On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 10:45 +0200, Tomas Tomecek wrote:
...
> We are looking for maintainers of Fedora Linux packages who'd be
> interested in being early adopters and give us feedback during the
> development process. You don't need to do any coding unless you want
> to :)
I'd like to register in
Sorry for not responding to this in my previous reply.
On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 15:29 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> I wanted to investigate this, but unfortunately, it's hard to check
> right now, because all builds are non-reproducible (in the sense of
> reproducible-builds.org), becau
On Wed, 2021-04-14 at 15:29 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> Unfortunately this doesn't work for two important cases:
> - when a binary or shared library has been replaced on disk. E.g.
> it is fairly common for packages to crash on upgrade, and the crash
> could be in the _old_ code
On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 23:10 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> Or in other words: packaging metadata are sources too. If they change
> (and a version bump constitutes a change) the output might change,
> and
> that's expected. What's key really is that the only things that can
> effect generated ou
On Mon, 2021-04-12 at 15:46 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Package_information_on_ELF_objects
Putting packaging info into a binary guarantees that each successive
package containing ELF binaries will not contain exactly the same
binaries, even if there are no cha
On Mon, 2020-12-21 at 11:28 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RPMCoW
>
>
> == Summary ==
>
> RPM Copy on Write provides a better experience for Fedora Users as it
> reduces the amount of I/O and offsets CPU cost of package
> decompression. RPM Copy on Write uses
Hi everyone,
Some background on me: I've been working with Linux since 1995 in a
variety of capacities. I'm fascinated by file systems, configuration
and system management technologies.
I'm the author of RPMCoW[1]. This was recently accepted for Fedora 34.
I aim to provide the new features first
On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 13:05 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote:
> == Benefit to Fedora ==
>
> Having all files signed with a verifiable key means that system
> owners can use the kernel Integrity and Measurement Architecture
> (IMA) to enforce only verified files can be executed, or define other
> policies.
On Tue, 2021-01-05 at 18:18 +0100, Daniel Mach wrote:
> Dne 24. 12. 20 v 22:54 Matthew Almond via devel napsal(a):
> > Depends on how it got there, and what you asked for. Here's some
> > examples:
> >
> > 1. cp foo.rpm /var/cache/dnf//Packages/ && dnf inst
On Mon, 2021-01-04 at 11:25 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 03, 2021 at 03:25:29PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > I remember when drpms landed I heard people say they choose Fedora
> > because of them. That may have changed over the years I guess. :)
> > and there have been only 2 or 3 r
On Sun, 2021-01-03 at 16:16 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 2, 2021, at 10:03 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>
> > I fail to see why this would be significantly better...
>
> I don't claim that the "separate temporary directory of unpacked
> content" is *better* - just that i
On Wed, 2020-12-23 at 19:23 -0500, James Cassell wrote:
> # Resolve packaging request into a list of packages and operations
> > # Download and '''decompress''' packages into a '''locally
> > optimized''' rpm file
>
> Please verify the signature on the downloaded RPM before
> decompressing it. (D
> I currently download once and upgrade three different systems by
> rsync-ing the cache.
>
> Do I understand that this will no longer be supported or work?
That's an interesting question. Is sharing the cache directory from a single
host intended to be shared like this? I am guessing no, but i
> On Mon, Dec 21, 2020, at 1:07 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> Yes it does. It avoids writing the compressed data and then copying it back
> out
> uncompressed, which is the same amount of savings as the reflink approach.
>
> (It's also equally incompatible with deltarpm)
>
>
> No - static deltas
>> === New process ===
>> # Resolve packaging request into a list of packages and operations
>> # Download and '''decompress''' packages into a '''locally optimized''' rpm
>> file
>> # Install and/or upgrade packages sequentially using RPM files, using
>> ''reference linking''' (reflinking) to re
> I cannot find it anywhere in rpm codebase.
The current status section of the proposal describes this as pending two PRs,
and in the dependencies list, they're enumerated. Most of the code is in
https://github.com/malmond77/rpm/tree/cow and enabled through work in
https://github.com/malmond77
16 matches
Mail list logo
