Re: Broken sha512sum in coreutils / forcing alignment fixup and logging in initscripts

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 11:14 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
> On 01/08/11 11:10, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> > On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 10:30 +0000, Andy Green wrote:
> >> On 01/08/11 09:54, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
> >>> On 01/08/2011 02:49 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
> >
> >>> I would like to offer a counter-proposal - no package is accepted into
> >>> Fedora (ARM?) until it stops generating misalignment warnings. That way
> >>
> >> I think your proposal is a bad idea.
> >
> > FWIW I think you're talking at cross-purposes. There's no reason there
> > can't be a policy favoring stuff that doesn't generate miss-alignment
> > warnings (whether outright denial, or just some kind of part of package
> > reviews, and no reason this isn't a generic Fedora problem rather than
> > being ARM specific), have software like abrt pick it up, and still do a
> > fixup+warn setting in the kernel. You won't get silent breakage, and
> > you'll send a message that software needs to be fixed.
> 
> As a "counter proposal" as it was introduced, instead of Chris' scheme, 
> it's a bad idea.

Agreed. It should be "in addition", not a counter proposal.

> Having a policy that alignment faults should be avoided itself is fine, 
> but it is not a replacement for the good assertive action made by 
> changing the runtime policy.  In fact I don't think we get to this point 
> with so few fixups unless that was already the general policy not just 
> here but in the upstreams.

I think that might be more luck than intention. A lot of stuff is being
developed on three main architectures that take care of miss-alignment.

> When the initscripts set the runtime action to be fixup + log, those 
> faults will actually become more visible to everyone and help detection 
> and removal of faults overall.

This is true. Warnings will motivate fixing stuff. Still, doesn't hurt
to have some kind of "policy" to promote this. I'm only really concerned
because none of the primary Fedora arches are bitten by this, so it's
easy for this to continue slipping under the radar.

Jon.


_______________________________________________
arm mailing list
arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM (Vger)]     [Linux ARM]     [ARM Kernel]     [Fedora User Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Discussion]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Apps]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [Asterisk PBX]

Powered by Linux