https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System ---
blis-0.4.1-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System ---
blis-0.4.1-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System ---
blis-0.4.1-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System ---
blis-0.4.1-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System ---
blis-0.4.1-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System ---
blis-0.4.1-2.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If
problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA
--- Comment #24 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System ---
blis-0.4.1-2.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-d9e29001bf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System ---
blis-0.4.1-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-46d6335965
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
Fedora Update System changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED
--- Comment #20 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System ---
blis-0.4.1-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2018-53a17f0b37
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #19 from Gwyn Ciesla ---
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/blis
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #18 from Orion Poplawski ---
Sure - just needs someone to do the heavy lifting...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #17 from Dave Love ---
Thanks. I wonder if there's any chance of rationalizing the linear algebra
library situation...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #16 from
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #15 from Dave Love ---
I didn't get a response to the suggestion to discuss this with Debian
packagers, so here's a version without the ld.so.conf additions and with some
other changes.
Spec:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #9 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #8)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
>
> > - libblas* libraries are not hardened:
> >
> > $ checksec --file libblas.so.3
> > RELRO STACK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #14 from Dave Love ---
This is probably worth holding for a while, as someone else is packaging BLIS
for Debian, and I've asked if we can try to coordinate, and use a common
approach to the extent it's not ruled out by Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #13 from Dave Love ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #11)
> Setting ldflags in 'cc' commands does make libraries 'Full Relro'. I don't
> know if it's a real improvement in these cases.
Apologies. I'd somehow missed the
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
Orion Poplawski changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||or...@nwra.com
--- Comment #12
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #11 from Antonio Trande ---
(In reply to Dave Love from comment #10)
> (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9)
> > (In reply to Dave Love from comment #8)
> > > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
> > >
> > > > -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #10 from Dave Love ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #9)
> (In reply to Dave Love from comment #8)
> > (In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
> >
> > > - libblas* libraries are not hardened:
> > >
> > > $
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #8 from Dave Love ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #7)
> - libblas* libraries are not hardened:
>
> $ checksec --file libblas.so.3
> RELRO STACK CANARY NXPIE RPATH
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #7 from Antonio Trande ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- libblas* libraries are not hardened:
$ checksec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #6 from Dave Love ---
I eventually got back to this after being able to test the effects of the
Fedora hardening flags. They don't seem to have a significant effect on serial
dgemm, at least, so I've used the defaults. There's an
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #5 from Dave Love ---
I've got it using python3 now.
I'll see whether I can make any sense of the default flags, but it's not clear
to me if that's actually important, and it will probably take a while.
--
You are receiving
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #4 from Dave Love ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #2)
> - Fedora default flags are never used.
I think there's a fixme in the spec. It's not easy to insert them in the build
framework, and Pabst found some of them
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #3 from Dave Love ---
(In reply to Antonio Trande from comment #1)
> Is this package for both epel7 and fedora?
I've built it for all releases, though I'm only actually interested in free
avx512 BLAS support on EPEL for HPC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
--- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande ---
- Fedora default flags are never used.
- Note these warnings:
BUILDSTDERR: DEPRECATION WARNING: python2 invoked with /usr/bin/python.
BUILDSTDERR: Use /usr/bin/python3 or /usr/bin/python2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1591910
Antonio Trande changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
31 matches
Mail list logo
