February 2022 - openSUSE Bugs - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[Bug 1189896] OBS:Server:2.10/build needs to be updated
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 01 Feb '22

01 Feb '22

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189896 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1189896#c1 Adrian Schr�ter <adrian.schroeter(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |FIXED --- Comment #1 from Adrian Schr�ter <adrian.schroeter(a)suse.com> --- it has been updated meanwhile -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1184269] New: 'osc -r revision' csn result wrong sources (not those of the specified revision)
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 01 Feb '22

01 Feb '22

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184269 Bug ID: 1184269 Summary: 'osc -r revision' csn result wrong sources (not those of the specified revision) Classification: Internal Novell Products Product: openSUSE Build Service Version: 2.5 Hardware: Other OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: General Assignee: adrian.schroeter(a)suse.com Reporter: jsmeix(a)suse.com QA Contact: adrian.schroeter(a)suse.com Found By: --- Blocker: --- I don't know which OBS version runs on build.opensuse.org so I selected "2.5" as the latest released one. What I experienced: Under obscure conditions 'osc -r revision' results wrong sources: Not those of the specified revision but some older ones (in my case). What I did: Some days ago I had accepted https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/881509 home:dimstar:Factory/ghostscript -> Printing/ghostscript and ------------------------------------------------------------------------- # osc log Printing ghostscript | head r141 | jsmeix | 2021-03-29 08:29:21 | 17214ebb583d93d3fc43297ac02864e2 | unknown | rq881509 - Do not rely on apparmor at all for the -mini flavor: + Drop apparmor-abstraction and apparmor-rpm-macros BuildRequires. + Do not package apparmor files. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- confirms that those changes are in Printing/ghostscript. Today I liked to upgrade Printing/ghostscript so I did: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- # osc branch Printing ghostscript A working copy of the branched package can be checked out with: osc co home:jsmeix:branches:Printing/ghostscript Pending requests for package: Printing/ghostscript (1) 881824 State:review By:dimstar_suse When:2021-03-30T13:01:03 submit: Printing/ghostscript@141 -> openSUSE:Factory Review by User is accepted: licensedigger(licensedigger) Review by User is accepted: factory-auto(factory-auto) Review by Group is accepted: factory-staging(dimstar_suse) Review by Group is accepted: opensuse-review-team(namtrac) Review by Project is new: openSUSE:Factory:Staging:K(dimstar_suse) Comment: Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:K" # osc co home:jsmeix:branches:Printing/ghostscript ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- That plain "osc co" without "-r revision" results an older state from some longer time before rq881509 was accepted. So I tried ------------------------------------------------------------------------- # osc branch -r 141 Printing ghostscript A working copy of the branched package can be checked out with: osc co home:jsmeix:branches:Printing/ghostscript Pending requests for package: Printing/ghostscript (1) 881824 State:review By:dimstar_suse When:2021-03-30T13:01:03 submit: Printing/ghostscript@141 -> openSUSE:Factory Review by User is accepted: licensedigger(licensedigger) Review by User is accepted: factory-auto(factory-auto) Review by Group is accepted: factory-staging(dimstar_suse) Review by Group is accepted: opensuse-review-team(namtrac) Review by Project is new: openSUSE:Factory:Staging:K(dimstar_suse) Comment: Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Factory:Staging:K" # osc co home:jsmeix:branches:Printing/ghostscript ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again the plain "osc co" without "-r revision" results an older state from some longer time before rq881509 was accepted so I tried ------------------------------------------------------------------------- # osc co -r 141 home:jsmeix:branches:Printing/ghostscript Revision '141' does not exist ------------------------------------------------------------------------- which correctly fails because ------------------------------------------------------------------------- # osc log home:jsmeix:branches:Printing/ghostscript | head r1 | jsmeix | 2021-04-01 10:00:33 | ad0d78596aba2f83141e5881da1f3614 | unknown | <no message> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally ------------------------------------------------------------------------ghostscript.changes- # osc cat -r 141 Printing ghostscript ghostscript.changes | head Tue Oct 20 16:38:24 CEST 2020 - Ismail D�nmez <idonmez(a)suse.com> - 41ef9a0bc36b9db7115fbe9623f989bfb47bbade.patch fixes compilation with FreeType 2.10.3+ http://git.ghostscript.com/?p=ghostpdl.git;a=commitdiff;h=41ef9a0bc36b9db71… c.f. https://bugs.ghostscript.com/show_bug.cgi?id=702985 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- proves that under conditions that are obscure to me 'osc -r revision' results wrong sources. This ghostscript.changes is the above mentioned older state from some longer time before rq881509 was accepted. I guess this has something to do with those pending request 881824 for package Printing/ghostscript "Printing/ghostscript@141 -> openSUSE:Factory". But I do not understand why I cannot get those Printing/ghostscript@141 sources when I explicitly request them. I would expect that when I request '-r 141' then I either get that specified revision or I get an (error) message why it is not possible. I think silently providing a wrong revision is a bug. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 1195288] CUPS complains about "Read-only file system" although it is writable
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 01 Feb '22

01 Feb '22

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195288 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195288#c10 --- Comment #10 from Johannes Meixner <jsmeix(a)suse.com> --- As an example of a special use case: I guess "ProtectHome=true" conflicts with what cups-pdf could do if configured (not by default), cf. "PDF output location" in https://en.opensuse.org/SDB:Printing_to_PDF when cupsd also child processes inherit cupsd restrictions (here the cups-pdf backend). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1194501] Unable to boot TW 5.15.12: BPF verification failed for all modules
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 01 Feb '22

01 Feb '22

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194501 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1194501#c76 Michal Suchanek <msuchanek(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?, | |needinfo?(jkosina(a)suse.com) | |, | |needinfo?(jcheung(a)suse.com) | --- Comment #76 from Michal Suchanek <msuchanek(a)suse.com> --- Please also add the fix to master and stable branches. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1195368] qt6's qmake fails with: Project ERROR: Library 'libatomic' is not defined.
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 01 Feb '22

01 Feb '22

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1195368 http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1195368#c3 Christophe Giboudeaux <christophe(a)krop.fr> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CONFIRMED Assignee|christophe(a)krop.fr |opensuse-kde-bugs@opensuse. | |org --- Comment #3 from Christophe Giboudeaux <christophe(a)krop.fr> --- Filed upstream: https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-100370 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1195288] CUPS complains about "Read-only file system" although it is writable
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 01 Feb '22

01 Feb '22

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195288 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195288#c9 Johannes Meixner <jsmeix(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|P5 - None |P3 - Medium --- Comment #9 from Johannes Meixner <jsmeix(a)suse.com> --- Added ReadWritePaths=/etc/cups to cups.service for cups in OBS Printing and forwarded it to openSUSE:Factory ------------------------------------------------------------------ # osc request accept -m \ 'Added ReadWritePaths=/etc/cups to cups.service (boo#1195288)' \ 950380 Result of change request state: ok openSUSE:Factory Forward this submit to it? ([y]/n)y Added ReadWritePaths=/etc/cups to cups.service (boo#1195288) (forwarded request 950380 from jsmeix) New request # 950381 ------------------------------------------------------------------ I added print queues via command line ('lpadmin'), via the YaST printer module and via the CUPS web interface ('localhost:631') which worked for me and I printed as normal user to those three queues via command line ('echo Hello | lp -d <queue_name>') which also worked for me. I cannot test printing via network on my homeoffice laptop. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1195360] Kernel 5.16.1-1 PAM issue after upgrading from 20220101 to 20220121
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 01 Feb '22

01 Feb '22

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195360 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195360#c4 Jiri Slaby <jslaby(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |ematsumiya(a)suse.com --- Comment #4 from Jiri Slaby <jslaby(a)suse.com> --- And the commit author originally did: + if (ses->workstation_name) + sz += 2 * strnlen(ses->workstation_name, CIFS_MAX_WORKSTATION_LEN); + else + sz += 2 * strlen(CIFS_DEFAULT_WORKSTATION_NAME); This was removed later. Ccing also Enzo who was involved in the discussion too. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1195319] New: [Build 20220129] vagrant-libvirt fails to build against Ruby 3.1
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 01 Feb '22

01 Feb '22

http://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1195319 Bug ID: 1195319 Summary: [Build 20220129] vagrant-libvirt fails to build against Ruby 3.1 Classification: openSUSE Product: openSUSE Tumbleweed Version: Current Hardware: Other URL: https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/2166554/modules/add_ box_libvirt/steps/14 OS: Other Status: NEW Severity: Normal Priority: P5 - None Component: Virtualization:Other Assignee: virt-bugs(a)suse.de Reporter: dimstar(a)opensuse.org QA Contact: qa-bugs(a)suse.de Found By: openQA Blocker: Yes ## Observation openQA test in scenario opensuse-Tumbleweed-DVD-x86_64-extra_tests_vagrant@64bit fails in [add_box_libvirt](https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/2166554/modules/add_box_… openSUSE:Factory has moved from Ruby 2.7 plus Ruby 3.0 to a single Ruby 3.1 setup. vagrant-libvirt is not buildable in this setup and reports unresolvable: nothing provides ruby3.0 < 3.1 nothing provides rubygem(ruby:3.0.0:bundler) nothing provides rubygem(ruby:3.0.0:rspec) nothing provides rubygem(ruby:3.0.0:vagrant-spec) nothing provides rubygem(ruby:3.0.0:fog-core:2) >= 2.1 nothing provides rubygem(ruby:3.0.0:fog-libvirt) >= 0.3. nothing provides rubygem(ruby:3.0.0:rspec-core) >= 3.5 nothing provides rubygem(ruby:3.0.0:rspec-expectations) >= 3.5 nothing provides rubygem(ruby:3.0.0:rspec-mocks) >= 3.5 nothing provides rubygem(ruby:3.0.0:rake) nothing provides rubygem(ruby:3.0.0:gem2rpm) nothing provides rubygem(ruby:3.0.0:childprocess) > 3) ## Test suite description Maintainer: dancermak. Test vagrant, vagrant plugins and the vagrant boxes ## Reproducible Fails since (at least) Build [20220129](https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/2165929) ## Expected result Last good: [20220128](https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/2164205) (or more recent) ## Further details Always latest result in this scenario: [latest](https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/latest?arch=x86_64&distri=opensus… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 2

[Bug 1182732] VUL-0: CVE-2020-28599: openscad: stack-based buffer overflow in the import_stl.cc:import_stl()
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 01 Feb '22

01 Feb '22

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182732 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1182732#c1 Adrian Schr�ter <adrian.schroeter(a)suse.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |RESOLVED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Assignee|adrian.schroeter(a)suse.com |smar(a)smar.fi --- Comment #1 from Adrian Schr�ter <adrian.schroeter(a)suse.com> --- leap 15.2 is out of maintenance. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1195360] Kernel 5.16.1-1 PAM issue after upgrading from 20220101 to 20220121
by bugzilla_noreply＠suse.com 01 Feb '22

01 Feb '22

https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195360 https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1195360#c3 --- Comment #3 from Jiri Slaby <jslaby(a)suse.com> --- > cifs_get_smb_ses+0x674/0xdc0 [cifs 7ef9028630b6a8ae2a075c5cad1bded3495fffbf] Oh, there is: if (ctx->workstation_name) { ses->workstation_name = kstrdup(ctx->workstation_name, GFP_KERNEL); if (!ses->workstation_name) goto get_ses_fail; } So apparently the context has workstation_name == NULL and the dup didn't happen. So there should be a check of workstation_name in size_of_ntlmssp_blob. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0