On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 21:12 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> Thank you for this great analysis. Do you still have the executable
> files and can run checksec on them and publish the output somewhere?
You got it:
https://ajax.fedorapeople.org/f23-checksec-scan
- ajax
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.f
On Thu, Jul 2, 2015 at 7:49 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> Since the change was
> done by changing the rpm build macros, I think we can conclude that the
> build macros aren't being applied. Granted, packages can disable the
> hardened build macros, but the packages I've called out above aren't
>
(First time I've posted here, so a short self-introduction: I'm a
CPython core developer who recently switched from working on Red Hat
internal testing infrastructure to Fedora software package management.
As such, I'm quite familiar with a number of efforts aimed at making
various automated testin
On Sat, 04 Jul 2015 17:12:13 +0100
Sérgio Basto wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Qui, 2015-07-02 at 11:55 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 16:24 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> > > On 2 July 2015 at 15:49, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > > Following up on the hardened cflags change in F23,
Hi,
On Qui, 2015-07-02 at 11:55 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 16:24 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> > On 2 July 2015 at 15:49, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > Following up on the hardened cflags change in F23, I wanted to gather
> > > some statistics on the actual impact: what
Dne 2.7.2015 v 16:49 Adam Jackson napsal(a):
> There are 173 non-now binaries installed under /usr/share. 68 of those
> are ircd-ratbox, and 56 are rubygem-gherkin.
Filed bug for rubygem-gherkin:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1239048
This looks to be packager's overlook.
Vít
--
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 01:47:11PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> The longstanding FTBFS thing is harder. In principle we do actually
> retire things that haven't built for multiple releases; in practice,
> things apparently get missed. pathfinder logiweb and python-rpi-gpio,
> for example, were a
On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 14:59 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> First, there's no way to let a "good enough" package in and have it
> progress to excellent — it must be excellent at the start, because we
> generally don't trust the package quality to do much but go down.
This is actually something I'd
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 10:49:37AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> Following up on the hardened cflags change in F23, I wanted to gather
> some statistics on the actual impact: what the most impacted packages
> and apps are, what the typical overhead is like, etc. The results
> are... unpleasant, but
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 01:47:11PM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > I agree. What can and should we do about it?
> Good question. I'm not entirely sure, but I have opinions.
That's a good start... we can build from there in to plans.
> The binaries-in-/usr/share/doc thing is the sort of clearly o
On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 11:09 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 10:49:37AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > Beyond that, the fact that we have such blatant packaging errors, and
> > that nearly 4% of our binary packages haven't rebuilt in F23, is quite
> > worrisome.
>
> I agree.
On 2 July 2015 at 16:55, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 16:24 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>> On 2 July 2015 at 15:49, Adam Jackson wrote:
>> > Following up on the hardened cflags change in F23, I wanted to gather
>> > some statistics on the actual impact: what the most impacted
On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 16:24 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 2 July 2015 at 15:49, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > Following up on the hardened cflags change in F23, I wanted to gather
> > some statistics on the actual impact: what the most impacted packages
> > and apps are, what the typical overhea
On 2 July 2015 at 15:49, Adam Jackson wrote:
> Following up on the hardened cflags change in F23, I wanted to gather
> some statistics on the actual impact: what the most impacted packages
> and apps are, what the typical overhead is like, etc. The results
> are... unpleasant,
[snip]
Impressive
On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 10:49:37AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> Beyond that, the fact that we have such blatant packaging errors, and
> that nearly 4% of our binary packages haven't rebuilt in F23, is quite
> worrisome.
I agree. What can and should we do about it?
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Proje
Following up on the hardened cflags change in F23, I wanted to gather
some statistics on the actual impact: what the most impacted packages
and apps are, what the typical overhead is like, etc. The results
are... unpleasant, but not so much because of the hardening change
itself. I started by grabb
16 matches
Mail list logo
