Re: Retiring a set of old X utilities
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 12:37:40AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote: > Peter Hutterer writes: > > xfd > > I use this a lot; what is the modern replacement for it? I was about to say gnome-font-viewer but that doesn't seem to list the old X fonts (or requires conversion or something). So, tbh, I'm not sure there is one. Cheers, Peter ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Retiring a set of old X utilities
Peter Hutterer writes: > xfd I use this a lot; what is the modern replacement for it? ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Test-Announce] Fedora 34 Candidate RC-1.1 Available Now!
According to the schedule [1], Fedora 34 Candidate RC-1.1 is now available for testing. Please help us complete all the validation testing! For more information on release validation testing, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/34 You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download locations, and enter results on the Summary page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_RC_1.1_Summary The individual test result pages are: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_RC_1.1_Installation https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_RC_1.1_Base https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_RC_1.1_Server https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_RC_1.1_Cloud https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_RC_1.1_Desktop https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_34_RC_1.1_Security_Lab All RC priority test cases for each of these test pages [2] must pass in order to meet the RC Release Criteria [3]. Help is available on #fedora-qa on irc.freenode.net [4], or on the test list [5]. Current Blocker and Freeze Exception bugs: http://qa.fedoraproject.org/blockerbugs/current [1] http://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-34/f-34-quality-tasks.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_34_RC_Release_Criteria [4] irc://irc.freenode.net/fedora-qa [5] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/t...@lists.fedoraproject.org/ ___ test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-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/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
License change: harmonyseq (changed from “GPLv3+” to “GPLv3+ and CC0”)
The harmonyseq package changed from “GPLv3+” to “GPLv3+ and CC0” due to the downstream addition of an AppData XML file under the latter license (https://github.com/rafalcieslak/harmonySEQ/issues/5). ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Retiring a set of old X utilities
Now that the XorgUtilityDeaggregation [1] is complete, I'm planning to retire a set of old X utilities that I think don't need to be in Fedora: oclock xbiff xload xman xrefresh xlogo xpr xfd viewres listres xconsole This is a very conservative list of packages, there are likely more that should be on this list but for now, this is a start. If you are using any of the above, please let me know and I'll hand the package over to you - it's either retirement or you take over the package maintainership. Cheers, Peter [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/XorgUtilityDeaggregation ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951972] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951972 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-5c48be891a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-5c48be891a` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-5c48be891a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Re: Getting conman into EPEL8
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 at 3:07 PM Dave Love wrote: > For what it's worth, there's a conman build for x86_64 and aarch64 in > the loveshack/livhpc copr (untested). > ___ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure There is now a conman package in EPEL8 testing: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/conman - Trey ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Questions regarding the new account system
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:49:16PM +0200, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: > Hello, > > On the old account system, when I sponsored someone into the "packager" > group, they were automatically added to the "fedorabugs" group. This is not > the case anymore, is it a bug or a feature? It's a bug. Already known and being worked on: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9869 > Globally I don't really like the new system. On a big group like: > https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/packager/ > We can only see 100 members and we have lost many infos like email, date of > membership, who sponsored them, or sorting by sponsor, compared to > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/members/packager > The Add user is hidden after the sponsor list, is not very explicit and does > not provide a "confirmation" step like the old system. The information > density is also way lower than before. https://github.com/fedora-infra/noggin/issues/566 > Does anyone know where can I report bugs for this? Already done above, but please do add anything thats not already noted there. :) kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951955] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-95f5894eaa has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-95f5894eaa` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-95f5894eaa See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing report
The following Fedora EPEL 7 Security updates need testing: Age URL 13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-f08dc6b4c1 gnuchess-6.2.7-5.el7 13 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-13ed778e19 singularity-3.7.3-1.el7 12 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-3f9b6786f4 clamav-0.103.2-1.el7 10 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-9daa9fc0b1 seamonkey-2.53.7-3.el7 6 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-fe3075d537 wordpress-5.1.9-1.el7 2 https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-044df87bd4 rust-1.51.0-3.el7 The following builds have been pushed to Fedora EPEL 7 updates-testing libretls-3.3.2-1.el7 mock-centos-sig-configs-0.1-3.el7 openvpn-2.4.11-1.el7 sourcextractor++-0.14-1.el7 Details about builds: libretls-3.3.2-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5dc3f4d5fa) Port of libtls from LibreSSL to OpenSSL Update Information: - Upgrade to 3.3.2 (#1952200) ChangeLog: * Wed Apr 21 2021 Robert Scheck 3.3.2-1 - Upgrade to 3.3.2 (#1952200) References: [ 1 ] Bug #1952200 - libretls-3.3.2 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952200 mock-centos-sig-configs-0.1-3.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-c2e62ff231) Mock configs for CentOS SIGs Update Information: Initial package ChangeLog: References: [ 1 ] Bug #1950559 - Review Request: mock-centos-sig-configs - Mock configs for CentOS SIGs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950559 openvpn-2.4.11-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ec6398823b) A full-featured SSL VPN solution Update Information: Security update - OpenVPN 2.5.1 and earlier versions allows a remote attackers to bypass authentication and access control channel data on servers configured with deferred authentication, which can be used to potentially trigger further information leaks. (CVE-2020-15078) ChangeLog: * Wed Apr 21 2021 David Sommerseth - 2.4.11-1 - Update to upstream OpenVPN 2.4.11 - Fixes CVE-2020-15078 sourcextractor++-0.14-1.el7 (FEDORA-EPEL-2021-01fe5a1d77) A program that extracts a catalog of sources from astronomical images, and the successor of SExtractor Update Information: New sourcextractor release 0.14 ChangeLog: * Wed Apr 21 2021 Alejandro Alvarez Ayllon - 0.14-1 - Release 0.14 ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951972] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951972 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-7fb045a26a has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-7fb045a26a` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7fb045a26a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951955] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-521060f43c has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-521060f43c` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-521060f43c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Questions regarding the new account system
Hello, On the old account system, when I sponsored someone into the "packager" group, they were automatically added to the "fedorabugs" group. This is not the case anymore, is it a bug or a feature? Globally I don't really like the new system. On a big group like: https://accounts.fedoraproject.org/group/packager/ We can only see 100 members and we have lost many infos like email, date of membership, who sponsored them, or sorting by sponsor, compared to https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/members/packager The Add user is hidden after the sponsor list, is not very explicit and does not provide a "confirmation" step like the old system. The information density is also way lower than before. Does anyone know where can I report bugs for this? Best regards, Robert-André ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
* Frank Ch. Eigler: > Unfortunately, in the absence of per-file signatures generated by the > build system, and securely distributed out-of-band, I can't think of any > way to provide client-side verifiability of a debuginfod type service. > That's independent of any particular level of server code robustness. I hat to bring them up, but IMA signatures could *almost* be used for this. They cover individual files. The problem is that any Fedora developer can get an IMA signature of any file contents. There is nothing in the signature that says that it's been produced by debuginfo generation. So I'm not sure if IMA signatures actually reduce the attack surface in any significant way. Thanks, Florian ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 4:09 PM Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > A direct way would be for someone to koji-download the given rpm, and > hand-extract/compare the files. (It's obviously not economical.) > > > Thus, the debuginfod server becomes a juicy target. > > Yes. The Changes FAQ section discusses this topic. > > Unfortunately, in the absence of per-file signatures generated by the > build system, and securely distributed out-of-band, I can't think of any > way to provide client-side verifiability of a debuginfod type service. > That's independent of any particular level of server code robustness. I think there *are* solutions that reduce the attack surface so that the public facing server no longer needs to be trusted. Service 1: indexes signed debuginfo files in Fedora, verifying RPM signatures, puts the object IDs and hashes into a Merkle tree [Root node of Merkle tree is signed] Service 2: serves out those debuginfo files to clients, along with root signature and the nodes from the root to the file of interest But I don't want to see this proposal blocked on implementing something that technically complex - I think it offers big benefits to Fedora users as is. Certainly there are other programs that are typically run without sandboxing by developers and connect to network services - even entirely untrusted network services - and we typically consider that acceptable. Owen ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
"Sampson Fung" writes: > The first run, giving my "Try"s, takes much longer than the second run, which > gives no "Trys". > Just from impression: > 1st run: From run to download finish, I will say it takes about 5+ minutes. > 2nd run: ~1 minute > For each "Try" given, the delay is not obvious to me. I'm pretty sure Sampson was affected by a proxy.stg.fedoraproject.org misconfiguration problem that was fixed about an hour ago, so those timeouts should not be happening any more. That means we'd be down to normal service latencies ameliorated by caching effects. A cute demonstration of the cost/benefit of this capability now in the distro, I recently ran % gdb /usr/bin/gnome-control-center On a normal machine, you'll get no debuginfo and a suggestion to install a wall-of-text list of RPMs as root. On a debuginfod configured machine, you'll get gdb downloading ~400MB of debuginfo (HTTP compressed -- decompresses to ~6GB) as rapidly as your network connection allows. This could take some minutes, for the first time. After that time, you get instant visibility into the entire enormous gnome software stack, including LLVM, mesa, x11, samba, gst, opengl, glib, etc. etc. etc. right down to the glibc assembly wrappers for syscalls. - FChE ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Schedule for Thursday's FPC Meeting (2021-04-22 16:00 UTC)
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FPC meeting Thursday at 2021-04-22 16:00 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1 on irc.freenode.net. Local time information (via. uitime): = Day: Thursday == 2021-04-22 09:00 PDT US/Pacific 2021-04-22 12:00 EDT --> US/Eastern <-- 2021-04-22 16:00 UTC UTC 2021-04-22 17:00 BST Europe/London 2021-04-22 18:00 CEST Europe/Berlin 2021-04-22 18:00 CEST Europe/Paris 2021-04-22 21:30 IST Asia/Calcutta New Day: Friday - 2021-04-23 00:00 HKT Asia/Hong_Kong 2021-04-23 00:00 +08 Asia/Singapore 2021-04-23 01:00 JST Asia/Tokyo 2021-04-23 02:00 AEST Australia/Brisbane Links to all tickets below can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open=meeting = Followup Actions = #topic #pr-814 * mhroncok talk to authors again, having a working example might help a lot = Followup Issues = #topic #886 Enable BRP for detecting RPATH .fpc 886 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/886 #topic #907 Which %__foo macros for executables are acceptable? .fpc 907 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/907 #topic #1058 How to handle %lang files in package owned directories? .fpc 1058 https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1058 = Followup Pull Requests = #topic #pr-814 Add SELinux Independent Policy Guidelines. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/814 #topic #pr-1045 WIP: Add discussion of macro names beginning with underscores. https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1045 = Open Floor = For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The report of the agenda items can be found at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issues?status=Open=meeting If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can: * Reply to this e-mail * File a new ticket at: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee * E-mail me directly * Bring it up at the end of the meeting, during the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until the following meeting. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek writes: > OTOH, the debuginfo files distributed through the debuginfod server > are not signed and there is no direct way to verify that they match > the (signed) contents of the debuginfo package. A direct way would be for someone to koji-download the given rpm, and hand-extract/compare the files. (It's obviously not economical.) > Thus, the debuginfod server becomes a juicy target. Yes. The Changes FAQ section discusses this topic. Unfortunately, in the absence of per-file signatures generated by the build system, and securely distributed out-of-band, I can't think of any way to provide client-side verifiability of a debuginfod type service. That's independent of any particular level of server code robustness. Interestingly, if debuginfod were considered *trusted*, then it could be used as the *basis* for such a capability, because the client-side hash verification feature being prototyped. It would serve trusted hashes to RPM-based artifacts on demand. - FChE ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 03:15:23PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > Björn Persson writes: > > >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27758 > > > > The design you propose there won't improve anything for anyone. If the > > hash is computed on the debuginfo server, then an attacker who can make > > the server serve malicious debuginfo can also make it serve hashes that > > match the malicious files. > > Yes, this does not provide protection against a penetrated server. It > does not claim to. > > > And as you noted yourself, an attacker who can manipulate cached files > > client-side has already taken over the user account anyway. > > Yes and no, and so I must disagree with your "won't improve ... for > anyone". The proposed client-side verification is roughly analogous to > running "rpm -V" on a machine. Yes, if an attacker has control at that > moment, it's not reliable. Nevertheless, to detect residue of a > -previous attack- or accidental data corruption, it can be worthwhile. We have btrfs now… It's not exactly the same, but it provides protection against the most likely corruption scenario — disk errors. > > [...] I see that debuginfod.fedoraproject.org is currently another > > name for koji.fedoraproject.org. > > They are separate VMs, if that's what you mean. (You may be confused by > use of a number of shared HTTP front-end proxies.) > > > Given that it serves debuginfo only for Fedora packages, and does not > > forward requests to any other debuginfo servers, using this server > > seems equivalent security-wise to downloading unsigned packages from > > Koji. > > Not exactly. All the data is -from- signed packages. It is equivalent in the following sense: if the server is compromised, it can serve any data it wants, and the client has no chance of knowing. Zbyszek ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
IP addresses sent by gmail. Thanks for the reminder for the new URL. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
I have run the same debug session using two different machines. The first run, giving my "Try"s, takes much longer than the second run, which gives no "Trys". Just from impression: 1st run: From run to download finish, I will say it takes about 5+ minutes. 2nd run: ~1 minute For each "Try" given, the delay is not obvious to me. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
Björn Persson writes: >> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27758 > > The design you propose there won't improve anything for anyone. If the > hash is computed on the debuginfo server, then an attacker who can make > the server serve malicious debuginfo can also make it serve hashes that > match the malicious files. Yes, this does not provide protection against a penetrated server. It does not claim to. > And as you noted yourself, an attacker who can manipulate cached files > client-side has already taken over the user account anyway. Yes and no, and so I must disagree with your "won't improve ... for anyone". The proposed client-side verification is roughly analogous to running "rpm -V" on a machine. Yes, if an attacker has control at that moment, it's not reliable. Nevertheless, to detect residue of a -previous attack- or accidental data corruption, it can be worthwhile. > [...] I see that debuginfod.fedoraproject.org is currently another > name for koji.fedoraproject.org. They are separate VMs, if that's what you mean. (You may be confused by use of a number of shared HTTP front-end proxies.) > Given that it serves debuginfo only for Fedora packages, and does not > forward requests to any other debuginfo servers, using this server > seems equivalent security-wise to downloading unsigned packages from > Koji. Not exactly. All the data is -from- signed packages. > To make the debuginfo protocol as secure as signed debuginfo packages, > the client should verify the files against a hash computed and signed > on the signing server. If the threat model includes a -local active attacker-, then this would not help either. An attacker could interfere with the local keystore and/or trust chains and/or signature verification software. > For those who are concerned about privacy, the proposal would make > that problem worse as it would cause the "phoning home" to happen > every time they debug something. That's if they wish to rely on live verification. Note that the privacy being leaked consists of the hex buildid of the program being debugged, and an elfutils#/fedora#/arch, and of course IP address. It's not nothing, but it's nothing more. It's roughly equivalent to the dnf-automatic.timer call-home in this respect. > By the way, the change page still doesn't say enough about how network > problems will affect the user experience. [...] I'm not sure why you say "still" when this question was not posed here before. I will add some text on this. - FChE ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
It is just a short delay then the "Try" suggestion is given. My first run using my Notebook takes quite some time. A few hours later, I run again using my Desktop, this time is very fast and no "Try" given. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
F34 Final Go/No-Go moved to Friday
Hi everyone, Since we anticipate a Fedora Linux 34 release candidate request today, I am moving the Go/No-Go meeting from Thursday to Friday. This will allow the QA team more time to perform validation tests. The Fedora Linux 34 Final Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for Friday 23 April at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1. At this time, we will determine the status of F34 for the 27 April target date. For more information about the Go/No-Go meeting, see the wiki[2]. [1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/meeting/9969/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis ___ devel-announce mailing list -- devel-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-announce-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-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Re: Intent to update nginx to 1.20.0
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 11:01:14PM -0400, Felix Kaechele wrote: > Hi there, > > I think this has been discussed at committee meetings before: nginx's > procedure of immediately dropping a release series when a new one hits the > stable branches is essentially forcing us to upgrade along with it, unless > someone is willing to backport patches. > > I personally am not willing to do backports as I do not use EL7 at this > point and only continue maintaining the package as a courtesy to the > community. > > I therefor intend to make the following changes to the nginx package in > EPEL7: > - Update to 1.20.0 > - build against OpenSSL 1.1 to enable TLS1.3 support > > Do I require additional permission do move forward with this in this manner? > There should not be any breaking changes or incompatible changes to config > syntax. But I'll admit that I do not have complex config scenarios as > testcases. > > EPEL8 is not affected as nginx doesn't have an EPEL build for EL8. It is > maintained upstream. > There are, however, modules with certain streams (1.18 and mainline, for > example) available from EPEL. I think this sounds fine, but you might want to send a note to 'epel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org' once its in updates-testing and again when it goes to stable. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Test-Announce] F34 Final Go/No-Go moved to Friday
Hi everyone, Since we anticipate a Fedora Linux 34 release candidate request today, I am moving the Go/No-Go meeting from Thursday to Friday. This will allow the QA team more time to perform validation tests. The Fedora Linux 34 Final Go/No-Go[1] meeting is scheduled for Friday 23 April at 1700 UTC in #fedora-meeting-1. At this time, we will determine the status of F34 for the 27 April target date. For more information about the Go/No-Go meeting, see the wiki[2]. [1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/meeting/9969/ [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis ___ test-announce mailing list -- test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-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/test-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
Björn Persson writes: > I was wondering what the user experience would be like in such a > situation. Could you estimate how long you had to wait in total? Was > there a long delay before each "Timer expired" message, or only one > delay? Each outright-hung request could entail a $DEBUGINFOD_TIMEOUT (default 90s) wait. The common code does not "hold a grudge" against a server that formerly timed out. - FChE ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
"FUNG Chi Chuen Sampson" writes: > Downloading separate debug info for /lib64/liblzma.so.5... > Download failed: Timer expired. Continuing without debug info for > /lib64/libbrotlicommon.so.1. > Missing separate debuginfo for /lib64/libbrotlicommon.so.1 > [...] By the way, if you were using the staging (.stg.) debuginfod server, please switch to the main one, which is in full service. DEBUGINFOD_URLS=https://debuginfod.fedoraproject.org/ We're currently tracking down some infrastructure/proxy problem that intermittently affects only the .stg. ones. - FChE ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
sampsonfung wrote: > While trying to collect a backtrace for org.gnome.Tetravex, I got this in gdb: > [...] > Download failed: Timer expired. Continuing without debug info for > /lib64/libzstd.so.1. > Missing separate debuginfo for /lib64/libzstd.so.1 > Try: dnf --enablerepo='*debug*' install > /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/33/70d80a1bf749b3c2baaad0188c864ee9e4bbc4.debug > [...] We have had reports that from some corners of the internet (e.g. behind the "great firewall"), that maintaining a waiting HTTPS connection for 10s of seconds was fragile. Extending the $DEBUGINFOD_TIMEOUT on the other hand was sometimes reported to help. https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27531 Looking over the system logs for that particular request (3370d80a...), I'm seeing debuginfod.fedoraproject.org answer that particular buildid in about tens of milliseconds (!) a bunch of times, and one failure to transmit (usually a broken HTTP connection). If you could send me (directly) the IP address from where you requested it, and the $DEBUGINFOD_URLS you were using, I could look further in the logs. But so far I see no sign of something triggering timeouts on this side. - FChE ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: PETSc 3.15
On Mon, Apr 19, 2021 12:05:09 +0200, Antonio T. sagitter wrote: > PETSc-3.15 is built in side-tag f35-build-side-40112 > Please, rebuild your own related package. Thanks: > > python-steps-0:3.5.0-5.fc33.src Done: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66426528 -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Non-responsive maintainer: liangwen12year nando pavlix zoglesby
On Fri, 2021-04-16 at 09:32 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 9:19 AM Pierre-Yves Chibon < > pin...@pingoured.fr> wrote: > > zoglesby is maintainer of rpms/publican-fedora > > > Huh. That still exists? What a throwback! publican-fedora is not marked as retired on https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/publican-fedora ! is just orphan > > Does anyone know how to contact them? > > > I sent a tweet in zoglesby's direction. He posted about a week ago, > so > hopefully he'll see it. > > > -- > Ben Cotton > He / Him / His > Senior Program Manager, Fedora & CentOS Stream > Red Hat > TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis > ___ > 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 on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure -- Sérgio M. B. ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
OFFLIST Re: Call for testing: nginx 1.20.0 with permission changes on logs
Hi, OFFLIST as it's not directly pertinent to your specific distro pkgs. but, since you're packaging, fwiw, I take a very different approach than distro-pkgd atm, https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/pgfed/nginx-mainline/fedora-33-x86_64/02142389-nginx/nginx.spec that puts runtime service files under /run/nginx and logs under /var/log/nginx, both chown'd as wwwrun:www. personally, I find it a lot cleaner, easier to manage. my $0.02, anyway. that said, I'm very clear 'my' pkg'ing is not even close to release canonical ... i.e., just fyi. On 4/21/21 1:25 PM, Felix Kaechele via devel wrote: Dear Fedorans, Nginx 1.20.0 stable was just released and I took the opportunity to squash some long standing open bugs while updating the package. The new release is on it's way to updates-testing right now. I would like to encourage some extra testing for this release as there is one behaviour change, specific to Fedora/EPEL, that may affect some use cases: The ownership and mode of the log directory has changed to root:root and 700 respectively. Logrotate (if in use) no longer creates the logfiles when rotating and leaves this to nginx which will create them as root:root-owned. This matches the behaviour of httpd in Fedora. You may see the effects of this if you are using external tools to process these logs that do not run as root, but as the nginx user instead. The bugs relating to this are: - BZ#1390183 CVE-2016-1247 nginx: Local privilege escalation via log files [fedora-all] - BZ#1683388 Log file ownership created by logrotate inconsistent with the one created by systemd In my local testing I have not seen any changes to behaviour but I would like to make extra sure everything continues to work as expected for users as this version of the package will make it's way to EPEL 7 as well to replace the EOL version of nginx that is currently packaged there. Quite a number of other bugs that I deem to have no effect on simple upgrades have made it's way into this release of the package as well. Specifically: - BZ#1565377 Service reload should check configuration file - BZ#1708799 Drop nginx requirement on nginx-all-modules - BZ#1834452 Enable --with-compat configure option - BZ#1869026 nginx.service fails to parse /run/nginx.pid - BZ#1943779 nginx.service wants wrong network target - causes race condition on boot Here are the links to Bodhi for this update. Please test these releases and provide feedback/karma. Fedora 34: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3aa9ac7fd1 Fedora 33: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-10c1cd4cba Fedora 32: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1556d440ba Thanks a ton! Regards, Felix ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Call for testing: nginx 1.20.0 with permission changes on logs
Dear Fedorans, Nginx 1.20.0 stable was just released and I took the opportunity to squash some long standing open bugs while updating the package. The new release is on it's way to updates-testing right now. I would like to encourage some extra testing for this release as there is one behaviour change, specific to Fedora/EPEL, that may affect some use cases: The ownership and mode of the log directory has changed to root:root and 700 respectively. Logrotate (if in use) no longer creates the logfiles when rotating and leaves this to nginx which will create them as root:root-owned. This matches the behaviour of httpd in Fedora. You may see the effects of this if you are using external tools to process these logs that do not run as root, but as the nginx user instead. The bugs relating to this are: - BZ#1390183 CVE-2016-1247 nginx: Local privilege escalation via log files [fedora-all] - BZ#1683388 Log file ownership created by logrotate inconsistent with the one created by systemd In my local testing I have not seen any changes to behaviour but I would like to make extra sure everything continues to work as expected for users as this version of the package will make it's way to EPEL 7 as well to replace the EOL version of nginx that is currently packaged there. Quite a number of other bugs that I deem to have no effect on simple upgrades have made it's way into this release of the package as well. Specifically: - BZ#1565377 Service reload should check configuration file - BZ#1708799 Drop nginx requirement on nginx-all-modules - BZ#1834452 Enable --with-compat configure option - BZ#1869026 nginx.service fails to parse /run/nginx.pid - BZ#1943779 nginx.service wants wrong network target - causes race condition on boot Here are the links to Bodhi for this update. Please test these releases and provide feedback/karma. Fedora 34: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3aa9ac7fd1 Fedora 33: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-10c1cd4cba Fedora 32: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-1556d440ba Thanks a ton! Regards, Felix ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-34-20210421.n.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 3/189 (x86_64), 3/127 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-34-20210420.n.0): ID: 864104 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864104 ID: 864192 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_blivet_lvm_ext4@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864192 ID: 864260 Test: x86_64 universal install_blivet_lvmthin URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864260 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-34-20210420.n.0): ID: 864247 Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864247 ID: 864322 Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864322 ID: 864341 Test: aarch64 universal install_blivet_resize_lvm@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864341 Soft failed openQA tests: 4/189 (x86_64), 6/127 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-34-20210420.n.0): ID: 864058 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864058 ID: 864099 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_vnc_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864099 ID: 864156 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864156 ID: 864162 Test: aarch64 Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864162 ID: 864175 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864175 ID: 864200 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vnc_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864200 ID: 864215 Test: aarch64 Server-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864215 ID: 864237 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864237 ID: 864296 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864296 ID: 864351 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864351 Passed openQA tests: 181/189 (x86_64), 118/127 (aarch64) New passes (same test not passed in Fedora-34-20210420.n.0): ID: 864283 Test: x86_64 universal install_sata@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864283 Installed system changes in test x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_default_upload: System load changed from 0.24 to 0.06 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/862723#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864062#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default@uefi: 3 packages(s) added since previous compose: xhost, xmodmap, xrdb 3 packages(s) removed since previous compose: libmcpp, mcpp, xorg-x11-server-utils System load changed from 0.68 to 0.41 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/862768#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864107#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Workstation-live-iso install_default_upload: 3 packages(s) added since previous compose: xhost, xmodmap, xrdb 3 packages(s) removed since previous compose: libmcpp, mcpp, xorg-x11-server-utils System load changed from 0.59 to 0.71 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/862769#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864108#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default@uefi: 3 packages(s) added since previous compose: iceauth, xhost, xrdb 3 packages(s) removed since previous compose: libmcpp, mcpp, xorg-x11-server-utils System load changed from 0.70 to 0.87 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/862786#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864125#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 KDE-live-iso install_default_upload: 3 packages(s) added since previous compose: iceauth, xhost, xrdb 3 packages(s) removed since previous compose: libmcpp, mcpp, xorg-x11-server-utils Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/862787#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864126#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi: Mount /run contents changed to 71.03511591% of previous size Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/862805#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864144#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload: Mount /run/user/977
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:26:10AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote: > Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > Björn Persson writes: > > > > > · How is it verified that files received from debuginfo servers have not > > > been tampered with? > > > > Following up further to this, we're planning to add optional client-side > > hash-verification of cached content, to provide some protection against > > tampering: > > > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27758 > > The design you propose there won't improve anything for anyone. If the > hash is computed on the debuginfo server, then an attacker who can make > the server serve malicious debuginfo can also make it serve hashes that > match the malicious files. And as you noted yourself, an attacker who > can manipulate cached files client-side has already taken over the user > account anyway. > > Quote from Sourceware Bugzilla: > > As transport over HTTPS protects the content, we can safely assume > > that immediately during/after the download, the content will be fine. > > However, what of cached files? > > Of course – from your point of view. From my point of view, I can safely > assume that nobody has tampered with my cache. However, what of files on > the debuginfo server? > > I see that debuginfod.fedoraproject.org is currently another name for > koji.fedoraproject.org. Given that it serves debuginfo only for Fedora > packages, and does not forward requests to any other debuginfo servers, > using this server seems equivalent security-wise to downloading unsigned > packages from Koji. > > As far as I understand, packages are built and signed on separate > servers with a smaller attack surface than the web front-end to minimize > the risk that an attacker could tamper with them. To make the debuginfo > protocol as secure as signed debuginfo packages, the client should > verify the files against a hash computed and signed on the signing > server. Yes, this is the scenario which I think is worrisome. This was also raised during the FESCo meeting, and I want to clarify a bit. A hypothetical attack through -debuginfo files would require gdb (or other consumers of the debug data) to incorrectly handle corrupt debug data. Even if we don't know any such cases right now, gdb and the underlying libraries are written in C. We have a long history of buffer overflows and other exploitable memory handling errors, and we should assume that sooner or later some will be discovered in those code paths too. Currently, the -debuginfo packages are distributed as any other package, i.e. they are built and signed on dedicated machines. A modification anywhere at a later point would cause a signature mismatch. The trust level for -debuginfo data is the same as any other package. A hypothetical attacker who gained access to the package contents *before signing* would probably be better off modifying executable code in those packages, instead of a roundabout attack through debug data. OTOH, the debuginfo files distributed through the debuginfod server are not signed and there is no direct way to verify that they match the (signed) contents of the debuginfo package. Thus, the debuginfod server becomes a juicy target. There are a few things which make it particularly attractive to an attacker: the debugger is very likely to be ran directly from a developer account. The debugger is executed without any sandboxing, and possibly even with elevated privileges (when debugging system services). The debugger code was not written with security it mind, so it's more likely to be exploitable than say a web browser. As to the debuginfod code itself, it is in C++, and has SQL and threads, a http server, and also does bunch of low-level string parsing. It is also fairly new code. I don't have any particular knowledge about the code, but some exploit being found is not outside of the realm of possibility. Thus, to summarize: debuginfo files served over the web provide a new fairly big attack surface, with attacks most likely leading to a compromise of a developer or privileged account. Zbyszek > > Perhaps a hash of the debuginfo could be stored in a signed RPM package, > either the main package or a separate debughash package? > > For those who are concerned about privacy, the proposal would make that > problem worse as it would cause the "phoning home" to happen every time > they debug something. > > By the way, the change page still doesn't say enough about how network > problems will affect the user experience. Making a previously offline > activity network-dependent also makes it sensitive to network problems. > For example, if great packet loss causes TCP timeouts or long delays, > will that make GDB hang for minutes at a time, or is it handled > asynchronously? Will GDB hang once per process, once per login session, > or every time it encounters a new source filename? > > Björn Persson > ___ > devel mailing list --
[Bug 1952135] New: perl-Module-ScanDeps-1.31 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1952135 Bug ID: 1952135 Summary: perl-Module-ScanDeps-1.31 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Module-ScanDeps Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: jples...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: anon.am...@gmail.com, jose.p.oliveira@gmail.com, jples...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, st...@silug.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 1.31 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.30-3.fc34 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Module-ScanDeps/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/3112/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951972] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951972 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.2 ||0210420-1.fc35 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951972] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951972 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-7fb045a26a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7fb045a26a -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951955] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-62f7e9758e has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-62f7e9758e` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-62f7e9758e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-IoT-34-20210421.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Failed openQA tests: 2/16 (x86_64), 3/15 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210420.0): ID: 864434 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864434 ID: 864436 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_rpmostree_overlay URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864436 ID: 864445 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso base_services_start@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864445 ID: 864449 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_rpmostree_overlay@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864449 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210420.0): ID: 864440 Test: aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864440 Soft failed openQA tests: 1/16 (x86_64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-IoT-34-20210420.0): ID: 864423 Test: x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso iot_clevis URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864423 Passed openQA tests: 13/16 (x86_64), 12/15 (aarch64) Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default@uefi: 3 services(s) added since previous compose: dbus-parsec.service, redboot-auto-reboot.service, redboot-task-runner.service System load changed from 0.14 to 0.30 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863364#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864422#downloads Installed system changes in test x86_64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload: 3 services(s) added since previous compose: dbus-parsec.service, redboot-auto-reboot.service, redboot-task-runner.service Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863366#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864424#downloads Installed system changes in test aarch64 IoT-dvd_ostree-iso install_default_upload@uefi: 3 services(s) added since previous compose: dbus-parsec.service, redboot-auto-reboot.service, redboot-task-runner.service System load changed from 0.40 to 0.55 Previous test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863380#downloads Current test data: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/864438#downloads -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951972] perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951972 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|iarn...@gmail.com | Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951955] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955 --- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-62f7e9758e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-62f7e9758e -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951955] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-521060f43c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-521060f43c --- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-95f5894eaa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-95f5894eaa -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951955] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955 --- Comment #1 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2021-521060f43c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-521060f43c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951955] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED Fixed In Version||perl-Module-CoreList-5.2021 ||0420-1.fc35 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora 34 compose report: 20210421.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-34-20210420.n.0
NEW: Fedora-34-20210421.n.0
= SUMMARY =
Added images:2
Dropped images: 0
Added packages: 0
Dropped packages:1
Upgraded packages: 37
Downgraded packages: 0
Size of added packages: 0 B
Size of dropped packages:89.19 KiB
Size of upgraded packages: 322.27 MiB
Size of downgraded packages: 0 B
Size change of upgraded packages: -1.83 MiB
Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B
= ADDED IMAGES =
Image: Xfce raw-xz armhfp
Path: Spins/armhfp/images/Fedora-Xfce-34-20210421.n.0.armhfp.raw.xz
Image: Astronomy_KDE live x86_64
Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Astronomy_KDE-Live-x86_64-34-20210421.n.0.iso
= DROPPED IMAGES =
= ADDED PACKAGES =
= DROPPED PACKAGES =
Package: rgb-1.0.6-40.fc34
Summary: X color name database
RPMs:rgb
Size:89.19 KiB
= UPGRADED PACKAGES =
Package: bdftopcf-1.1-2.fc34
Old package: bdftopcf-1.1-1.fc34
Summary: Font compiler for the X server and font server
RPMs: bdftopcf
Size: 159.71 KiB
Size change: 917 B
Changelog:
* Thu Apr 08 2021 Peter Hutterer 1.1-2
- Fix the Conflicts line to properly conflict with the -50 font-utils,
without a {?dist} <= doesn't work as expected.
Package: firefox-87.0-12.fc34
Old package: firefox-87.0-7.fc34
Summary: Mozilla Firefox Web browser
RPMs: firefox firefox-testresults firefox-wayland firefox-x11
Size: 309.68 MiB
Size change: -1.85 MiB
Changelog:
* Thu Apr 01 2021 Martin Stransky - 87.0-8
- Run testsuite on Wayland on Fedora 33+
- Spec cleanup
* Thu Apr 01 2021 Martin Stransky - 87.0-9
- Added fix for mozbz#1702606 / rhbz#1936071
- Switched tests back to X11 due to massive failures.
* Sat Apr 03 2021 Martin Stransky - 87.0-10
- Wayland testing again.
* Tue Apr 06 2021 Martin Stransky - 87.0-11
- Enabled xpcshell/crashtests on Wayland.
* Mon Apr 12 2021 Martin Stransky - 87.0-12
- Added fix for mozbz#1701089 (Widevine playback issues).
Package: fonttosfnt-1.2.1-2.fc34
Old package: fonttosfnt-1.2.1-1.fc34
Summary: Tool to wrap bdf or pcf bitmap fonts in an sfnt wrapper
RPMs: fonttosfnt
Size: 143.16 KiB
Size change: 1.38 KiB
Changelog:
* Thu Apr 08 2021 Peter Hutterer 1.2.1-2
- Fix the Conflicts line to properly conflict with the -50 font-utils,
without a {?dist} <= doesn't work as expected.
Package: gnome-shell-40.0-3.fc34
Old package: gnome-shell-40.0-1.fc34
Summary: Window management and application launching for GNOME
RPMs: gnome-shell
Size: 7.99 MiB
Size change: -516 B
Changelog:
* Tue Apr 13 2021 Ray Strode - 40.0-2
- Fix timed login when user list is disabled
Resolves: #1940618
* Tue Apr 13 2021 Adam Williamson - 40.0-3
- Fix scrolling between workspaces/app grid pages with PgUp/PgDn
Package: iceauth-1.0.8-2.fc34
Old package: iceauth-1.0.8-1.fc34
Summary: Display the authorization information used in connecting with ICE
RPMs: iceauth
Size: 129.65 KiB
Size change: 991 B
Changelog:
* Thu Apr 08 2021 Peter Hutterer - 1.0.8-2
- Fix Obsoletes line to actually obsolete the -39 server-utils (#1932754)
Package: luit-1.1.1-2.fc34
Old package: luit-1.1.1-1.fc34
Summary: Locale to UTF-8 encoding filter
RPMs: luit
Size: 150.02 KiB
Size change: 545 B
Changelog:
* Thu Apr 08 2021 Peter Hutterer - 1.1.1-2
- Fix Obsoletes line to actually obsolete the -30 xorg-x11-apps (#1947245)
Package: mkfontscale-1.2.1-2.fc34
Old package: mkfontscale-1.2.1-1.fc34
Summary: Tool to generate legacy X11 font system index files
RPMs: mkfontscale
Size: 157.75 KiB
Size change: 556 B
Changelog:
* Thu Apr 08 2021 Peter Hutterer 1.2.1-2
- Fix the Conflicts line to properly conflict with the -50 font-utils,
without a {?dist} <= doesn't work as expected.
Package: oclock-1.0.4-2.fc34
Old package: oclock-1.0.4-1.fc34
Summary: A simple analog clock
RPMs: oclock
Size: 98.78 KiB
Size change: 786 B
Changelog:
* Thu Apr 08 2021 Peter Hutterer - 1.0.4-2
- Fix Obsoletes line to actually obsolete the -30 xorg-x11-apps (#1947245)
Package: sessreg-1.1.2-2.fc34
Old package: sessreg-1.1.2-1.fc34
Summary: Utility to manage utmp/wtmp entries for X sessions
RPMs: sessreg
Size: 83.47 KiB
Size change: 665 B
Changelog:
* Thu Apr 08 2021 Peter Hutterer - 1.1.2-2
- Fix Obsoletes line to actually obsolete the -39 server-utils (#1932754)
Package: x11perf-1.6.1-2.fc34
Old package: x11perf-1.6.1-1.fc34
Summary: X11 server performance test program
RPMs: x11perf
Size: 394.76 KiB
Size change: 942 B
Changelog:
* Thu Apr 08 2021 Peter Hutterer - 1.6.1-2
- Fix Obsoletes line to actually obsolete the -30 xorg-x11-apps (#1947245)
Package: xbiff-1.0.4-2.fc34
Old package: xbiff-1.0.4-1.fc34
Summary:
[EPEL-devel] Re: Intent to update nginx to 1.20.0
Hi Felix, First off, thank you for maintaining the EPEL7 nginx, especially when you no longer use it on EPEL7. To me, it looks like you have addressed everything you should in the email, and there shouldn't be anything else you need to do. That being said, I've missed things before so maybe give it a few days before you consider this a go-ahead. Do you already have a build somewhere that people can test? Troy On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 8:07 PM Felix Kaechele wrote: > Hi there, > > I think this has been discussed at committee meetings before: nginx's > procedure of immediately dropping a release series when a new one hits > the stable branches is essentially forcing us to upgrade along with it, > unless someone is willing to backport patches. > > I personally am not willing to do backports as I do not use EL7 at this > point and only continue maintaining the package as a courtesy to the > community. > > I therefor intend to make the following changes to the nginx package in > EPEL7: > - Update to 1.20.0 > - build against OpenSSL 1.1 to enable TLS1.3 support > > Do I require additional permission do move forward with this in this > manner? > There should not be any breaking changes or incompatible changes to > config syntax. But I'll admit that I do not have complex config > scenarios as testcases. > > EPEL8 is not affected as nginx doesn't have an EPEL build for EL8. It is > maintained upstream. > There are, however, modules with certain streams (1.18 and mainline, for > example) available from EPEL. > > Regards, > Felix > ___ > epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Rawhide-20210421.n.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Compose FAILS proposed Rawhide gating check! 6 of 43 required tests failed, 1 result missing openQA tests matching unsatisfied gating requirements shown with **GATING** below Failed openQA tests: 18/189 (x86_64), 12/127 (aarch64) New failures (same test not failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210420.n.0): ID: 863711 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_default **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863711 ID: 863713 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863713 ID: 863732 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863732 ID: 863735 Test: x86_64 Everything-boot-iso install_default@uefi **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863735 ID: 863744 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_browser **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863744 ID: 863746 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso desktop_notifications_postinstall URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863746 ID: 863747 Test: x86_64 Workstation-live-iso apps_startstop URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863747 ID: 863758 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_login URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863758 ID: 863759 Test: x86_64 KDE-live-iso desktop_browser **GATING** URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863759 ID: 863810 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_cockpit_default@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863810 ID: 863825 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso realmd_join_sssd@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863825 ID: 863844 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso server_realmd_join_kickstart@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863844 ID: 863866 Test: aarch64 Workstation-raw_xz-raw.xz desktop_browser@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863866 ID: 863920 Test: x86_64 universal support_server URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863920 ID: 863946 Test: x86_64 universal install_iscsi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863946 ID: 863964 Test: aarch64 universal install_arabic_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863964 Old failures (same test failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210420.n.0): ID: 863718 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863718 ID: 863781 Test: x86_64 Silverblue-dvd_ostree-iso release_identification URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863781 ID: 863836 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso modularity_tests@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863836 ID: 863878 Test: x86_64 universal install_asian_language URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863878 ID: 863927 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863927 ID: 863934 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863934 ID: 863949 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863949 ID: 863950 Test: x86_64 universal upgrade_realmd_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863950 ID: 863953 Test: aarch64 universal install_asian_language@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863953 ID: 863982 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_server_domain_controller@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863982 ID: 863983 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_minimal_64bit@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863983 ID: 863985 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_server_domain_controller@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863985 ID: 863995 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_2_realmd_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863995 ID: 863996 Test: aarch64 universal upgrade_realmd_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863996 Soft failed openQA tests: 3/189 (x86_64), 5/127 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Rawhide-20210420.n.0): ID: 863689 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863689 ID: 863730 Test: x86_64 Server-dvd-iso install_vnc_client URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863730 ID: 863787 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863787 ID: 863793 Test: aarch64 Minimal-raw_xz-raw.xz install_arm_image_deployment_upload@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863793 ID: 863806 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vncconnect_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863806 ID: 863831 Test: aarch64 Server-dvd-iso install_vnc_client@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863831 ID: 863846 Test:
Re: Inactive packagers to be removed from their packages
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 03:25:01PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Good Morning Everyone, > > When we rolled out the new AAA solution a few weeks ago, some accounts have > not > been migrated: > - Accounts that have been set inactive by their owner > - Accounts that are disabled > - Accounts marked as spam > > This resulted in some packager accounts not being migrated. > As a consequence, since then, the script that syncs the default-assignee and > CC > list for each component from dist-git to bugzilla has been notifying us about > a > list of packagers in dist-git that could not be synced to bugzilla due to a > lack > of bugzilla account (or rather, in this case, the lack of Fedora account). > Since > these accounts do not exist in the new FAS, I will be removing them from their > packages on dist-git. > > Here is the list of account impacted: > - amukunda > - brolley > - dp67 > - ianweller > - jensm > - jima > - jjmcd > - juanmabc > - kmatsui > - kurtseifried > - marcusk > - rnorwood > - sindrepb > - splinux > - vvitek > > I am planning on removing these users on April 20th. If anyone is opposed to > this, please let me know. The only feedback I've had about this email were positive (as in, it should be done). So I'm going to proceed. Thanks, Pierre signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1950383] please build perl-Archive-Extract for EPEL 8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1950383 Michal Josef Spacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora rawhide compose report: 20210421.n.0 changes
OLD: Fedora-Rawhide-20210420.n.0 NEW: Fedora-Rawhide-20210421.n.0 = SUMMARY = Added images:3 Dropped images: 3 Added packages: 5 Dropped packages:3 Upgraded packages: 84 Downgraded packages: 0 Size of added packages: 2.79 MiB Size of dropped packages:1.52 MiB Size of upgraded packages: 3.47 GiB Size of downgraded packages: 0 B Size change of upgraded packages: 112.91 MiB Size change of downgraded packages: 0 B = ADDED IMAGES = Image: Scientific_KDE live x86_64 Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Scientific_KDE-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20210421.n.0.iso Image: Scientific vagrant-libvirt x86_64 Path: Labs/x86_64/images/Fedora-Scientific-Vagrant-Rawhide-20210421.n.0.x86_64.vagrant-libvirt.box Image: Scientific vagrant-virtualbox x86_64 Path: Labs/x86_64/images/Fedora-Scientific-Vagrant-Rawhide-20210421.n.0.x86_64.vagrant-virtualbox.box = DROPPED IMAGES = Image: Games live x86_64 Path: Labs/x86_64/iso/Fedora-Games-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20210420.n.0.iso Image: Server raw-xz armhfp Path: Server/armhfp/images/Fedora-Server-Rawhide-20210420.n.0.armhfp.raw.xz Image: LXDE live x86_64 Path: Spins/x86_64/iso/Fedora-LXDE-Live-x86_64-Rawhide-20210420.n.0.iso = ADDED PACKAGES = Package: htppu-1.8-1.fc35 Summary: Hessu's Tampa Ping-Pong conversd URO modified version RPMs:htppu Size:487.98 KiB Package: intel-ipp-crypto-mb-1.0.1-1.fc35 Summary: Intel(R) IPP Cryptography multi-buffer library RPMs:intel-ipp-crypto-mb intel-ipp-crypto-mb-devel Size:287.19 KiB Package: ocaml-parmap-1.2-1.fc35 Summary: OCaml library for exploiting multicore architectures RPMs:ocaml-parmap ocaml-parmap-devel Size:1.99 MiB Package: perl-Test-Lib-0.002-1.fc35 Summary: Use libraries from a t/lib directory RPMs:perl-Test-Lib Size:10.85 KiB Package: python-x3dh-0.5.9~beta-4.fc35 Summary: Python implementation of the X3DH key agreement protocol RPMs:python3-x3dh Size:30.28 KiB = DROPPED PACKAGES = Package: python-neo4j-driver-1.6.2-11.fc34 Summary: The official Neo4j Python driver RPMs:python3-neo4j-driver Size:981.73 KiB Package: python-neotime-1.0.0-12.fc34 Summary: Nanosecond resolution temporal types RPMs:python3-neotime Size:35.96 KiB Package: xorg-x11-utils-7.5-38.fc35 Summary: X.Org X11 X client utilities RPMs:xorg-x11-utils Size:534.94 KiB = UPGRADED PACKAGES = Package: annobin-9.67-2.fc35 Old package: annobin-9.66-4.fc35 Summary: Annotate and examine compiled binary files RPMs: annobin-annocheck annobin-docs annobin-plugin-clang annobin-plugin-gcc annobin-plugin-llvm Size: 1.23 MiB Size change: 8.10 KiB Changelog: * Tue Apr 20 2021 Nick Clifton - 9.67-1 - Annocheck: Improve detection of missing GNU-stack support. * Tue Apr 20 2021 Petr Pisar - 9.67-2 - Obsolete annobin < 9.66-1 (bug #1949570) Package: atlas-3.10.3-17.fc35 Old package: atlas-3.10.3-13.fc34 Summary: Automatically Tuned Linear Algebra Software RPMs: atlas atlas-corei2 atlas-corei2-devel atlas-corei2-static atlas-devel atlas-static atlas-z14 atlas-z14-devel atlas-z14-static atlas-z15 atlas-z15-devel atlas-z15-static Size: 76.82 MiB Size change: -142.61 KiB Changelog: * Mon Feb 22 2021 Jakub Martisko - 3.10.3-14 - Fix the messed scriptlets Resolves: #1929845 * Mon Feb 22 2021 Jakub Martisko - 3.10.3-15 - Remove unused scriptlets * Tue Apr 20 2021 Jakub Martisko - 3.10.3-16 - Move the cblas.h and clapack.h to include/atlas to resolve conflict with lapack - Resolves: #1948187 * Tue Apr 20 2021 Jakub Martisko - 3.10.3-17 - Disable the custom vvrsum function introduced in the ibm patch Related: 1951565 Package: badwolf-1.1.0-1.fc35 Old package: badwolf-1.0.3-2.fc34 Summary: Web Browser which aims at security and privacy over usability RPMs: badwolf Size: 407.73 KiB Size change: 29.31 KiB Changelog: * Wed Apr 21 2021 Lyes Saadi - 1.1.0-1 - Updating to 1.1.0 Package: bottles-3.1.5-1.fc35 Old package: bottles-3.1.3-1.fc35 Summary: Easily manage Wine prefix in a new way RPMs: bottles Size: 134.03 KiB Size change: 9.77 KiB Changelog: * Thu Apr 08 2021 Artem Polishchuk - 3.1.4-1 - build(update): 3.1.4 * Tue Apr 20 2021 Artem Polishchuk - 3.1.5-1 - build(update): 3.1.5 Package: boxes-2.1.0-1.fc35 Old package: boxes-2.0.0-1.fc35 Summary: Draw any kind of box around some given text RPMs: boxes boxes-vim Size: 387.11 KiB Size change: 28.02 KiB Changelog: * Sun Apr 18 2021 Artem Polishchuk - 2.1.0-1 - build(update): 2.1.0 Package: cage-0.1.3-1.fc35 Old package: cage-0.1.2.1-4.fc35 Summary: A Wayland kiosk RPMs: cage Size: 166.71 KiB Size change: 1.26 KiB Changelog: * Tue Apr 20 2021 Lyes Saadi - 0.1.3-1 - Updating to 0.1.3 (Fix #1950582) Package: caribou-0.4.21-26.fc35 Old package: cari
[Bug 1951955] perl-Module-CoreList-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955 Jitka Plesnikova changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|jose.p.oliveira.oss@gmail.c | |om, mspa...@redhat.com, | |spo...@gmail.com, | |st...@silug.org | Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951955] New: perl-Module-CoreList-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951955 Bug ID: 1951955 Summary: perl-Module-CoreList-5.20210420 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Module-CoreList Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: jples...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: jose.p.oliveira@gmail.com, jples...@redhat.com, mspa...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, spo...@gmail.com, st...@silug.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 5.20210420 Current version/release in rawhide: 5.20210320-1.fc35 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Module-CoreList/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/3080/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Cloud-32-20210421.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-32-20210419.0): ID: 863668 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863668 ID: 863675 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863675 Passed openQA tests: 6/7 (x86_64), 6/7 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
FUNG Chi Chuen Sampson wrote: > While trying to collect a backtrace for org.gnome.Tetravex, I got this in gdb: > > === > > Downloading separate debug info for /lib64/liblzma.so.5... > Download failed: Timer expired. Continuing without debug info for > /lib64/libbrotlicommon.so.1. > Missing separate debuginfo for /lib64/libbrotlicommon.so.1 > Try: dnf --enablerepo='*debug*' install > /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/0e/bb3270fdbf40dbe56ea79d6630ac594b897ffe.debug > Download failed: Timer expired. Continuing without debug info for > /lib64/libzstd.so.1. > Missing separate debuginfo for /lib64/libzstd.so.1 > Try: dnf --enablerepo='*debug*' install > /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/33/70d80a1bf749b3c2baaad0188c864ee9e4bbc4.debug > Downloading separate debug info for /lib64/liblz4.so.1... > Download failed: Timer expired. Continuing without debug info for > /home/fcc/.var/app/org.gnome.Tetravex/cache/debuginfod_client/a2429c266188acc10181f6936915f35274bb4a38/debuginfo. > Error while reading shared library symbols for /lib64/liblz4.so.1: > could not find '.gnu_debugaltlink' file for > /home/fcc/.var/app/org.gnome.Tetravex/cache/debuginfod_client/a2429c266188acc10181f6936915f35274bb4a38/debuginfo > Downloading separate debug info for /lib64/libcap.so.2... I was wondering what the user experience would be like in such a situation. Could you estimate how long you had to wait in total? Was there a long delay before each "Timer expired" message, or only one delay? Björn Persson pgpkyJGGu6Vvi.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change: Debuginfod By Default (Self-Contained Change proposal)
Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Björn Persson writes: > > > · How is it verified that files received from debuginfo servers have not > > been tampered with? > > Following up further to this, we're planning to add optional client-side > hash-verification of cached content, to provide some protection against > tampering: > > https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27758 The design you propose there won't improve anything for anyone. If the hash is computed on the debuginfo server, then an attacker who can make the server serve malicious debuginfo can also make it serve hashes that match the malicious files. And as you noted yourself, an attacker who can manipulate cached files client-side has already taken over the user account anyway. Quote from Sourceware Bugzilla: > As transport over HTTPS protects the content, we can safely assume > that immediately during/after the download, the content will be fine. > However, what of cached files? Of course – from your point of view. From my point of view, I can safely assume that nobody has tampered with my cache. However, what of files on the debuginfo server? I see that debuginfod.fedoraproject.org is currently another name for koji.fedoraproject.org. Given that it serves debuginfo only for Fedora packages, and does not forward requests to any other debuginfo servers, using this server seems equivalent security-wise to downloading unsigned packages from Koji. As far as I understand, packages are built and signed on separate servers with a smaller attack surface than the web front-end to minimize the risk that an attacker could tamper with them. To make the debuginfo protocol as secure as signed debuginfo packages, the client should verify the files against a hash computed and signed on the signing server. Perhaps a hash of the debuginfo could be stored in a signed RPM package, either the main package or a separate debughash package? For those who are concerned about privacy, the proposal would make that problem worse as it would cause the "phoning home" to happen every time they debug something. By the way, the change page still doesn't say enough about how network problems will affect the user experience. Making a previously offline activity network-dependent also makes it sensitive to network problems. For example, if great packet loss causes TCP timeouts or long delays, will that make GDB hang for minutes at a time, or is it handled asynchronously? Will GDB hang once per process, once per login session, or every time it encounters a new source filename? Björn Persson pgpd6o8sweyXG.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951911] New: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509-1.904 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951911 Bug ID: 1951911 Summary: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509-1.904 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509 Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: wjhns...@hardakers.net Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org, wjhns...@hardakers.net, xav...@bachelot.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 1.904 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.903-1.fc35 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/Crypt-OpenSSL-X509/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/2749/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Outreachy 2021 applicant
There really isn't a reason, it is a quick and dirty code I did to have a proof of concept. Feel free to fix it. L. On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 10:52 AM KUNAL PRAKASH wrote: > Hello again Lukas Brabec, > I have one query that despite of having state store which contain all the > state. Why we are passing state as a props to component like Timeline.js, > Event.js etc. Why don't we use mapStateToProps for directly using the > particular state that component want to use. > ___ > qa-devel mailing list -- qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to qa-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/qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure > ___ qa-devel mailing list -- qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to qa-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/qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951972] New: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20210420 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951972 Bug ID: 1951972 Summary: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases-5.20210420 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: perl-CPAN-Perl-Releases Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: jples...@redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitor...@fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: iarn...@gmail.com, jples...@redhat.com, perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 5.20210420 Current version/release in rawhide: 5.20210320-1.fc35 URL: http://search.cpan.org/dist/CPAN-Perl-Releases/ Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Updates_Policy/ More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/5881/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: F35 Change proposal: RPM 4.17 (System-Wide Change proposal)
On 31. 03. 21 21:52, Ben Cotton wrote: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPM-4.17 == Summary == Update RPM to the [https://rpm.org/wiki/Releases/4.17.0 4.17] release. == Owner == * Name: [[User:pmatilai|Panu Matilainen]] * Email: [pmati...@redhat.com] == Detailed Description == RPM 4.17 contains numerous improvements over previous versions * More robust install failure handling * Many macro improvements, in particular much improved Lua integration * Strict checking for unpackaged content in builds * Libraries no longer need executable permission for dependency generation and is automatically removed for non-executable libraries * Long needed transaction APIs enhancements * Improved documentation Panu, in case this was lost in the enthusiastic discussion about the behavior of %exclude, I just wanted to say that I am very exited about all the other new stuff in this release, particularly the Lua stuff. Thanks! -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Outreachy 2021 applicant
Hello again Lukas Brabec, I have one query that despite of having state store which contain all the state. Why we are passing state as a props to component like Timeline.js, Event.js etc. Why don't we use mapStateToProps for directly using the particular state that component want to use. ___ qa-devel mailing list -- qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to qa-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/qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Poetry/Pyproject expert: how to deal with extra files
On 21. 04. 21 9:58, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 21. 04. 21 0:14, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: Hi, I'm trying to help someone package a GUI in Python that is using Pyproject. The project needs to add a desktop file, an appdata file and also a "binary" to launch the GUI. So far I have managed to drop the library files in %python3_sitelib. But how should upstream deal with the extra files needed? Is there a way provided by Poetry from the pyproject.toml? Or should upstream write a separate Makefile? In setuptools, I'd do it like this: https://github.com/jupyter/notebook/pull/6010 https://github.com/kliment/Printrun/blob/printrun-2.0.0rc8/setup.py#L55 I am no poetry expert, so I don't know how to do it via poetry. Googling poetry data_files yielded https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry/issues/890 That issue is closed but not fixed. Also, setuptools apparently deprecated data_files but I don't know when :/ https://github.com/pypa/setuptools/discussions/2648 -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-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/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Poetry/Pyproject expert: how to deal with extra files
On 21. 04. 21 0:14, Robert-André Mauchin wrote: Hi, I'm trying to help someone package a GUI in Python that is using Pyproject. The project needs to add a desktop file, an appdata file and also a "binary" to launch the GUI. So far I have managed to drop the library files in %python3_sitelib. But how should upstream deal with the extra files needed? Is there a way provided by Poetry from the pyproject.toml? Or should upstream write a separate Makefile? In setuptools, I'd do it like this: https://github.com/jupyter/notebook/pull/6010 https://github.com/kliment/Printrun/blob/printrun-2.0.0rc8/setup.py#L55 I am no poetry expert, so I don't know how to do it via poetry. Googling poetry data_files yielded https://github.com/python-poetry/poetry/issues/890 That issue is closed but not fixed. Also, setuptools apparently deprecated data_files but I don't know when :/ -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ python-devel mailing list -- python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-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/python-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[Bug 1951911] perl-Crypt-OpenSSL-X509-1.904 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951911 --- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring --- Unable to resolve the hostname for one of the package's Source URLs -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ perl-devel mailing list -- perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to perl-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/perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Fedora-Cloud-33-20210421.0 compose check report
No missing expected images. Soft failed openQA tests: 1/7 (x86_64), 1/7 (aarch64) (Tests completed, but using a workaround for a known bug) Old soft failures (same test soft failed in Fedora-Cloud-33-20210420.0): ID: 863449 Test: x86_64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863449 ID: 863456 Test: aarch64 Cloud_Base-qcow2-qcow2 cloud_autocloud@uefi URL: https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/tests/863456 Passed openQA tests: 6/7 (x86_64), 6/7 (aarch64) -- Mail generated by check-compose: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/check-compose ___ 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 on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[389-devel] 389 DS nightly 2021-04-21 - 95% PASS
https://fedorapeople.org/groups/389ds/ci/nightly/2021/04/21/report-389-ds-base-2.0.4-20210421git4559a89c0.fc33.x86_64.html ___ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to 389-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/389-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
[EPEL-devel] Intent to update nginx to 1.20.0
Hi there, I think this has been discussed at committee meetings before: nginx's procedure of immediately dropping a release series when a new one hits the stable branches is essentially forcing us to upgrade along with it, unless someone is willing to backport patches. I personally am not willing to do backports as I do not use EL7 at this point and only continue maintaining the package as a courtesy to the community. I therefor intend to make the following changes to the nginx package in EPEL7: - Update to 1.20.0 - build against OpenSSL 1.1 to enable TLS1.3 support Do I require additional permission do move forward with this in this manner? There should not be any breaking changes or incompatible changes to config syntax. But I'll admit that I do not have complex config scenarios as testcases. EPEL8 is not affected as nginx doesn't have an EPEL build for EL8. It is maintained upstream. There are, however, modules with certain streams (1.18 and mainline, for example) available from EPEL. Regards, Felix ___ epel-devel mailing list -- epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to epel-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/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
