On 12/28/21 16:45, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 4:35 AM Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
Il 28/12/21 04:28, Kevin Kofler via devel ha scritto:
But even off by default, I do not see how the "feature" implemented by this
Change provides any value at all that does not contradict
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 4:35 AM Mattia Verga via devel
wrote:
>
> Il 28/12/21 04:28, Kevin Kofler via devel ha scritto:
> > Matthew Miller wrote:
> >> 1. There is a mechanism for users to add their own digest lists, if they
> >> want. The change proposal could be a little more clear on how thi
* Kevin Fenzi:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 09:54:39AM +0900, Mamoru TASAKA wrote:
>> Hello:
>>
>> Looks like glibc-2.34.9000-33.fc36 was tagged into f36 buildroot on
>> 2021-12-18,
>> but very recently untagged from f36 buildroot.
>> Many binary rpms rebuilt recently have "Requires: glibc >= 2.34.
On Tue, 2021-12-28 at 20:03 +0100, Frantisek Zatloukal wrote:
> So, it seems it didn't come to my mind that builders might not have new
> enough rpm to use rpm.open() which is available since rpm 4.17.0.
>
> A fix for it (
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/authselect/pull-request/15# ) has been
So, it seems it didn't come to my mind that builders might not have new
enough rpm to use rpm.open() which is available since rpm 4.17.0.
A fix for it (
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/authselect/pull-request/15# ) has been
merged, old authselect untagged, the new build of authselect should
hop
Dne 27. 12. 21 v 11:33 Björn Persson napsal(a):
$ license-validate-v'GPL or (MIT and BSD)'
No terminal defined for 'G' at line 1 col 1
Approximately nobody will understand "No terminal defined for 'G'". Can
the error message be improved?
I know. I wish to improve it too. This is my first
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 5:58 PM Ian McInerney via devel <
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> That is a different error during the transaction. The original warning I
> mentioned is in dbus-broker, and is only a warning (the RPM transaction
> continues with no error). The other two you have ar
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 10:56 AM Ian McInerney wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:47 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 9:29 AM Ian McInerney via devel
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:19 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 3:36 PM Kevin
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:47 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 9:29 AM Ian McInerney via devel
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:19 PM Justin Forbes
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 3:36 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 05:34:52AM -
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 9:29 AM Ian McInerney via devel
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:19 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 3:36 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> >
>> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 05:34:52AM -, Reon Beon via devel wrote:
>> > > What exactly is wrong?
>> > >
>>
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 14:51:35 +0100,
Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
Can we trust the security code submitted by a Huawei employee to not contain
hidden government-developed backdoors? (Basically the same question as for
the existing NSA SELinux code…)
I think that same question could be as
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:19 PM Justin Forbes wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 3:36 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 05:34:52AM -, Reon Beon via devel wrote:
> > > What exactly is wrong?
> > >
> > > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?state=3&order=-build_id
> >
>
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 14:45:59 +0100,
Kevin Kofler via devel wrote:
But there is the inherent assumption there that the set of software released
by Fedora is identical to the set of software the user trusts. In practice,
those sets will, sure, be overlapping (non-disjoint), but still distinc
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 3:36 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 05:34:52AM -, Reon Beon via devel wrote:
> > What exactly is wrong?
> >
> > https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/builds?state=3&order=-build_id
>
> Well, thats the list of all failed builds in koji. There's various
>
> From: Neal Gompa [mailto:ngomp...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2021 3:57 PM
[...]
> In general, Fedora does not include non-upstream functionality in its
> Linux kernel builds. This can be frustrating for development and cases
> where upstream requires downstream validation before u
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 9:50 AM Roberto Sassu via devel
wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> thanks for the comments. I try to answer in one email.
>
> First, a clarification. Given that this feature is proposed
> for an open source distribution, its primary goal is to
> aid the users to satisfy their secur
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 9:44 AM Michael Catanzaro wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 27 2021 at 11:04:01 PM -0800, Adam Williamson
> wrote:
> > For me this seems like kind of a non-starter unless these are merged
> > upstream. I do not think it makes sense for Fedora to carry these
> > patches downstream l
Hi everyone
thanks for the comments. I try to answer in one email.
First, a clarification. Given that this feature is proposed
for an open source distribution, its primary goal is to
aid the users to satisfy their security needs, and let them
decide how this will be done. It is not going to impos
On Tue, Dec 28 2021 at 02:51:35 PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel
wrote:
Can we trust the security code submitted by a Huawei employee to not
contain
hidden government-developed backdoors? (Basically the same question
as for
the existing NSA SELinux code…)
I'm going to suggest we evaluate the
JT wrote on 2021/12/28 23:22:
I didn't find the BT that helpful... Although it's possible I've completely
forgotten everything I previously knew about gdb and I need to relearn
everything from the ground up.
I'm perplexed by the BT because the first of the steps it shows on the way
to the segfaul
On Mon, Dec 27 2021 at 11:04:01 PM -0800, Adam Williamson
wrote:
For me this seems like kind of a non-starter unless these are merged
upstream. I do not think it makes sense for Fedora to carry these
patches downstream long-term. If this is a good implementation of a
good feature, it should be
I didn't find the BT that helpful... Although it's possible I've completely
forgotten everything I previously knew about gdb and I need to relearn
everything from the ground up.
I'm perplexed by the BT because the first of the steps it shows on the way
to the segfault is for main.cpp:79.
> (gdb) b
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 8:37 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 28/12/2021 13:17, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > It is. There are plenty of packages that compile for tests. I have
> > one, for example (libeconf).
>
> I think all compilation should be done in %build.
>
It is not always reasonably po
Ben Cotton wrote:
> ** Maintain the following patch sets for the Linux kernel, and
> possibly have them accepted in the upstream kernel:
> ***
> [//lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/20210409114313.4073-1-
roberto.sa...@huawei.com/
> IMA execution policies] ***
> [//lore.kernel.org/linux-integrity/202
Is the backtrace not helpful in figuring out where to set up
breakpoints? As in, “gdb foo”, then “run”, wait for the crash, and type
“bt”?
The darktable development documentation suggests[1] the following to log
useful backtraces:
|$ gdb darktable ... crash dt here ... (gdb) set paginatio
Mattia Verga via devel wrote:
> I do not see how this change goes against the definition of Free
> Software. It doesn't deny a user to install any software they want, it
> is about preventing unwanted/unsolicited/malevolent software from being
> installed without user (admin) approval.
But there i
On 28/12/2021 13:17, Neal Gompa wrote:
It is. There are plenty of packages that compile for tests. I have
one, for example (libeconf).
I think all compilation should be done in %build.
Why? If the package is being maintained as a single spec across
multiple branches, you'd have to ask them to
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 17:27:29 -0500,
Ben Cotton wrote:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/DIGLIM
More specifically, it will make a system running Fedora attestable
without the need of using dedicated remote attestation protocols. In
fact, the assertion that a system is running a specifi
Hey all,
I havent used gdb in a while, so I'm trying to knock the rust off my
knowledge and pick up a few more skills.
I'm trying to track down an issue in the Lumina Desktop. One of the
utilities (lumina-screenshot) segfaults when starting up and I'm trying to
deduce why. The problem is that it g
On Tue, Dec 28, 2021 at 3:26 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> On 20/12/2021 18:41, Ben Cotton wrote:
> > Call %set_build_flags macro automatically at the beginning of the
> > %build and %check phases of RPM builds in Fedora Linux. This will
> > ensure that the compiler flag environment vari
On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 10:39 AM Zamir SUN wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm updating the whole LXQt desktop to 1.0.0 in rawhide, and I've built
> the packages in the side tag f36-build-side-49104.
Did you run the build for lxqt-wallet? I see that there is a commit in
distgit that bumps the version to 1.0.0
Il 28/12/21 04:28, Kevin Kofler via devel ha scritto:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> 1. There is a mechanism for users to add their own digest lists, if they
>> want. The change proposal could be a little more clear on how this
>> would work.
> There is no way I am going to jump through hoops t
On 13/12/2021 17:56, Ben Cotton wrote:
Introduce ghcX.Y packages to Fedora which can be parallel installed,
in addition to the main ghc package.
What about doing the same for GCC? When the new GCC snapshot is released
for Rawhide, there are a lot of ICEs.
Currently the package maintainers ha
On 20/12/2021 18:41, Ben Cotton wrote:
Call %set_build_flags macro automatically at the beginning of the
%build and %check phases of RPM builds in Fedora Linux. This will
ensure that the compiler flag environment variables are set for every
RPM build.
+1 for the %build section, but I doubt it
On 27/12/2021 01:16, Maxwell G (@gotmax23) via devel wrote:
Am I allowed to switch my existing packages to use the SPDX license
identifiers, or should I hold off?
You should wait until this feature is fully accepted accepted and merged.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
_
On 26/12/2021 12:25, Roberto Sassu via devel wrote:
This is the main point of the feature. It aims to protect the user
against untracked software spread in the disk, and to make him
accept the software he wants to run.
And this feature will be disabled by 99% of Fedora users then, because
the
36 matches
Mail list logo
