FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-31-2011, 04:25 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 11:27 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 08:50 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Please wait until I am finished working on it. This is not a bug that
> >> can be easily reproduced.
> >
> > The Arch report claims a fully reliable reproducer:
> >
> > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/24615
> >
> > "I can 100% reliably reproduce it by creating an iptables reject rule
> > for DNS packets:
> > # iptables -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 53 -j REJECT --reject-with
> > icmp-admin-prohibited
> > # wget http://google.com/
> > --2011-06-08 12:13:58-- http://google.com/
> > Resolving google.com... zsh: segmentation fault (core dumped)"
>
> I cannot find any of that in the bug report.

I didn't put it in the Fedora report as there was already a patch at the
time I submitted that, so I figured just linking to the patch would be
enough. But I did mention all the various bug reports - Arch and
upstream - in my ML post on the topic: subject "glibc causing crashes in
most anything that does DNS lookups in F16".
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-31-2011, 05:16 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

Adam Williamson wrote:
> glibc maintainers / developers, if you don't want me to do this, please
> start giving a crap about your bugs.

Speaking of critical glibc bugs, what about this one?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=733462
IMHO, that's also a blocker.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 08-31-2011, 05:50 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 19:16 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Williamson wrote:
> > glibc maintainers / developers, if you don't want me to do this, please
> > start giving a crap about your bugs.
>
> Speaking of critical glibc bugs, what about this one?
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=733462
> IMHO, that's also a blocker.

-5 and -6 were both obsoleted through negative karma, so the 'current'
build is still -4. That's what's in the repos and on all composes. You
only have -6 if you got it before it got yanked.

-6 is known to break the world - not just KDE, it screws up GNOME too.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-01-2011, 04:48 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 10:09 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > It is also in bugzilla, just not in
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730856
> > but in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732857
> > which has been marked as duplicate of that.
>
> There should have been a comment pointing out this important information
> by the person who added the duplicate.

You seem to want everything handed to you on a plate. To me, it doesn't
seem unreasonable to expect a maintainer of a key distro component -
moreover, one who's being *paid* to do that job - to do just a bit of
research on a bug. It took me all of about fifteen minutes to find all
the reports and info so far discussed, and I'm _not_ being paid to
maintain gedit.

You say that I should have posted some things to the bug report and not
a mailing list thread...yet you seem to respond to devel list threads
rather more frequently than you respond to bug reports. I note that you
_still_ haven't actually responded to this bug report: to anyone not
following this thread it still looks like the bug has been entirely
neglected for nearly a month. In contrast, you replied to my devel list
thread within a day.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-01-2011, 06:08 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Thu, 2011-09-01 at 09:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:

> and I'm _not_ being paid to
> maintain gedit.

Er...glibc. though I'm not paid to maintain gedit either. =)
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-02-2011, 08:20 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Wed, 2011-08-31 at 08:50 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Please wait until I am finished working on it. This is not a bug that
> can be easily reproduced.

I note that this is fixed in -7: thanks. However, checking how it was
fixed was rather painful...

http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=glibc.git;a=commitdiff;h=d05dd8538a552f4b4831d0 73eb11ff694d99419f

...since it seems like all Fedora patching of glibc is done in a single
giant patch, and that patch gets a ton of changes with every update, as
the whole thing is rediffed.

Is there a specific reason glibc does this? Can it not have a set of
patches, one per change, as is usual practice?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-02-2011, 08:28 PM
Jakub Jelinek
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:20:19PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> Is there a specific reason glibc does this?

Yes.

> Can it not have a set of patches, one per change, as is usual practice?

Fedora glibc sources are from git, and the bit diff is just generated
diff between the upstream snapshot and corresponding Fedora snapshot,
sans a few Fedora-only directories (which are packaged as extra tarball).

Jakub
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-02-2011, 08:43 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 22:28 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:20:19PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Is there a specific reason glibc does this?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Can it not have a set of patches, one per change, as is usual practice?
>
> Fedora glibc sources are from git, and the bit diff is just generated
> diff between the upstream snapshot and corresponding Fedora snapshot,
> sans a few Fedora-only directories (which are packaged as extra tarball).

What is the 'corresponding Fedora snapshot'? What git tree is that a
snapshot of? A Fedora downstream branch of glibc, a different upstream
branch...?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-02-2011, 09:02 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 13:43 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 22:28 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:20:19PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > Is there a specific reason glibc does this?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Can it not have a set of patches, one per change, as is usual practice?
> >
> > Fedora glibc sources are from git, and the bit diff is just generated
> > diff between the upstream snapshot and corresponding Fedora snapshot,
> > sans a few Fedora-only directories (which are packaged as extra tarball).
>
> What is the 'corresponding Fedora snapshot'? What git tree is that a
> snapshot of? A Fedora downstream branch of glibc, a different upstream
> branch...?

Looking at http://repo.or.cz/w/glibc.git , it seems we're simply talking
about the 'fedora' branch of upstream glibc. Given that this is an
upstream branch anyway, it would seem simpler to make our Source0 a
snapshot of the 'fedora' branch upstream, rather than starting with the
upstream 'master' and then adding an ugly patch and a mystery tarball to
turn upstream 'master' into the 'fedora' branch. I just don't see that
doing it the second way adds anything but confusion...

So this:

Source0: %{?glibc_release_url}%{glibcsrcdir}.tar.xz
Source1: %{?glibc_release_url}%{glibcportsdir}.tar.xz
Source2: %{glibcsrcdir}-fedora.tar.xz
Patch0: %{name}-fedora.patch
...
%setup -q -n %{glibcsrcdir} -b1 -b2
%patch0 -E -p1

would simply become:

# Fedora changes are an upstream git branch
# git clone -b fedora git://sources.redhat.com/git/glibc.git
# tar cvJf glibc-%{git}.tar.xz glibc/ --exclude=".git*"
Source0: glibc-%{git}.tar.xz
....
%setup -q -n glibc-%{git}

is there a problem with doing it that way? AFAIK, any upstream git
branch is a legitimate 'clean source', not just master.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-02-2011, 10:39 PM
Simo Sorce
 
Default Notice of intent: patching glibc

On Fri, 2011-09-02 at 22:28 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2011 at 01:20:19PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > Is there a specific reason glibc does this?
>
> Yes.
>
> > Can it not have a set of patches, one per change, as is usual practice?
>
> Fedora glibc sources are from git, and the bit diff is just generated
> diff between the upstream snapshot and corresponding Fedora snapshot,
> sans a few Fedora-only directories (which are packaged as extra tarball).

Jakub I guess this would be some more work but why don't you just use
git format-patch to get all the patches for the commits between the
baseline and the top of the tree ?

That would give you a set of discrete patches that mirror the commits
you have in the git tree.

Simo.

--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:24 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org