Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

[Jaroslav Reznik]

On Thursday 11 February 2010 04:21:10 Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 03:15:56AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >Mat Booth wrote:
> >> If you insist on putting out major updates for released Fedoras it
> >> will never a good time to do a re-spin. Oh well.
> >
> >The updates being pushed so far are bugfix releases (4.3.3, 4.3.4, 4.3.5).
> >We're preparing 4.4.0 now, but as this isn't even in testing at the
> > moment, I'm not complaining that they aren't shipping 4.4.0. I'm
> > complaining that they're shipping 4.3.4 when 4.3.5 is current in the
> > stable updates.
> 
> Maybe you should stop complaining.  You have nothing vested in the Unity
> respins, it negatively impacts you in no way, and as Mat just said
> you're going to just ship another 100MB worth of updates soon anyway.
> 
> If you're very concerned about the Unity respins and KDE schedules, you
> could talk to the Unity team too.  If you're not really concerned about
> them, then why the hell are you complaining?

The problem that Kevin is pointing out is - we can't watch every other Fedora 
projects, schedules etc. so closely - it's not just possible as it's big 
project and lot of people. It wouldn't hurt anybody to send quick note to 
k...@lists.fedoraproject.org - "we are preparing re-spin, do you want something 
specific to be included?". That's all.

This is major problem in Fedora these days - bad communication and it's sad 
for open source project :( And one stupid "heads up" mail could solve it in 
90% of cases!

Jaroslav

> josh
> 

-- 
Jaroslav Řezník 
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 731 455 332
Red Hat, Inc.   http://cz.redhat.com/
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

[Tim Waugh]

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 12:48 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> I have now adjusted the draft -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Fedora_privilege_escalation_policy
>  - to reflect all feedback from this list and from FESco. It will be reviewed 
> again by FESco next week. Please raise any potential issues or further 
> suggestions for adjustments before then. Of course, even if the policy is 
> accepted by FESCo it will not be set in stone and changes and exceptions can 
> be added in future as appropriate, but I'd like to have it as good as 
> possible at first :) thanks all!

==>
In practice, packages which provide one or more of:

  * setuid binaries
  * PolicyKit policies
  * consolehelper configurations
  * udev rules

are likely to be affected by this policy
<==

Shouldn't

  * D-Bus services on the system bus

be listed there, to make sure that /etc/dbus-1/system.d/*.conf files are
sane?  It's just that it is quite a commonly used mechanism.

This was brought up in discussion of one of the first drafts, IIRC, so
perhaps it is intentionally omitted..?

Tim.
*/



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

[Robert 'Bob' Jensen]

- "Dan Williams"  wrote:
> 
> Oh seriously, a little communication between the Unity team and the
> KDE
> team wouldn't hurt here.  If the Unity team said "hey, we're going to
> do
> a spin on March 6th" but the KDE team wanted to slip that a few days
> to
> get some new packages in, that wouldn't end the world.
> 
> Obviously if the KDE team's testing runs too late, you can just ship
> what's already in the repos because they didn't hit the agreed-upon
> target.
> 
> But it would be curteous to at least make an effort to line up
> schedules.
> 

There is no way we can make everyone happy. People have been checking, asking 
and sometimes begging since before F11 came out for a Re-Spin. Sadly we could 
not get a spin that we were willing to release because of bugs that needed to 
be tracked down and fixed. We finally got a spin that could pass our testing, 
for the most part, so it was shipped with the note about what we did find. Once 
we are able to produce spins on a regular basis again we will communicate with 
the KDE guys as we have in the past. I have talked to Rex may times before we 
were ready to release to make sure we were not sending out a Re-Spin days 
before an update from them. Now if we could get the OO.o people, the Kernel 
guys, mozilla/firefox/thunderbird packagers, the * Team and everyone else to 
check in with us to let us know about a pending update we would be perfect.

-- Bob


|   Robert 'Bob' Jensen||   Fedora Unity Founder   |
|   b...@fedoraunity.org||  http://fedoraunity.org/ |
|   http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/   |
|http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen|
|   http://www.facebook.com/rpjensen   |

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

[yersinia]

On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Adam Jackson  wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-02-09 at 08:06 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On 8 February 2010 22:46, Kevin Kofler  wrote:
> > > As a result, you'll be causing dozens of FTBFS bugs just before the
> feature
> > > freeze. I think this is entirely the wrong time in the release cycle to
> do
> > > such a change, if it is done at all.
> >
> > I've been fixing upstream projects for weeks to build with
> > --no-as-needed. The list of projects that fail to build should be much
> > smaller now, especially for GNOME and Freedesktop stuff.
>
> Just as a reminder, this change is --no-add-needed, not --no-as-needed.
> They have infuriatingly similar names; one of the changes is also to
> change the name of --{no-,}add-needed to be more obvious.
>
> --no-as-needed is already the default behaviour, and means "libraries
> specified with -lfoo will be emitted into the link output in a DT_NEEDED
> entry, regardless of whether any symbols from libfoo are used in the
> link output object itself".  This may mean your binary or library ends
> up with more dependencies than it needs, but is generally harmless.
>
Not so harmless, IMHO, causing unecessary deps in producing RPM. IIRC
there was some discussion on this in the past. Many of these errors was
caused from using AC_CHECK_LIB autoconf macro and not AC_SEARCH_LIB in
configure.ac

>
> --no-add-needed is quite different.  Your binary a.out uses symbols from
> libfoo and libbar.  libfoo is linked against libbar.  But your link line
> only says -lfoo.  --add-needed behaviour, the old default, would
> implicitly add a "-lbar" as well.  --no-add-needed, the new default,
> will not, and therefore your link will probably fail.
>
> This is the case described in the libtool manual
http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Inter_002dlibrary-dependencies.html#Inter_002dlibrary-dependencies

Nice to know that Fedora will have the same behavior of the AIX libraries in
this area, if I understood correctly the topic under discussion.

Regards
Regards

> - ajax
>
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

[Robert 'Bob' Jensen]

- "Kevin Kofler"  wrote:
> 
> Sadly, this means this respin includes KDE 4.3.4 when 4.3.5 got pushed
> to 
> stable on February 5 (in fact I queued it for stable on February 2,
> but it 
> just missed a push and the next one was only on February 5) and 4.4.0
> is in 
> the works.
> 
> Somehow it is getting routine for the Fedora Unity respins to include
> an 
> obsolete KDE. :-(
> 

Sorry you feel this way Kevin, it hurts me a bit for you to say it is "routine" 
for this to happen, we never did get a F11 Re-Spin that was worth releasing, so 
that makes it at least 8months that the routine was broken. This Re-Spin 
passing our testing to the point that we were willing to release kind of caught 
us by surprise and other groups were not what we were concerned with at all. We 
have communicated with Rex in the past and I assume we will continue to do so 
in the future to try and prevent this when we can. 

-- Bob


|   Robert 'Bob' Jensen||   Fedora Unity Founder   |
|   b...@fedoraunity.org||  http://fedoraunity.org/ |
|   http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/   |
|http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen|
|   http://www.facebook.com/rpjensen   |

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

[Robert 'Bob' Jensen]

- "Kevin Kofler"  wrote:
> The packages available at the time it was released. ;-) I.e. not
> preparing 
> the spin 3 days before a KDE update goes out, considering that testing
> the 
> spin apparently takes 9 days. But nobody at Fedora Unity ever talks to
> us 
> about KDE update schedules. Having to download another 100 MB worth of
> 
> updates even when installing the day of the respin's release kinda
> defeats 
> the point of the respin. Yet this is happening at every single respin,
> they 
> somehow always magically manage to hit the window where a KDE update
> will go 
> out during their testing week.
> 
> (My recommendation: just install from the F12 GA KDE Live CD and get
> the 
> updates, you'll have to update all of KDE anyway, even if you use
> those 
> installer-DVD-only respins, and installing from the KDE Live CD is 
> recommended.)
> 

I would like to say that it is intentional that we miss KDE releases but it 
would be a lie. Using the "100 MB worth of updates" could apply to the GA/GOLD 
releases also, we have seen many updates on Day0 of Fedora releases. 
Does this make the conspiracy even bigger? 

-- Bob


|   Robert 'Bob' Jensen||   Fedora Unity Founder   |
|   b...@fedoraunity.org||  http://fedoraunity.org/ |
|   http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/   |
|http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen|
|   http://www.facebook.com/rpjensen   |

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

[drago01]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 11:19 PM, Tony Nelson
 wrote:
> On 10-02-10 15:48:39, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> Hi, all. So the privilege escalation policy went to FESco, who
>> suggested some minor tweaks and a final run-by the mailing lists
>> before it gets approved.
>>
>> I have now adjusted the draft -
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/
>> Draft_Fedora_privilege_escalation_policy
>> - to reflect all feedback from this list and from FESco. It will be
>> reviewed again by FESco next week. Please raise any potential issues
>> or further suggestions for adjustments before then. Of course, even
>> if the policy is accepted by FESCo it will not be set in stone and
>> changes and exceptions can be added in future as appropriate, but I'd
>> like to have it as good as possible at first :) thanks all!
>
> "Directly read or write directly to or from system memory" has an extra
> (or out of order) "directly".

How exactly is "system memory" defined? The term seems rather vague to me ...
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

[Robert 'Bob' Jensen]

- "Jaroslav Reznik"  wrote:
> 
> The problem that Kevin is pointing out is - we can't watch every other
> Fedora
> projects, schedules etc. so closely - it's not just possible as it's
> big
> project and lot of people. It wouldn't hurt anybody to send quick note
> to
> k...@lists.fedoraproject.org - "we are preparing re-spin, do you want
> something
> specific to be included?". That's all.
> 
> This is major problem in Fedora these days - bad communication and
> it's sad
> for open source project :( And one stupid "heads up" mail could solve
> it in
> 90% of cases!
> 

How many projects and which ones do you suggest we get permission from before 
we do what we do? Why shouldn't the KDE team wait 3 weeks now so that their 
update gets released about the time of our next Re-Spin? Kevin this is your 
warning we are going to try again in a month. Why should it be our 
responsibility to contact anyone? Is it our task because it has been so damn 
long since we released a Re-Spin it caught everyone off guard even us? I just 
don't understand the "poor me" attitude. Trust me when I say it was NOT 
intentional for this specific release or any other we have made to miss out on 
KDE or anyone else's updates.

-- Bob


|   Robert 'Bob' Jensen||   Fedora Unity Founder   |
|   b...@fedoraunity.org||  http://fedoraunity.org/ |
|   http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/   |
|http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen|
|   http://www.facebook.com/rpjensen   |


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

[Jaroslav Reznik]

On Thursday 11 February 2010 11:03:52 Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
> - "Kevin Kofler"  wrote:
> > Sadly, this means this respin includes KDE 4.3.4 when 4.3.5 got pushed
> > to
> > stable on February 5 (in fact I queued it for stable on February 2,
> > but it
> > just missed a push and the next one was only on February 5) and 4.4.0
> > is in
> > the works.
> >
> > Somehow it is getting routine for the Fedora Unity respins to include
> > an
> > obsolete KDE. :-(
> 
> Sorry you feel this way Kevin, it hurts me a bit for you to say it is
>  "routine" for this to happen, we never did get a F11 Re-Spin that was
>  worth releasing, so that makes it at least 8months that the routine was
>  broken. This Re-Spin passing our testing to the point that we were willing
>  to release kind of caught us by surprise and other groups were not what we
>  were concerned with at all. We have communicated with Rex in the past and
>  I assume we will continue to do so in the future to try and prevent this
>  when we can.

Thanks for your work - I think it's worth to have re-spins! And thanks for 
last sentence - it's everything we ask for ;-)

Jaroslav
 
> -- Bob
> 
> 
> 
> |   Robert 'Bob' Jensen||   Fedora Unity Founder   |
> |   b...@fedoraunity.org||  http://fedoraunity.org/ |
> |   http://bjensen.fedorapeople.org/   |
> |http://blogs.fedoraunity.org/bobjensen|
> |   http://www.facebook.com/rpjensen   |
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Jaroslav Řezník 
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 731 455 332
Red Hat, Inc.   http://cz.redhat.com/
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

[Kevin Kofler]

Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote:
> Kevin this is your warning we are going to try again in a month.

When exactly? March 2? We'll see if we can get 4.4.0 out to the stable 
updates by that time…

> Why shouldn't the KDE team wait 3 weeks now so that their update gets
> released about the time of our next Re-Spin?

… but the thing is, if we reduce our testing so we hit the respin and some 
regression slips through, we're going to end up with a broken KDE update and 
you're going to end up with a broken respin and everybody loses.

If on the other hand we wait 3 weeks to mark the update as stable when it 
already passed our testing, instead of just the respin users getting an old 
KDE, everyone is stuck with an old KDE and everybody loses again (not to 
mention the many complaints about "where's KDE 4.4?" we'd get, we're already 
getting them now, and the longer we take, the more complaints we get).

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 05:19:59PM -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
> On 10-02-10 15:48:39, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Hi, all. So the privilege escalation policy went to FESco, who
> > suggested some minor tweaks and a final run-by the mailing lists 
> > before it gets approved.
> > 
> > I have now adjusted the draft -
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/
> > Draft_Fedora_privilege_escalation_policy
> > - to reflect all feedback from this list and from FESco. It will be
> > reviewed again by FESco next week. Please raise any potential issues
> > or further suggestions for adjustments before then. Of course, even 
> > if the policy is accepted by FESCo it will not be set in stone and
> > changes and exceptions can be added in future as appropriate, but I'd
> > like to have it as good as possible at first :) thanks all!
> 
> "Directly read or write directly to or from system memory" has an extra 
> (or out of order) "directly".

It's also going to be tricky to run any programs if they can't access
the memory in the system.  Can the definition be tightened up --
eg. "kernel memory and memory-mapped devices" or "memory other than
userspace pages allocated to the current user"?

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines.  Boot with a
live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into Xen guests.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-p2v
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

giis-ext4 undelete

[lakshmi pathi]

Hi all,
Here it's 
http://www.giis.co.in/giis/,
ext4 undelete tool.giis-ext4
uses ext2fs lib and sqlite,thus provides better/best performance than
giis for ext3.

giis-ext4 has less than 1000 LOC which is almost 5 times less original
than giis and  giis-ext4 took just around 6 weekends (approx 15
days  , 2hrs / day) thanks to ext2fs library :)
Feedback/comments on giis-ext4 are most welcome.

-- 

Cheers,
Lakshmipathi.G
www.giis.co.in
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

[Adam Jackson]

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 10:34 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 20:42 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> 
> > You should add "AC_CHECK_LIB(X11, XKeysymToString)" to configure.in,
> > for example.
> 
> It's nicer to use pkg-config for libraries which provide .pc files,
> isn't it? X11 does:
> 
> /usr/lib64/pkgconfig/x11.pc

Yes.  If you do

PKG_CHECK_MODULES(FOO, x11)

then FOO_LIBS and FOO_CFLAGS will be defined to the appropriate
libraries and cflags for libX11.  The second argument can be a list:

PKG_CHECK_MODULES(FOO, x11 xext sm)

will add the right things for all of libX11, libXext, and libSM.

- ajax


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

[Till Maas]

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:48:39PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

> I have now adjusted the draft -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Fedora_privilege_escalation_policy
>  - to reflect all feedback from this list and from FESco. It will be reviewed 
> again by FESco next week. Please raise any potential issues or further 
> suggestions for adjustments before then. Of course, even if the policy is 
> accepted by FESCo it will not be set in stone and changes and exceptions can 
> be added in future as appropriate, but I'd like to have it as good as 
> possible at first :) thanks all!

I added /dev/shm to the list of directories a user may write to. I
believe there was also an item about writing to user mounted
file systems, e.g. if a usb device is mounted at /media/disk, but it
seems to be gone.

Regards
Till


pgpXHVGiVX6vK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

[Adam Jackson]

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 11:06 +0100, yersinia wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Adam Jackson  wrote:
>
> --no-add-needed is quite different.  Your binary a.out uses
> symbols from
> libfoo and libbar.  libfoo is linked against libbar.  But your
> link line
> only says -lfoo.  --add-needed behaviour, the old default,
> would
> implicitly add a "-lbar" as well.  --no-add-needed, the new
> default,
> will not, and therefore your link will probably fail.
> 
> This is the case described in the libtool manual 
> 
> http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/html_node/Inter_002dlibrary-dependencies.html#Inter_002dlibrary-dependencies
> 
> Nice to know that Fedora will have the same behavior of the AIX
> libraries in this area, if I understood correctly the topic under
> discussion.

This change does not imply AIX linker semantics.

Note that _libraries_ generally do not have a problem building in a
--no-add-needed world.  ELF does not require that all references in a
DSO be resolvable at ld time, and this linking change does not change
that.  If your library libfoo uses symbols from libbar but does not
itself link against libbar, that's still legal (although probably
impolite).

Executables, however, must be fully resolved at link time.  You can ask
for this to be true for libraries as well with the
--no-allow-shlib-undefined option to ld.  This plus --no-add-needed is
much closer to the AIX linker behaviour,

Also note that the runtime linker will still do recursive lookups.  If
you have a binary that did not link against some needed library, but one
of its dependencies did link against it, the binary will still work.

- ajax



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Bug 561568] (amavisd noisy?) sa-update.cron generating errors

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561568

Warren Togami  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution||NOTABUG

--- Comment #18 from Warren Togami  2010-02-11 10:17:16 EST 
---
sa-update will occasionally fail.  This is not a big deal.  Go complain to
upstream.  This is not a bug in our package.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

[Kevin Kofler]

Adam Jackson wrote:
> Also note that the runtime linker will still do recursive lookups.  If
> you have a binary that did not link against some needed library, but one
> of its dependencies did link against it, the binary will still work.

And this makes this ld (mis)feature particularly silly, ld now gratuitously 
errors on "undefined" symbols which would be found just fine at runtime. I 
really don't see why ld is implementing different semantics than the runtime 
ld.so.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Bug 561568] (amavisd noisy?) sa-update.cron generating errors

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=561568

Muzi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ASSIGNED
 Resolution|NOTABUG |

--- Comment #19 from Muzi  2010-02-11 10:47:18 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> sa-update will occasionally fail.  This is not a big deal.  Go complain to
> upstream.  This is not a bug in our package.

Ok, but i am sure now below error come for the reason of channel timeout.

Waiting for the process [15118] to terminate
Daemon [15118] terminated by SIGTERM

Please sure, and suggest solution for timeout issue.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

[Ulrich Drepper]

On 02/11/2010 07:17 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> If your library libfoo uses symbols from libbar but does not
> itself link against libbar, that's still legal (although probably
> impolite).

It is not really correct, it works only by accident in most cases.  If 
the library with is linked with is using symbol versioning it doesn't 
work at all.  The code will likely fail because the used symbol version 
is actually the oldest and not the most recent.

There are only very few special cases when unresolved symbols are 
wanted.  E.g., if you have an app with a plugin system and the plugins 
can use symbols from the executable or other plugins.  Rare and fragile.

-- 
➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA ❖
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Bug 563937] New: Update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.17

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.17

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563937

   Summary: Update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.17
   Product: Fedora
   Version: rawhide
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: low
 Component: perl-IPC-ShareLite
AssignedTo: st...@silug.org
ReportedBy: xav...@bachelot.org
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: st...@silug.org, fedora-perl-devel-l...@redhat.com
Classification: Fedora


Please update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.17.

The 0.13 version in Rawhide is outdated. Latest version is 0.17.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

[Bug 563935] New: Update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.10 or later

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.10 or later

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=563935

   Summary: Update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.10 or later
   Product: Fedora EPEL
   Version: el5
  Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
  Severity: medium
  Priority: low
 Component: perl-IPC-ShareLite
AssignedTo: st...@silug.org
ReportedBy: xav...@bachelot.org
 QAContact: extras...@fedoraproject.org
CC: st...@silug.org, fedora-perl-devel-l...@redhat.com
Classification: Fedora


Created an attachment (id=390283)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=390283)
Update EL-5 branch to 0.13

Please update perl-IPC-ShareLite to 0.10 or later.

We're getting segfaults on EL5 x86_64 with the current 0.09 that is shipped in
EPEL5. This is fixed with 0.10.

I'm attaching a patch to sync the EL-5 spec with Rawhide. As a side note, even
Rawhide is outdated, as the latest version is 0.17. I'll file a separate bug
for that.
As always, I'm happy to co-maintain the package for EL-5 branch or even others
branches if you wish so.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler  said:
> And this makes this ld (mis)feature particularly silly, ld now gratuitously 
> errors on "undefined" symbols which would be found just fine at runtime.

No, it errors on undefined symbols that may or may not be found at
runtime.  Why do you want binaries that may or may not work, depending
on the configuration of shared libraries from other projects?

For example, let's say you have a program foo that uses routines from
libm but doesn't link with -lm.  Program foo does link with an image
processing library libbar that uses libm internally.  Now libbar
releases an update that drops the dependency on libm (maybe somebody
found a more efficient way to do the processing with integer math).
Since libbar still exports the same ABI (-lm vs. integer math is an
internal change), they don't change the so version.

The libbar update goes into Fedora, and suddenly program foo breaks
(when it hits certain code paths), for no obvious reason (maybe program
foo hasn't been updated in months).

You could even end up with an update respin where the necessary shared
library isn't even installed because neither foo nor libbar depend on it
(not the case for libm, but could be for other dependencies).

I like deterministic linking, not linking that says "well, maybe it'll
work, we'll let the user tell us if it breaks later".
-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: rawhide report: 20100211 changes

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 17:03:14 +,
  Rawhide Report  wrote:
> Compose started at Thu Feb 11 08:15:15 UTC 2010
> 
> Broken deps for i386
> --
>   glest-3.2.2-2.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28

I got a working build of glest last night, but too late to make today's
rawhide. It should be off this list tomorrow.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Filtering non-versioned provides/requires

[Stepan Kasal]

Hello Chris,

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 09:32:11AM -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
> Or, appropriately enough, a Perl one-liner :)
> 
> perl -e 'while (<>) { chomp; s/\s+$//; split / >= /; $v{$_[0]} =
> $v{$_[0]} > $_[1] ? $v{$_[0]} : $_[1] } do { print $v{$_} ? "$_ >=
> $v{$_}\n" : "$_\n" } for sort keys %v'
> 
> (caveat: first shot, only one cup of coffee.  Possibly undercaffinated)

I think the problem with the above is that is relies on ">="; there
can be different relations.  Actually, the problem that triggered
this idea was redundant provides, with relation "=".

I invented an awk one-liner:

awk 'prev != "" && $1 != prev {print prev}
{sub(/[[:blank:]]+$/,"");prev=$0} END{print prev}'

But I have run off energy right now, so I have not tested deploying
it to the perl_default_filter.

I believe that keeping sed & awk in the filtering macros is good for
future inclusion into rpm or redhat-rpm-config, because it might be a
good idea to have the minimal build root without perl, so that mock
runs faster.

Have a nice day,
Stepan
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

Re: Notice: dnssec-conf updates in Fedora 11 and 12

[Paul W. Frields]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Feb 09, 2010 at 05:29:27PM -0500, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> == Remediation ==
> 
> A new update is being prepared to address this problem for Fedora 11
> and 12 users, and will be pushed to our mirrors as soon as possible.
> Users who are not running BIND nameservers (named) on their Fedora 11
> and 12 can safely disregard this notice.  When the new updates are
> pushed, a follow-up announcement will be made here.  At that time,
> affected system owners can safely accept the replacement updates.

Packages are now available in the updates-testing repository, and most
mirrors should include them at this point.  Community testing for
these packages would be appreciated.  To install them:

  su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update dnssec-conf'

To report findings:

  Fedora 11: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2010-1696
  Fedora 12: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2010-1748

- -- 
Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLdCzArNvJN70RNxcRAiFeAJ9mmfLcFDhM88cCR3Dxhc0krS8luACg0t58
GVWFdZpHU3ekakLbHktXXwE=
=r4Bk
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
devel-announce mailing list
devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 13:32 +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 05:19:59PM -0500, Tony Nelson wrote:
> > On 10-02-10 15:48:39, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Hi, all. So the privilege escalation policy went to FESco, who
> > > suggested some minor tweaks and a final run-by the mailing lists 
> > > before it gets approved.
> > > 
> > > I have now adjusted the draft -
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/
> > > Draft_Fedora_privilege_escalation_policy
> > > - to reflect all feedback from this list and from FESco. It will be
> > > reviewed again by FESco next week. Please raise any potential issues
> > > or further suggestions for adjustments before then. Of course, even 
> > > if the policy is accepted by FESCo it will not be set in stone and
> > > changes and exceptions can be added in future as appropriate, but I'd
> > > like to have it as good as possible at first :) thanks all!
> > 
> > "Directly read or write directly to or from system memory" has an extra 
> > (or out of order) "directly".
> 
> It's also going to be tricky to run any programs if they can't access
> the memory in the system.  Can the definition be tightened up --
> eg. "kernel memory and memory-mapped devices" or "memory other than
> userspace pages allocated to the current user"?

Please read the preamble. It specifically (almost painfully) explains
the meaning of the word 'directly' and the key phrase 'cause to be
excepted provision waived'. When the user runs a program which accesses
memory, that's fine - that's 'cause to be performed'. What the provision
is attempting to disallow is the user directly examining or modifying
the contents of memory. I can make it less restrictive if this is still
desired, though. (It's something of a distinction without a difference
at present, because a user could of course write a program which runs
from their own space which then...accesses memory to which the user is
permitted access).
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 16:16 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 12:48:39PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> 
> > I have now adjusted the draft -
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_Fedora_privilege_escalation_policy
> >  - to reflect all feedback from this list and from FESco. It will be 
> > reviewed again by FESco next week. Please raise any potential issues or 
> > further suggestions for adjustments before then. Of course, even if the 
> > policy is accepted by FESCo it will not be set in stone and changes and 
> > exceptions can be added in future as appropriate, but I'd like to have it 
> > as good as possible at first :) thanks all!
> 
> I added /dev/shm to the list of directories a user may write to. I
> believe there was also an item about writing to user mounted
> file systems, e.g. if a usb device is mounted at /media/disk, but it
> seems to be gone.

Added.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Final (hopefully) privilege escalation policy draft

[Adam Williamson]

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 09:48 +, Tim Waugh wrote:

> Shouldn't
> 
>   * D-Bus services on the system bus
> 
> be listed there, to make sure that /etc/dbus-1/system.d/*.conf files are
> sane?  It's just that it is quite a commonly used mechanism.
> 
> This was brought up in discussion of one of the first drafts, IIRC, so
> perhaps it is intentionally omitted..?

No, it probably just got lost in the shuffle. Added. Thanks.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

[Roland McGrath]

> Note that _libraries_ generally do not have a problem building in a
> --no-add-needed world.  ELF does not require that all references in a
> DSO be resolvable at ld time, and this linking change does not change
> that.  If your library libfoo uses symbols from libbar but does not
> itself link against libbar, that's still legal (although probably
> impolite).

It is ill-advised.  It's recommended to use -shared -Wl,-z,defs so that you
will get a link-time failure for being sloppy in this way.  (You can't do
this if the DSO intentionally has free undefined symbols as part of its
ABI, but that is not a style we would recommend for any new libraries.)
The reason this really matters is that you want to get symbol version
bindings for the references from your DSO to another DSO.  It's also the
most reliable way (the implicit way) to make sure you have rpm dependencies
for the libraries you require.


Thanks,
Roland
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Filtering non-versioned provides/requires

[Chris Weyl]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Stepan Kasal  wrote:
> Hello Chris,
>
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 09:32:11AM -0800, Chris Weyl wrote:
>> Or, appropriately enough, a Perl one-liner :)
>>
>> perl -e 'while (<>) { chomp; s/\s+$//; split / >= /; $v{$_[0]} =
>> $v{$_[0]} > $_[1] ? $v{$_[0]} : $_[1] } do { print $v{$_} ? "$_ >=
>> $v{$_}\n" : "$_\n" } for sort keys %v'
>>
>> (caveat: first shot, only one cup of coffee.  Possibly undercaffinated)
>
> I think the problem with the above is that is relies on ">="; there
> can be different relations.  Actually, the problem that triggered
> this idea was redundant provides, with relation "=".
>
> I invented an awk one-liner:
>
> awk 'prev != "" && $1 != prev {print prev}
> {sub(/[[:blank:]]+$/,"");prev=$0} END{print prev}'
>
> But I have run off energy right now, so I have not tested deploying
> it to the perl_default_filter.

Yeah.  The one-liner I had was aimed at the requires stream, not the provides.

> I believe that keeping sed & awk in the filtering macros is good for
> future inclusion into rpm or redhat-rpm-config, because it might be a
> good idea to have the minimal build root without perl, so that mock
> runs faster.

I don't think we'll ever actually see that -- rpm itself requires
perl, and the "minimal system spec" (whose actual name I'm blanking on
at the moment) requires that perl be available on a system.  Not that
I'm saying anything like we _have_ to use perl for it, just that
whatever works the best with the least amount of pain :)

 -Chris
-- 
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

perl core/minimal swizzle?

[Chris Weyl]

Hey Stepan --

The other thread had me wondering where we are in doing the perl
minimal/core change that was discussed earlier on the list...  Are we
still on target for F-13?

 -Chris
-- 
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

Re: perl core/minimal swizzle?

[Stepan Kasal]

Hello Chris,

> The other thread had me wondering where we are in doing the perl
> minimal/core change that was discussed earlier on the list...  Are we
> still on target for F-13?

I'm very sorry, but I'm afraid we are going to miss this.  :-(

Stepan
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

[Test-Announce] F-13 Alpha Blocker Meeting 2010-02-12 @ 16:00 UTC (11 AM EST)

[Adam Williamson]

When: Friday, 2010-02-12 @ 16:00 UTC (11 AM EST)
Where: #fedora-bugzappers on irc.freenode.net

It's that time again: blocker bug review meeting time! Tomorrow is the
second blocker bug review meeting for Fedora 13 Alpha.

Please note the adjustments to the time written in this announcement.
The last meeting announcement was completely nonsensical, as I copied it
from a period when we were on daylight savings time - d'oh. We claimed
last week's meeting was at '1500 UTC (11 AM EDT)'. It actually took
place at 1600 UTC, 11 AM EST, and that's when this meeting will take
place too. Only now the announcement actually says that. :) We're not
really doing it at 1500 UTC because that's 7am over here and I'm damned
if I'm waking up that early twice a week.

Here are the current bugs listed as blocking the Alpha release. We'll be
discussing all of these:

26  NEW doxygen #if !defined(X) broken in doxygen 1.6.2
563212  NEW xorg-x11-drv-intel 
xorg-x11-drv-intel-2.10.0-3.fc13.x86_64 kills display: only black screen, no 
server interactions
557386  NEW kernel changes in do_coredump breaks ABRT
562209  NEW c-ares Booting boot.iso, installer unable to read 
network package metadata
563348  NEW rsyslog rsyslog-4.4.2-4.fc13 fails to start
560477  ASSIGNEDanaconda RescueInterface instance has no attribute 
'resetInitializeDiskQuestion'

Have an issue you'd like to propose as an F13 release blocker?  Please
consider the following criteria when escalating an issue:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_13_Alpha_Release_Criteria

The aim for the Release Criteria for F13 is for our criteria to match up
with our 'gut feelings', so if you see an issue that you think should be
a blocker but doesn't meet the criteria, please add it as a blocker and
mention at the meeting that the criteria don't cover it. Thanks!

To promote a bug for consideration as a blocker, simply mark it as
blocking the bug 'F13Alpha'. You can also already mark bugs as blocking
the Beta or Final release, if appropriate, by using 'F13Beta' and
'F13Blocker' respectively.

Hope to see everyone at the meeting tomorrow!

For the record, the command used to generate the list of bugs is:

bugzilla query --blocked=538273 
--bug_status=NEW,ASSIGNED,NEEDINFO,ON_DEV,MODIFIED,POST,ON_QA,FAILS_QA,PASSES_QA,REOPENED,VERIFIED,RELEASE_PENDING
 --outputformat="%{bug_id} %{bug_status} %{component} %{summary}"
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: LD Changes To Implicit DSO Linking Update

[Adam Jackson]

On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 11:58 -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > Note that _libraries_ generally do not have a problem building in a
> > --no-add-needed world.  ELF does not require that all references in a
> > DSO be resolvable at ld time, and this linking change does not change
> > that.  If your library libfoo uses symbols from libbar but does not
> > itself link against libbar, that's still legal (although probably
> > impolite).
> 
> It is ill-advised.  It's recommended to use -shared -Wl,-z,defs so that you
> will get a link-time failure for being sloppy in this way.  (You can't do
> this if the DSO intentionally has free undefined symbols as part of its
> ABI, but that is not a style we would recommend for any new libraries.)
> The reason this really matters is that you want to get symbol version
> bindings for the references from your DSO to another DSO.  It's also the
> most reliable way (the implicit way) to make sure you have rpm dependencies
> for the libraries you require.

I meant "legal" in the sense of "it'll work", not "you should do it",
but yes.

I would care a lot more about the symbol versioning thing if symbol
versions were something you could do without asm statements or linker
scripts.  Something like __attribute__((version_id)) would be perfect;
shame it only works on HPUX on ia64.

- ajax


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: berlios.de compromised since 2005

[Till Maas]

On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:23:15PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:

> till:fatsort:http://fatsort.berlios.de/

Upstream compared the contents of the current tarball with a old working
copy. Since there is only one developer, it's probably safe to assume,
that the code is clean.

Regards
Till


pgp2X6CpGxdu6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Fedora 12 re-spins Released

[Thomas Janssen]

2010/2/11 Robert 'Bob' Jensen :
>
> - "Dan Williams"  wrote:
>>
>> Oh seriously, a little communication between the Unity team and the
>> KDE
>> team wouldn't hurt here.  If the Unity team said "hey, we're going to
>> do
>> a spin on March 6th" but the KDE team wanted to slip that a few days
>> to
>> get some new packages in, that wouldn't end the world.
>>
>> Obviously if the KDE team's testing runs too late, you can just ship
>> what's already in the repos because they didn't hit the agreed-upon
>> target.
>>
>> But it would be curteous to at least make an effort to line up
>> schedules.
>>
>
> Now if we could get the OO.o people, the Kernel guys, 
> mozilla/firefox/thunderbird packagers, the * Team and everyone else to check 
> in with us to let us know about a pending update we would be perfect.

And maybe never get a Re-Spin out the door.

To relax the situation a bit, i could offer my help (as a KDE SIG
member) for the next Re-Spins. So i can inform the SIG about the next
Re-Spin and Unity about a possible slip if needed.

-- 
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: ABRT frustrating for users and developers

[Till Maas]

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:58:21PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> 
> > I doubt this very much. Many people don't report the bugs when the app
> > crashes but later, many reports in a row. Most of my reports read "I
> > have no idea what I was doing when foo crashed", even if they
> > submitted
> > it straight after the crash. Only 2 out of ~40 contained the
> > information
> > I needed to reproduce the crash reliably (as a site note: both are
> > fixed, so the number of crashes fixed it 4 but not 3 as I wrote in my
> > initial mail. 4/40 is still a bad percentage)
> 
> 'Bad' in what way? it's probably 4 - almost certainly 2 or 3 - more than
> you would have fixed if abrt didn't exist.

This is not a fair calculation or statement. Also without abrt bugs
about crashes have been reported.

Regards
Till


pgpGgjs6PJpXC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: ABRT frustrating for users and developers

[Christoph Wickert]

Am Montag, den 18.01.2010, 21:58 -0800 schrieb Adam Williamson:
> On Sun, 2010-01-17 at 15:12 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> 
> > I doubt this very much. Many people don't report the bugs when the app
> > crashes but later, many reports in a row. Most of my reports read "I
> > have no idea what I was doing when foo crashed", even if they
> > submitted
> > it straight after the crash. Only 2 out of ~40 contained the
> > information
> > I needed to reproduce the crash reliably (as a site note: both are
> > fixed, so the number of crashes fixed it 4 but not 3 as I wrote in my
> > initial mail. 4/40 is still a bad percentage)
> 
> 'Bad' in what way? it's probably 4 - almost certainly 2 or 3 - more than
> you would have fixed if abrt didn't exist.

4 is an absolute number while I was talking about a percentage. 10% of
useful bug reports means I spent a lot of time on the other 90%. If I
just got the 4 bug reports from active testers who are willing to
provide all the necessary information, I would have been able to fix the
bugs too, but without wasting time.

But it's getting better. ABRT is getting better and I was just able to
(hopefully) close another two bugs. :)

> I used to work in a supermarket, and noticed that it'd be much easier to
> run a supermarket smoothly if there were no customers. They do insist on
> coming in and messing up the shelves and dirtying up the floors and
> asking stupid questions.
> 
> In much the same way, it'd be ever so much easier to run a distribution
> really *efficiently* if no-one ever used it...:)

In that analogy, most of the customers return something that they bought
before in your supermarket. I guess you don't have a problem giving them
their money back, but you expect them to at least tell you what's wrong
with your goods instead of just throwing them at you. ;)

Regards,
Christoph

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

[Eric Smith]

The unifdef package had become orphaned due to an FTBFS, 
.  I took it over, 
updated it to the latest upstream code, verified that it builds with 
Koji, and committed it.  I'm not sure what to do about the Status field 
of the bug.  I looked for relevant documentation on the bug lifecycle or 
practices in the Fedora wiki, but didn't really find anything useful.  
Is there such documentation?  And if not, to what should I set the bug 
status?

Thanks!
Eric

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 05:36:23PM -0800, Eric Smith wrote:
> The unifdef package had become orphaned due to an FTBFS, 
> .  I took it over, 
> updated it to the latest upstream code, verified that it builds with 
> Koji, and committed it.  I'm not sure what to do about the Status field 
> of the bug.  I looked for relevant documentation on the bug lifecycle or 
> practices in the Fedora wiki, but didn't really find anything useful.  
> Is there such documentation?  And if not, to what should I set the bug 
> status?
> 
Looks like you've linked to the wrong bug.

From the description, it now builds from source, at least in rawhide.
I think you want to Close Rawhide in that case.

-Toshio


pgpS5MHtwRQQC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: ABRT unusable again

[Nils Philippsen]

On Wed, 2010-02-10 at 15:48 +0100, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-02-06 at 10:53 +, Leigh Scott wrote:
> > IMO ABRT isn't that useful as a lot of the reports don't include steps
> > to reproduce (I just close the bugs after a month if they don't respond
> > to the "needinfo" request).
> 
> You can do it even sooner. If backtrace is unusable and there is no
> description whatsoever, then *this* user is not likely to bother
> to do anything to help you.
> 
> > I believe ABRT shouldn't file a bug report unless it is filled in
> > properly.
> 
> Sadly, this is impossible to achieve. Sure, we can
> 
> if (description == "") yell("Fill the description dammit!");
> 
> but then user might well enter description consisting of
> "I dont care" (or worse).

You're contradicting yourself here. First you say we should close bugs
without a description even sooner (like, immediately?), then you don't
want abrt to not file a report without a description. I don't see why we
should manually do the work abrt fails to do automatically -- while it
is automatable.

What strikes me as very puzzling is why abrt has this humongous dialog
instead of leading the user step-by-step through this... I know you just
changed the UI in a stable release. But doing it twice is twice fun ;-),
so why not use a wizard (taking the user by the hand, doing it step by
step...) and do it like this:

1. Check if the bug has been reported yet (via that abrt BZ id thingy).
If yes, ask user to review the description (in their browser?) and
eventually add any additional details (see below in step 3a. for hints
abrt could provide for that), then stop here. Otherwise continue.

2. Check that all debuginfos can be installed etc, then continue. If
not, tell the user that "important debugging data" can't be assembled
right now and a) if they would like to postpone the bug report, if you
assume that it's a temporary problem or b) "there's an update for
package(s) ... which are used by your application, would you like to
install them?", as this seems to be the most common case of debuginfos
not being available.

3a. Display wizard window. Ask users (politely!) for a description of
what they did before the crash happened:

"Please describe what you did before the application crashed. Provide as
much detail as you can, this is important for the person getting the bug
report to help you. If this is too much work for you right now, you can
make some notes about details that are hard to remember in this field,
click on "Postpone report" below

_Hints for filling out this form_

...

[Cancel report] [Postpone report] [Back] [Forward]"

The buttons would be visible on any page in the wizard, [Back] would be
insensitive here because it's the first step. "_Hints for filling out
this form_" would be a link which would open a help page going into much
more detail, e.g.:

"... If you didn't use the app for a long while, state that, but try to
remember what you did when you last used it. Please also describe what
else you did immediately before the crash. ..."

Also provide examples of good and bad descriptions in this.

3b. While the user fills out the description, abrt loads debuginfo
packages in the background. If the user is ready before all are
downloaded, display the usual progress bar.

4. Next wizard page. Display backtrace, ask for review and removal of
sensitive data like passwords. "You don't need to understand most of
this, but if you see data )like passwords) you would not like to be put
into the bug report (which may be seen by anybody), please replace it
with a placeholder (like '')." 

5. Last wizard page. Get confirmation for filing the bug report. "You
can review what will be submitted by using the Back and Forward buttons
at the bottom of this dialog." Fields for Bugzilla username and
password, pre-filled if we have that information already. "[ ] Remember
this information" checkbox.

If the user postponed this, they must have a means of continuing this,
so the applet may not be hidden in this case. While I'm at it, the
applet shouldn't flash forever, this breaks energy-saving measures (if
the user ignored it for a minute, they'll ignore it for an hour -- maybe
wake up it screensaver gets active, then inactive/unlocked).

In my opinion this would be much less intimidating to users and give us
bug reports where we can actually help instead of having to tell most of
them "sorry, too few info, can't help" right away.

Those who don't care enough to fill out the description probably won't
care enough to create a BZ account in the first place. If there are
trolls who would put nonsense into the description or worse, well those
could do that via web-based BZ as well. And they can be dealt with.

Nils
-- 
Nils Philippsen  "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase 
Red Hat   a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty
n...@redhat.com   nor Safety."  --  Benjamin Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint:  C4A8 9474 5C4C AD

No lzma sdk in fedora?

[Chen Lei]

Hi all,
I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora doesn't 
have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html). 
Since  I realized no linux distribution containing lzma sdk yet, is using a 
bundled library permitted under this condition,?
 
 
 
Regards,
Chen Lei-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

[Matt Domsch]

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 05:36:23PM -0800, Eric Smith wrote:
> The unifdef package had become orphaned due to an FTBFS, 
> .  I took it over, 
> updated it to the latest upstream code, verified that it builds with 
> Koji, and committed it.  I'm not sure what to do about the Status field 
> of the bug.  I looked for relevant documentation on the bug lifecycle or 
> practices in the Fedora wiki, but didn't really find anything useful.  
> Is there such documentation?  And if not, to what should I set the bug 
> status?

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FTBFS

has the process.  CLOSED RAWHIDE generally.

However, check if unifdef is really needed.  The kernel team knew it
was going to be orphaned, and said "that's OK, as the kernel tree has
its own copy that's maintained there." or somesuch.  If not, letting
it stay dead is fine - desireable in fact.

-- 
Matt Domsch
Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 02/12/2010 04:39 AM, Chen Lei wrote:
> Hi all,
> I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora doesn't 
> have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html).
> Since  I realized no linux distribution containing lzma sdk yet, is using a 
> bundled library permitted under this condition,?

This seems like a classical case of a missing library to me

=> Generally speaking, you should submit the missing library for 
inclusion into the distro first.

Whether adding this "lzma-sdk" to Fedora makes real sense in Fedora is a 
different question, because there already is a lzma library in Fedora 
(packages lzma and lzma-devel).

Ralf
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora?

[John Reiser]

> I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora
> doesn't have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html).

Fedora 12 has package lzma-libs which is generated by 
lzma-4.32.7-3.fc12.src.rpm.
Perhaps you should confer with the maintainer of the Fedora lzma package
if you desire a later lzma version (such as 4.65, 9.07 beta, or 9.10 beta.)

- 
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/lzma/devel/lzma.spec?revision=1.9&view=markup
Source0: http://tukaani.org/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.lzma
-

-- 
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

[Eric Smith]

Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> Looks like you've linked to the wrong bug.
>   
Sorry, it was a typo.  The correct bug is 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=511553
> From the description, it now builds from source, at least in rawhide.
> I think you want to Close Rawhide in that case.
>   
Great, thanks!

Eric

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: No lzma sdk in fedora?

[Bruno Wolff III]

On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:39:02 +0800,
  Chen Lei  wrote:
> Hi all,
> I want to package a sofware using a bundled lzma sdk which fedora doesn't 
> have(http://7-zip.org/sdk.html). 
> Since  I realized no linux distribution containing lzma sdk yet, is using a 
> bundled library permitted under this condition,?

We have an out of date version that isn't getting updated upstream and
we have a replacement library that uses a different API but which can
probably do what you want with some wrappers.

I have an interest in this as well as the development version of squashfs
tools uses the latest SDK and won't directly work with either current
library.

Bundling it wouldn't be permitted.

Personally I'd like to see it replace the old lzma stuff, since xz provides
compatible utility programs and I don't think anything else is likely to
be using that library. Having three libraries doing almost the same thing
seems excessive.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: documentation on Bugzilla bug lifecycle/developer procedures?

[Eric Smith]

Matt Domsch wrote:
> However, check if unifdef is really needed.  The kernel team knew it
> was going to be orphaned, and said "that's OK, as the kernel tree has
> its own copy that's maintained there." or somesuch.  If not, letting
> it stay dead is fine - desireable in fact.
>   
What is the criteria for whether a Fedora package is "really needed" and 
for which staying dead is "desirable"?  I picked it up because I use it 
myself; I had no idea that it had anything whatsoever to do with the 
"kernel team", and I don't have any use for a "copy that's maintained 
there".

Thanks,
Eric

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel