Re: DNF5-5.0.1 has a stable API

On Thu, Jul 20, 2023 at 5:46 AM Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 20. 07. 23 v 10:08 Peter Robinson napsal(a): > > > So everything has to be rewritten across the entire ecosystem to > > work with it? Wow, who thinks that's a good idea? It took the > > ecosystem long enough to migrate from the yum "API"

Re: F39 Change Proposal: LibuserDeprecation (System Wide)

On Thu, Jun 22, 2023 at 12:33 PM Aoife Moloney wrote: > The main benefit is to decrease the maintenance and packaging work > on library that does not bring much value while the functionality is > provided by another components. On most (all?) Linux distributions, Puppet relies on libuser in orde

abysmal performance using btrfs for VM storage (was Re: BTRFS vs LVM for VM storage)

On 2011-03-02 at 13:49-05 Josef Bacik wrote: > > How is BTRFS's performance when used to store VMs (presumably they are > > stored as files)? > > Good, but the problem is the default behavior of virt manager is to > use fsync for everything, you have to manually go in and set the > "Cache" to "N

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On 2011-02-26 at 17:33-05 Lyos Gemini Norezel wrote: > On 02/23/2011 06:38 PM, James Ralston wrote: > > > Separate LVM logical volumes can help mitigate consumption-based > > DoS attacks. > > > > For example: if /tmp and /var/tmp are separate LVM logical > &g

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On 2011-02-24 at 16:02-05 Josef Bacik wrote: > I think that if I could get a large base to test for F15 that we > could squash most/all of the problems that crop up from that to be > in great shape for default in F16. I think you'd increase your chances of getting lots of testers for F15+btrfs if

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On 2011-02-23 at 23:32-06 Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 02/23/2011 05:38 PM, James Ralston wrote: > > > None of these issues is a dealbreaker, but they *are* losses of > > functionality versus what LVM offers. > > LVM isn't going anywhere. It just won'

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On 2011-02-22 at 14:51-05 Josef Bacik wrote: > Fedora 16 ships without LVM as the volume manager and instead use > BTRFS's built in volume management, again just for the default. I don't think btrfs subvolumes are capable of replacing LVM functionality quite yet. Here are two usage cases that I

Re: Plans for BTRFS in Fedora

On 2011-02-23 at 13:41-05 Peter Jones wrote: > dm-crypt still just throws REQ_FLUSH away instead of figuring out > the block remaps involved and issuing the right bios. Of course, > this is a problem with dm-crypt and _any_ filesystem. Are you sure that's still the case? Because this patchset a

Re: hosted reproducible package building with multiple developers?

On 2010-12-10 at 14:02+00 Daniel P Berrange wrote: > I'm not familiar with what attacks you can do on mocks' chroot setup > offhand describes an easy one: $ /usr/bin/mock --init -r fedora-10-i386 $ /usr/bin/mock --shell -r fedora-10-i386 mock-chroot

Re: hosted reproducible package building with multiple developers?

On 2010-12-08 at 21:00+00 "Richard W.M. Jones" wrote: > To the original poster: even a VM isn't a completely robust way of > preventing root escalations. This is a certainly true. If an attacker manages to gain control of a VM guest, he can attempt to attack the VM host. (In fact, depending on

Re: hosted reproducible package building with multiple developers?

On 2010-12-08 at 13:07-05 seth vidal wrote: > the mock chroots that koji uses could still be rooted by someone who > can submit their own build-requirement-providing packages. Well, we vet all packages our developers submit before releasing them to our repositories, so we would catch a developer

hosted reproducible package building with multiple developers?

Riddle me this. We want to provide a server for developers within our organization to build RPM packages for use within our organization. These are our requirements: 1. The developers must not be able to leverage the package build process to obtain root access on the server. 2.

Bugzilla borked right now (2010-01-12)?

At around 2010-01-12T12:45-0500, I attempted to login with my correct username/password, and was told my username/password was incorrect. I changed my password using the "forgot password" link. Bugzilla won't take the new password, either. I tried to search for Bugzilla admin contact information