devel January 2023

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

219 participants
285 discussions

Golang bundled() Provides generator
by Maxwell G 02 Apr '24

02 Apr '24

Hi Fedorians, A recent PR reminded me that I never properly announced the new (well, four months old) bundled() Provides generator for Golang projects[1]. This can be used to simplify generating these Provides when bundling is justified in Fedora[2] or for (EP)EL. Simply mark the vendor/modules.txt file generated by `go mod vendor` with `%license` and the generator will take care of the rest. This removes the need for long lists of Provides that clutter specfiles and have to be updated after each upstream release. It's up to package maintainers to inspect the Provides for correctness when opting in to this generator. Please let us know if you find any bugs. The generator is available in all Fedora branches and on EPEL 9 (part of go-rpm-macros-epel that shadows RHEL's go-rpm-macros). go-rpm-macros has been updated in c9s, so I'll remove the generator from go-rpm-macros-epel when the next RHEL 9 minor release comes out. [1]: https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/c/226596177c63c3dc180b5aeda45fe3b18706e877?… and https://pagure.io/go-rpm-macros/c/c32fbbd25bbcedee8c0b898d3653255b18a0d30e?… [2]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Golang/#_bundled_… -- Maxwell G (@gotmax23) Pronouns: He/Him/His

3 2

some man pages have bugs, can't be grep'd
by Chris Murphy 27 Mar '24

27 Mar '24

I've been seeing this since clean installing Fedora 30. I don't recall ever seeing it before, including on a Fedora 29 -> Fedora 30 upgraded system (is now the clean installed system). [chris@flap ~]$ man rpm | grep -C 10 rpmverbosity <standard input>:176: warning [p 3, 0.8i]: cannot adjust line [chris@flap mantest]$ man rpm >rpm.stdout 2>rpm.stderr [chris@flap mantest]$ ll -rw-rw-r--. 1 chris chris 62 Jul 16 14:24 rpm.stderr -rw-rw-r--. 1 chris chris 28498 Jul 16 14:24 rpm.stdout Is this a bug that should be reported against rpm or something else? I'm certain I've seen it in other man pages, but offhand I can't find another example. -- Chris Murphy

4 6

Unretire ulogd (or another NFLOG logger?)
by Chris Adams 21 Feb '24

21 Feb '24

I'd like to use NFLOG to log firewall drops (so that the kernel message log isn't spammed by them), but it doesn't appear there's anything currently in Fedora that can read that other than "tcpdump -i nflog". It looks like ulogd was retired a while back because it only had a SysV init script and nobody stepped up to convert it to systemd (which should be really simple, since the old init script is pretty much a textbook template of a SysV init script). Am I missing anything? Is that all it needs? Is there another NFLOG logger daemon? -- Chris Adams <linux(a)cmadams.net>

2 1

Co-maintainers for my ham packages
by Matt Domsch 22 Nov '23

22 Nov '23

Due to an impending move to NYC and related downsizing of my house into a 2-bedroom apartment, I'm selling all my ham radio gear. Therefore I won't be able to test any of the Fedora packages I maintain with actual hardware. Would anyone be interested in maintaining or co-maintaining these? - direwolf - Sound Card-based AX.25 TNC - CubicSDR - Cross-Platform Software-Defined Radio Panadapter - liquid-dsp - Digital Signal Processing Library for Software-Defined Radios - sdrpp - SDRPlusPlus bloat-free SDR receiver software - SoapySDR - A Vendor Neutral and Platform Independent SDR Support Library - soapy-rtlsdr - SoapySDR module for RTL-SDR hardware Thanks, Matt N5MLD

3 5

Documentation for F15's "Remove SETUID" Change?
by Michel Alexandre Salim 18 Nov '23

18 Nov '23

Hi all, The subject of setuid came up in a private conversation recently, and to my surprise we don't seem to have it documented in the packaging guidelines: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ Per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RemoveSETUID#Documentation "We should change documentation on packaging guidelines to talk about using file capabilities." but the only mention of capabilities seem to be that, if you use it or suid, PIE must be enabled: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_pie Should this be documented somewhere, or if it's there but it's lost in the wiki->docs migration, does anyone know where the documentation is? Thanks, -- Michel Alexandre Salim identities: https://keyoxide.org/5dce2e7e9c3b1cffd335c1d78b229d2f7ccc04f2

4 4

F38 proposal: Rpmautospec by Default (System-Wide Change proposal)
by Ben Cotton 24 Oct '23

24 Oct '23

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee. == Summary == Rpmautospec (`%autorelease` and `%autochangelog`) is recommended as the default approach. Packaging Guidelines and other documentation are adjusted to describe this approach first. Various tools that provide spec file templates are adjusted. == Owner == * Name: [[User:Nphilipp| Nils Philippsen]], [[User:Zbyszek| Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]] * Email: nphilipp - at - redhat.com, zbyszek - at - in.waw.pl == Detailed Description == {{admon/note|Brief reminder about rpmautospec| The spec file contains: <pre> Version: 1.2.3 Release: %autorelease ... %changelog %autochangelog </pre> Rpmautospec uses git history. Whenever the package is built (`.src.rpm` is generated), rpmautospec tooling will replace the `%autorelease` macro with the number of commits since the last commit that changed the `Version` field, and the `%autochangelog` macro with a text generated from `git log`. For details see the [https://docs.pagure.org/fedora-infra.rpmautospec/principle.html docs]. }} Rpmautospec has been deployed in Fedora since F35 ([[Changes/rpmautospec]]), and 3423/23045 packages use it (15%). But it is still a "second-class citizen": most documentation doesn't mention it, and many packagers know that it exists but don't use it in their packages. We think that it's reasonable to switch to `%autorelease`+`%autochangelog` for almost all packages and that Packaging Guidelines and various packaging howtos should recommend that approach to packagers. The "traditional" approach of manually-managed `Release` and `%changelog` will remain valid and will be documented as a fallback. This change is targeted at Fedora 38, but it will actually apply to all releases. The goal is to update the Packaging Guidelines and other prominent documentation and tools now, and other docs and tools possibly at a later time. Changing packages is out of scope. It is worth mentioning that `rust2rpm` uses `%autorelease`+`%autochangelog` since a few releases, so most rust packages have switched. (Generally, rust spec files are recreated using the generator for each new version, so the switch would happen whenever a new version is packaged unless the packager opts out.) == Feedback == * Thread on fedora-devel in August 2022: [https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org… rpmautospec by default] ** open issues: a bunch have been fixed. ** maintenance: Nils will add some co-maintainers. ** compatibility with rpmdevtools, fedpkg/rpkg, fedora-review: see Scope section. == Benefit to Fedora == Various packaging workflows become smoother for packagers and contributors: * packagers don't need to touch the `Release` field on updates * packagers describe changes just once in the git commit message, the `%changelog` entry is autogenerated * patches to the spec file can be cherry-picked between branches without trivial conflicts * pull requests on src.fedoraproject.org can be merged without trivial conflicts * in workflows that regenerate the spec file (rust2rpm, pip2rpm, …) `%changelog` section doesn't need to be copied over == Scope == * Proposal owners: ** provide pull requests to Packaging Guidelines and other docs to make `%autorelease`+`%autochangelog` the default ** implement fixes for issues reported by packagers ** make semi-regular releases of rpmautospec ([https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org… 0.3.1 was released on November 17th, and should be deployed to production in about two weeks]) * Other developers: ** provide pull requests to other docs as appropriate ** accept the changes to documentation ** update other spec file generators (pip2rpm, others?) * Somebody (TBD): ** `fedora-review` — https://pagure.io/rpkg/issue/641 ** `fedpkg import` — with https://pagure.io/rpkg/c/3087dd7, the command will fail. A replacement workflow that instead restores `%autorelease`+`%autochangelog` in the file committed to dist-git needs to be implemented. * Related work ** https://pagure.io/rpkg/c/3087dd7 ** https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-packager/pull-request/4 * Release engineering: [https://pagure.io/releng/issues #Releng issue number] * Policies and guidelines: a list of places to be updated ** https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs ** https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning ** https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Packaging_Tutorial… * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) * Alignment with Objectives: N/A == Upgrade/compatibility impact == Rpmautospec is already used by a decent number of packages, so any issues are already being seen and need to be fixed anyway. == How To Test == * Convert an existing package: `rpmautospec convert`. Ideally this step is done right before a version bump so that the release numbers restart at `-1`. * Do local builds (`fedpkg local`, `fedpkg mockbuild`). Verify correctness of version-release (`rpm -qpi`) and the changelog (`rpm -qp --changelog`). * Do builds in koji. Verify correctness of version-release and the changelog. * For new packages, use `%autorelease`+`%autochangelog`. Repeat all the tests listed above. * Assume you are a newbie packager. Read the packaging docs and check that the workflow is clear and the intructions are sufficient to use rpmautospec tooling correctly. == User Experience == No changes visible to end users. == Dependencies == None. == Contingency Plan == If it turns out that the rpmautospec workflows have unknown problems, we can revert changes to documentation. * Contingency mechanism: Revert changes to documentation by reverting the appropriate commits. This can be done easily by FPC. * Contingency deadline: Any time. * Blocks release? No. == Documentation == This page and any changes to Packaging Guidelines and other documents. == Release Notes == Not needed. -- Ben Cotton He / Him / His Fedora Program Manager Red Hat TZ=America/Indiana/Indianapolis

32 95

Bootstrapping package with circular dependencies in koji
by Jaroslav Skarvada 08 Sep '23

08 Sep '23

Hi, I need to bootstrap package which has bootstrap support written according to the [1]. I am able to bootstrap it locally (rpmbuild, mock, ...) with the "--with bootstrap" or "-D '_with_bootstrap 1'". Is there support for it in koji? E.g. something like: koji build SIDE-TAG PACKAGE --bootstrap? Or do I have to manually do: 1. patch: - %bcond_with bootstrap + %bcond_without bootstrap 2. koji build SIDE-TAG SCM 3. update&build the circular dep 4. unpatch: - %bcond_without bootstrap + %bcond_with bootstrap 5. release bump 6. koji build SIDE-TAG SCM Or is there some better way? thanks & regards Jaroslav [1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bootstrapping

8 19

Outage Notification - 2009-07-01 01:00 UTC
by Mike McGrath 24 Aug '23

24 Aug '23

There will be an outage starting at 2009-07-01 01:00 UTC, which will last approximately 2 hours. To convert UTC to your local time, take a look at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/UTCHowto or run: date -d '2009-07-01 01:00 UTC' Affected Services: Buildsystem CVS / Source Control Unaffected Services: Database DNS Fedora Hosted Fedora People Fedora Talk Mail Mirror System Torrent Translation Services Websites Ticket Link: https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/1496 Reason for Outage: Final migration step for new cvs server. It will hopefully be offline for only 30-45 minutes. The additional time is for some further tuning if needed and some verification steps. Contact Information: Please join #fedora-admin in irc.freenode.net or respond to this email to track the status of this outage. _______________________________________________ Fedora-devel-announce mailing list Fedora-devel-announce(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-announce

2 1

Thoughts welcome: interface between automated test gating and the "critical path"
by Adam Williamson 16 Aug '23

16 Aug '23

Hi folks! I have one of those definitional quandaries and I figured I'd throw it at the lists for some input. Right now, we kind of take advantage of the "critical path" concept for automated update testing and gating via openQA. openQA does not test all updates, only critical path updates plus updates containing any package on a short allowlist. Bodhi and Greenwave do not gate all updates on the openQA tests since not all updates are tested; again we use the critpath definition. If an update is critical path, it gets gated on the openQA tests. If it isn't, it doesn't. If you've been paying attention, that means there's a bit of a hole: the packages on the 'allowlist'. These are tested, but not gated. What's on the allowlist? Basically, FreeIPA-related packages. We have a good set of FreeIPA tests in openQA, and both I and the FreeIPA team wanted relevant updates to be tested with them. But those packages are not on the critical path. So I set up this 'allowlist' mechanism. However, the lack of gating kinda sucks. I would much prefer if we could gate these updates as well as just testing them. The obvious thing to do is add the FreeIPA-related packages to the critical path, but that really is not supported by the critical path definition: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Critical_path_package which defines it as packages required to "perform the most fundamental actions on a system", with a list of specific areas, none of which is "run a domain server". So...what to do? I can think of I guess four options: 1. Broaden the definition of the "critical path" somehow. We could just write in that it includes FreeIPA functionality, I guess, though that seems special purpose. We could broaden it to include any functionality covered by the release criteria, which would be quite a big increase but seems like a reasonable and concise definition. Or we could write in that it includes any functionality that is exercised by the gating openQA tests, though that seems a bit arbitrary - there's no particularly great organizing principle to the openQA tests we choose to run on updates, if I'm honest, it's a sort of grab bag I came up with. 2. Keep the current "critical path" concept but define a broader group of "gated packages" somewhere (could be comps or somewhere else). This would require engineering work - we'd have to touch probably the openQA scheduler, Bodhi, and greenwave configs. It's also another maintenance burden. 3. Add gating config to each allowlisted package repo's gating.yml one by one. I don't really like this option. It'd be a chunk of work to do initially, and multiples the maintenance required when the list of tests to gate on changes for some reason. 4. Do nothing, just keep only gating things that are "critical path" on the current definition. In a utopian future, we'd manage to deploy openQA in the cloud or get a giant pile of super fast servers so we could test and gate *every* update, and this wouldn't be an issue any more. What do folks think? Any preferences? Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net

10 22

Packaging a cross-compilation environment (wasi-libc)
by Jan Staněk 10 Aug '23

10 Aug '23

Hi list, in order to be able to compile WASM natively on Fedora, I'm trying to package wasi-libc[1] to provide the Web Assembly System Interface. [1]: https://github.com/WebAssembly/wasi-libc My trouble is that this is in essence a cross-compilation environment, and I have zero experience in trying to package these. Also, I did not have much luck in trying to find any related documentation. Some issues I have run into so far: - This is a libc implementation, which would probably conflict with the glibc package by default. Looking at musl, the solution seems to be to install into `/usr/{target}` prefix (i.e. `/usr/wasm32-wasi/include`). Not really sure how this works, any pointers appreciated. - Clang seems to have issue with `-fstack-clash-protection` flag for the `wasm32-wasi` target. What's the proper way to adjust these? Any additional tips on cross-compilation support in Fedora would also be appreciated :) Thanks in advance for any help! -- Jan Staněk Software Engineer, Red Hat jstanek(a)redhat.com irc: jstanek

8 15

Jump to page:

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 January 2023