose report: 20240215.n.0 changes

OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20240214.n.1 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20240215.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:4 Dropped images: 12 Added packages: 3 Dropped packages:5 Upgraded packages: 122 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 4.80 MiB Size of dropped packages

Re: JACK rtprio=60, PipeWire rtprio=88: Why?

I think the main reason is that I was not aware of this policy and so we chose some random numbers. The parameters are configurable at build time and I can add these limits. Wim On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 7:30 PM Runiq via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Hey, > > I intend to pull

[Bug 2264388] F41FailsToInstall: perl-Code-TidyAll

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264388 Miro Hrončok changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||2264398 Referenced Bugs:

[Bug 2264268] F40FailsToInstall: perl-Alien-pkgconf

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264268 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED Fixed In Version|

[Bug 2264388] New: F41FailsToInstall: perl-Code-TidyAll

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264388 Bug ID: 2264388 Summary: F41FailsToInstall: perl-Code-TidyAll Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Code-TidyAll Assignee: jples...@redhat.com

[Bug 2264260] F41FailsToInstall: perl-Alien-pkgconf

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264260 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value

[Bug 2264268] F40FailsToInstall: perl-Alien-pkgconf

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2264268 Petr Pisar changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||2260877 |