devel November 2005

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

227 participants
192 discussions

Re: fc5 goals
by Eric Tanguy 29 Nov '05

29 Nov '05

Le lundi 28 novembre 2005 à 11:56 -0800, Peter Gordon a écrit : > Josh Coffman wrote: > > Anyone know where to find documentation about the > > goals and improvements intended for FC5? > > You might want to take a look at FC5Future[1] on the Wiki, as well. > > [1] http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/FC5Future > > --Peter > Why there is so much java package included in fc5 ? No news about early login or something like that ? Why kde is still included in core whereas it could be in extras ? Why some packages go directly in core and not in extras before ? Because they were packaged by someone from redhat ? Is it sufficient ??? I saw the long discussion about what to include in or not in fc5 but maybe the problem will be the goal of fedora ? Is this product mainly for developpers form redhat ? yes i know i'm joking but in fact it could be a good question, no ? Thanks Eric

2 1

kde3.5?
by Neal Becker 29 Nov '05

29 Nov '05

kde3.5 is released. Will this be an update for FC4, or do I have to wait for FC5? I'm running on x86_64, so Rex's kde-redhat won't help.

3 2

Re: Summary of FC5test1 vulnerabilities
by chasd 29 Nov '05

29 Nov '05

> With the release of FC5test1 we've done an audit of possible (known, > public) vulnerabilities from 20030101 to date that are in packages part > of FC5test1. May I assume this has not been done for packages in Extras ? A quick scan of <http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/*checkout*/fedora-security/audit/ fc5?root=fedora> produced no packages in Extras. I could not find a reference to a security/patch/errata policy relating to Extras at <http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras> Errata for Extras packages is driven by the ( non-RH ) community and the package owner, not by the RH security team? This is OK, but it means that I ( as a community member ) will need make more of an effort to stay on top of security issues in an Extras package on my systems. I can rely on established infrastructure to stay on top of those issues for packages in Core. Extras packages will seem a bit more like applications installed via tarball, or self-packaged. Charles Dostale System Admin - Silver Oaks Communications http://www.silveroaks.com/ 824 17th Street, Moline IL 61265

3 2

Re: udev alpha testing
by Jason Dravet 29 Nov '05

29 Nov '05

>I would be glad, if the really brave could compile, install and test: >ftp://people.redhat.com/harald/udev/076-1/ > >Beware this could end in a non-bootable system. > >This version removes the hardware initializing/module loading phase from >rc.sysinit. Udev should do most, if not all job. I am interested in any >missing modules, that were loaded before. > >Thx for testing. I will test these for you. I have downloaded both src.rpm files and I will be doing a rpmbuild --rebuild on them shortly. I have a few other things I have to get done today so it might later today or tomorrow before I post any results. Is this alright with you? If something does go wrong, is there an easy way to get back running without a full restore? Will booting in single user mode and reinstalling udev-075-4 get the system running again? Thanks, Jason

2 2

Re: Summary of FC5test1 vulnerabilities
by chasd 29 Nov '05

29 Nov '05

> Package maintainers in both Fedora Core and Extras repository are > responsible for the security of packages they develop/maintain. However > Red Hat security response team does not keep track of all security > issues in Fedora Extras repository unlike Fedora Core to my > understanding. Thanks for clarifying that. > There was a discussion here > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-September/ > msg00393.html. Thanks for the link, it looks like the issues involved are being discussed. > The package maintainers keep track of the security issues. There is no > reason not to trust the community packagers to do a less than excellent > job with it. I did not mean to imply that any of the maintainers are not doing a good job. As was pointed out in the linked Extras discussion, mistakes can be made, or time constraints on a maintainer can effect the the release of an update to rectify security issues. Most of us are humans ;) > All of Fedora Extras packages > takes advantage of various features in Fedora Core including > Exec-shield, FORTIFY_SOURCE fstack-protector etc in addition to SELinux > capabilities. I did not mean to imply that using packages in Extras was a security risk. > Even setting aside all the security features, there are several > advantages to using Fedora Extras in favor of tarballs or self packaged > RPMS. My reference to using packages via tarballs or self-packaged software was related to how I internally treat that software. I am personally more vigilant of security issues with software that is not installed via Fedora because I know I must shoulder that responsibility for that software. I don't have a security team to make sure any issues are dealt with, I'm the security team for the software I install on a system that is not part of the distribution. From the above Extras list discussion: > I believe many such installations and sysadmins do exist, and part of > the natural responsibility for such people would be to help the Extras > in fixing the packets at source. That's me. From the above clarification I know I need to take a bit of extra ( pun intended ) personal responsibility with packages from Extras. Packages from Extras are there because of the community, and the community ( me ) needs to put forth the effort to keep those packages maintained. > Fedora Extras undergoes a package review process to ensure > consistency and better integration with Fedora according to the > specified guidelines I in no way intended to bash Extras. However I do think some type of written security/errata policy for Extras should appear on the Fedora Project Wiki. Charles Dostale System Admin - Silver Oaks Communications http://www.silveroaks.com/ 824 17th Street, Moline IL 61265

1 0

SELinux problems
by Dennis Jacobfeuerborn 29 Nov '05

29 Nov '05

I noticed that on bootup the Fedora now shows a ton of messages like these on the screen: inode_doinit_with_dentry: context_to_sid(unlabeled) returned 22 for dev=hda2 ino=20447255 Does anybody know how to fix this? (I'm running selinux set to targeted/permissive) Regards, Dennis

2 1

Re: udev alpha testing
by Jason Dravet 29 Nov '05

29 Nov '05

>The udev srpm doesn't seem to compile on the lastest rawhide. I get this >output when I do $ rpmbuild --rebuild udev-076-1.src.rpm > >[root laptop-bart tmp]# rpmbuild --rebuild udev-076-1.src.rpm >Installing udev-076-1.src.rpm >warning: user harald does not exist - using root >warning: group harald does not exist - using root I did a rpmbuild --rebuild udev-076-1.src.rpm and it worked for me. I did get the warnings about user harald and group harald not existing. I have installed todays rawhide, but I have not booting into the new kernel yet. I am running kernel 1709 for now. I will be rebooting shortly. My system is a P3 if that helps. Thanks,

1 0

Slightly OT: Updated RPM building howto?
by Arthur Pemberton 29 Nov '05

29 Nov '05

Are there any recent HOWTOs around on RPM building? I would really like to contribute to Fedora, at least by maintaing packages to software that I use regularly on my own FC4 install. However the HOWTOs I've found seem busy and complicated. I consider myself to be fairly Linux competent, and so I believe that I have the capabilties to help. Please advise, thank you. -- As a boy I jumped through Windows, as a man I play with Penguins.

3 3

A Fedora-related job opening (QA/testing)
by Elliot Lee 28 Nov '05

28 Nov '05

Hi all, It'd be great to have the opportunity to work with one of you even more than I currently get to. I won't bore you with a long-winded promo, but if you're interested in being a "Fedora Test Lead/ Sr Quality Assurance Engineer", please see: http://redhat.hrdpt.com/cgi-bin/a/highlightjob.cgi?jobid=772 Please feel free to send me any additional questions you might have about the position, and I'll do my best to get answers. Best, -- Elliot

1 0

lm_sensors in FC4-updates for x86_64 twice?
by Stefan Neufeind 28 Nov '05

28 Nov '05

Hi, I just saw that a simple "yum install lm_sensors" tried to install the same versions of lm_sensors for i386 _and_ x86_64 at the same time, when installing on arch=x86_64. Is there a hidden sense behind that, or does the i386-package maybe need to be removed? Kind regards, Stefan

6 11

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
20
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel November 2005