upgrading RH 9 system->Fedora with iso files and apt only
by Didier Casse
I have the yarrow's iso files on my HD in a RH9 system. Let's say I want
to upgrade selected packages using an "apt-get install" pointing to my
iso-mounted files, how do I do it?
i.e I mount the iso into some /mnt/yarrow1, /mnt/yarrow 2 etc..
Then what is the complete procedure to make my apt look into my own HD to
upgrade packages. Can anybody redirect me to the correct
resource or some literature hanging on the web? Thanks.
Assume also that I do not wish to burn CDs! I do not want to use
apt-cdrom. Thanks.
With kind regards,
Didier.
---
PhD student
Singapore Synchrotron Light Source (SSLS)
5 Research Link,
Singapore 117603
Email: slsbdfc at nus dot edu dot sg \or\
didierbe at sps dot nus dot edu dot sg
Website: http://ssls.nus.edu.sg
1 year, 4 months
pdftk retired?
by Michael J Gruber
I just git a "broken dependencies" notice for a package that I maintain.
The reason is that "pdftk" got retired just the other day.
I may have missed a corresponding post on fedora-devel, but I think a
heads up notice to maintainers of depending packages may be in order
before you retire a package, as a general idea.
You see, unretiring a package is so much more work than changing
maintainership.
As for pdftk: I see 2 failed builds for version 1.45 and none for the
current version 2.02 (which probably breaks the api anyways). What are
the plans? Retire pdftk completely? Start fresh with pdftk2?
pdflabs, the maker of pdftk, provide binary as well as source rpms for
pdftk 2.02, by the way. I might even look into packaging it but don't
want to duplicate any existing efforts.
Michael
1 year, 8 months
apitrace, bundled libbacktrace
by Sandro Mani
Hi,
apitrace 5.0 bundles libbacktrace, which looks like is living within the
gcc sources. libbacktrace is not build as a shared library from the gcc
sources, and not packaged.
Is it feasible to build libbacktrace as a shared library and ship it in
a corresponding package? Or should I rather go for a bundling exception
request?
Thanks,
Sandro
5 years, 5 months
F21 Self Contained Change: Replace Bacula with Bareos
by Jaroslav Reznik
= Proposed Self Contained Change: Replace Bacula with Bareos =
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Bareos
Change Owner(s): Simone Caronni <negativo17 at gmail.com>
The powerful Bacula network backup solution has switched from being Open
Source friendly to being almost closed source. Originally the project was
conceived totally as Open Source, but since the creation of Bacula Systems and
its proprietary Bacula Enterprise Edition product, the Open Source (now called
"Community Edition") has received less and less updates and is mostly
abandoned.
== Detailed description ==
The most important points that are left "abandoned" are the following:
* Installation scripts and updates to makefiles are not updated anymore.
* New plugins and functionalities are not added anymore, except those in the
"core" daemons.
* Gaphical (and buggy) console has not received any update in almost two
years.
* Patches and bugs opened in the bug tracker are mostly left abandoned. Even
trivial fixes are not imported in the source.
* Windows binaries are no longer provided, nor the source for the clients has
been updated. Even if compiled with difficulties, there is no support for recent
Windows versions.
A former Bacula developer, frustrated by the situation created the fork Bareos
a long time ago from Bacula 5.2.x (the current Fedora and RHEL 7 version).
This version has now received '''a lot of bugfixes''' compared to the original
Bacula source. This makes compilation and installation a lot easier than it
was with Bacula.
On top of this, a '''lot of new features''' have been added; some unique to
Bareos but many available only in the closed source Bacula Enterprise.
Here is the list of new features compared to the current Bacula 5.2.13:
* http://www.bareos.org/en/whats_new.html
Some highlights include NDMP support for enterprise class storage (NetApp,
etc.), support for enterprise class tape libraries and Windows support
(including Windows Server 2012) with Bareos generated binaries.
For further details on why a Bacula fork was created please look at the
following links:
* http://www.bareos.org/en/faq/items/why_fork.html
Bareos can also be '''fully compatible with Bacula''' by setting a specific
configuration directive in the Daemon configuration files; thus providing the
option for RHEL 6/7 users to interoperate with Fedora systems.
* http://www.bareos.org/en/faq/items/bareos_bacula_compatibility.html
== Scope ==
To accomplish the goal, the following Bacula packages need to be replaced with
Bareos equivalents:
bacula
bacula-docs
Currently, the same Fedora packages can be rebuilt as they are, to work also
on CentOS/RHEL 5 and 6, upgrading the EPEL or official Bacula packages in the
distributions. This is to have a consistent backup infrastructure across all
the Fedora/CentOS/RHEL ecosystem.
To ease installation, a repository for installing those packages on a
CentOS/RHEL system do exist:
http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/slaanesh/bacula/README.txt
The idea is the same for Bareos: import into Fedora 21 packages that can be
rebuilt for all supported Fedora/RHEL/CentOS releases and provide a repository
that can upgrade any Bacula release currently installed in the system with the
new one. In detail; the upgrade scenarios supported when going from Bacula to
Bareos would be:
From Bacula 2.4:
* RHEL/CentOS 5 with EPEL repository
From Bacula 5.0:
* RHEL/CentOS 6
From Bacula 5.2.13:
* Fedora 18+
* RHEL/CentOS 5
* RHEL/CentOS 6
As written before, the change is impacting only Fedora 21, the list of
upgrades supported are only for users who want a consistent backup solution
across the enterprise.
=== External activities ===
Proposal owners: I'm the current Bacula mantainer in Fedora and will complete
the transition in time for the release.
Other developers: N/A (not a System Wide Change)
Release engineering: the release engineering team should make sure the new
Bareos packages are in place instead of the current Bacula packages for the
new release.
Policies and guidelines: N/A (not a System Wide Change)
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce
8 years, 1 month
Configurable version of suexec in Debian but not Fedora?!
by Neal Gompa
So a friend of mine has been wrangling with suexec trying to configure it
for his needs, and he has become quite furious over the fact that suexec
isn't configurable.
Then he finds out that Debian actually has a version of suexec[1] that lets
you use a conf file to configure suexec. My question is, why the heck isn't
this in Fedora? How is it that Debian can offer both versions[1][2], but
Fedora cannot?
I'm honestly surprised that Fedora doesn't offer this little piece of
flexibility. I would think that this would be in Fedora and RHEL, because
of how useful this would be. So what's going on here?
[1]: https://packages.debian.org/sid/apache2-suexec-custom
[2]: https://packages.debian.org/sid/apache2-suexec-pristine
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
8 years, 3 months
ca-certificates 2014.2.1 will remove several still valid CA certificates with weak keys
by Kai Engert
Hello,
this is a heads-up for an update to the ca-certificates package that
I've just submitted for updates-testing for Fedora 19 and 20.
The upstream Mozilla CA list maintainers have decided to start removing
CA certificates that use a weak 1024-bit key. Although those
certificates are still valid, Mozilla has worked with the CAs, and they
did agree that it's OK to remove them.
However, there are end-entity and intermediate-CA certificates which
have been issued by the removed CAs, which are still valid, and they
might still be used by some - despite the CAs having attempted to reach
out to all their customers and getting them to reconfigure their
systems.
This means, when installing the updated ca-certificates package version
2014.2.1, some SSL/TLS connections might suddenly fail, because the
related CA certificate is no longer trusted.
If you experience such situations, the right approach is to contact the
owner of the certificate (or the server), and ask them to get a
replacement certificate, or to install a replacement certificate on
their SSL/TLS server.
Additional details can be found in the update description, which I'll
paste at the end of this message.
(I have disabled karma-automation for this update, in case there's a
need for a longer testing period. Note that this updated set of CA
certificates is currently planned to be part of Firefox 32, which will
get released around SEP 02.)
Regards
Kai
Update description:
===================
This is an update to the latest released set of CA certificates
according to the Mozilla CA Policy. It's the same set that has been
released in NSS versions 3.16.4 and 3.17.
It's noteworthy that several CA certificates with a weak key size of
1024-bits have been removed, prior to their expiration. (It is expected
that additional CA certificates with weak 1024-bit keys will be removed
in future releases.)
The removed CA certificates have been used to issue end-entity and
intermediate-CA certificates which are still valid. Those certificates
are likely to be rejected when using this upated ca-certificates
package. The owners of affected certificates should contact their CA and
ask for replacement certificates. In some scenarios it might be
sufficient to install an alternative intermediate CA certificate (e.g.
on a TLS server), allowing an alternative trust chain to another root CA
certificate to be found.
More information about the affected CA certificates and other recent
modifications can be found in the NSS release notes for version 3.16.3
at
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Projects/NSS/NSS_3.16.3_... with amendments to the changes as explained in the NSS release notes for version 3.16.4 https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Projects/NSS/NSS_3.16.4_...
8 years, 6 months
Re: Broken dependencies: freesteam
by Antonio Trande
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all.
On 08/25/2014 01:39 PM, buildsys(a)fedoraproject.org wrote:
> freesteam has broken dependencies in the F-21 tree: On x86_64:
> freesteam-ascend-2.1-6.20140724svn753.fc21.x86_64 requires
> libascend.so.1()(64bit) On i386:
> freesteam-ascend-2.1-6.20140724svn753.fc21.i686 requires
> libascend.so.1 On armhfp:
> freesteam-ascend-2.1-6.20140724svn753.fc21.armv7hl requires
> libascend.so.1 Please resolve this as soon as possible.
>
buildsys(a)fedoraproject.org sends me above message via mail.
It's okay to me:
$repoquery -R freesteam-ascend --enablerepo=updates-testing
ascend-libs(x86-64)
freesteam(x86-64) = 2.1-6.20140724svn753.fc20
libascend.so.1()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit)
libfreesteam.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
$repoquery --whatprovides libascend.so.1*
- --enablerepo=updates-testing --archlist=x86_64
ascend-libs-0:0.9.8-10.20140710svn4695.fc20.x86_64
I don't know what's the problem...
- --
Antonio Trande
mailto: sagitterATfedoraproject.org
http://fedoraos.wordpress.com/
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter
GPG Key: D400D6C4
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1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=g0XH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
8 years, 7 months
