Search Results: "pm"

9 August 2026

Elana Hashman: Managing virtualenvs with a little bash

When you need to install something directly from PyPI, Python virtualenvs have been my go-to for over a decade. A quick virtualenv intro Most of my readers are probably already familiar with virtualenvs, but for completeness, I'll give you a brief introduction. A virtualenv (short for "virtual environment") is an isolated distribution of Python packages, where you can independently install packages without disturbing your system packages or other virtualenvs. You can set one up like this, assuming you are using Python 3.3 or higher: 
python3 -m venv ~/.venv/my-virtualenv
The directory specified here is just a convention. I keep all my virtualenvs in the .venv folder in my home directory, but you can pick whatever location you like. To use the virtualenv, you must activate it: 
source ~/.venv/my-virtualenv/bin/activate
This activation script is a special shell script that configures your current shell, pointing at all the right paths in order to use the virtual environment. source runs this script in your current shell session to set it up. You will notice that this adds (my-virtualenv) to the beginning of your shell prompt, reminding you that the "my-virtualenv" virtualenv is active. Now when you pip install amazing-package, the software will only be available in this virtual environment. When you're done, you can deactivate it like so: 
deactivate
Wonderful! Managing many virtualenvs gets annoying Over time, I end up accumulating many virtualenvs, which can become harder to manage. Maybe something like this: 
$ ls ~/.venv/
my-virtualenv cool-project snakes-ahoy
I also don't want to type source ~/.venv/my-virtualenv/bin/activate every time I use the virtualenv, because it gets very repetitive only the name of the venv is really needed. But luckily, we can write a little bit of bash to make managing this less annoying. (Or you can use one of many Python developer tools that are designed to manage this, like pipx, but when I merely want to consume Python software, I might not have a development environment set up. So that's beyond the scope of this post!) If you add the following shell function to your ~/.bashrc or ~/.bash_aliases file, it will nicely wrap our activation command: 
setup-venv()  
        source "$HOME/.venv/$1/bin/activate"
Now all we need to run is 
setup-venv my-virtualenv
So much quicker! Spicing it up with tab completion The first thing I noticed after writing this wrapper was that I started hitting tab on the virtual environment name, but... nothing happened. Wouldn't it be nice to know what virtualenvs I had available, and to not have to type out the whole long thing? Well, we can write it ourselves If for some reason you don't already have bash completion installed, on a Debian-based system, you will need to install it with 
apt install bash-completion
In order to configure our bash completion, we will create a new file, /etc/bash_completion.d/venv, with the following contents: 
_list_venvs()
 
    local cur prev opts
    COMPREPLY=()
    cur="$ COMP_WORDS[COMP_CWORD] "
    prev="$ COMP_WORDS[COMP_CWORD-1] "
    opts=$(find $HOME/.venv/ -mindepth 1 -maxdepth 1 -type d -printf "%f ")
    COMPREPLY=( $(compgen -W "$ opts " -- $ cur ) )
    return 0
 
complete -F _list_venvs setup-venv
This file defines another shell function order to determine how to autocomplete the options for our setup-venv function. $opts is where we define the options for our function. We generate it with a find command looking at the .venv folder in the current user's home directory, then only including child folders (excluding the current directory itself, .venv, in our results) by using the min/max depth and type arguments, and printing just the individual directory names, deliminated by spaces using our print formatter. Everything else is the standard scaffolding required to use bash completions. Once you save this file and reload your shell, you'll see that you are able to use completions as expected! 
setup-venv <tab>
my-virtualenv cool-project snakes-ahoy
setup-venv s<tab>
setup-venv snakes-ahoy
Complaints, comments, questions? Hope this was helpful! If it wasn't, that's too bad. But don't worry you can safely ignore this post.

Reproducible Builds: Reproducible Builds in July 2026

Welcome to the July 2026 report from the Reproducible Builds project! In our reports, we try to outline the most important things that we have been up to over the past month. As a quick recap about what problem our project intends to solve, whilst anyone may inspect the source code of free software for malicious flaws, almost all software is distributed to end users as pre-compiled binaries. The motivation behind the reproducible builds effort is to ensure no flaws have been introduced during this compilation process by promising identical results are always generated from a given source, thus allowing multiple third-parties to come to a consensus on whether a build was compromised or not. If you are interested in contributing to the project, please visit the Contribute page on our website. In this month s report, we cover:

  1. Tool development
  2. Distribution work
  3. Three new scholarly papers
  4. Patches
  5. Misc news

Tool development diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. This month, Chris Lamb made the following changes, including preparing and uploading versions 324, 325 and 326 to Debian:
  • Fix tests to work with zipdetails 4.0008. (#1141359)
  • Bump debhelper compatibility level to 13. [ ]
  • Update copyright years. [ ]
In addition, Paul Spooren made changes to allow trailing garbage in Gzip files [ ] and Vagrant Cascadian added an external tool reference for the pedump binary to use the mono package under GNU Guix. [ ]
disorderfs is our FUSE-based filesystem that deliberately introduces non-determinism into system calls to reliably flush out reproducibility issues. This month, Christelle Gloor added the option to sort by ctime as returned by the lstat(2) syscall. [ ], which Chris Lamb uploaded whilst bumping the Standards-Version to version 4.7.4 [ ]. Bernhard Wiedemann also updated disorderfs to version 0.7.0 in openSUSE.
Yet again, there were a number of improvements made to our website this month as well. For example, Chris Lamb, by request of Digital Ocean, changed the target of a referral link so that they can manage incoming referrers [ ] and pushed a number of changes to the Tools page [ ].

Distribution work In Debian this month, 32 reviews of Debian packages were added, 26 were updated and a total of 21 were removed this month, adding to our extensive knowledge about identified issues. A number of issue types were added by Chris Lamb, including:
  • python_towncrier_build_date [ ][ ]
  • log_files_installed_in_package [ ]
  • fontforge_varies_by_timezone [ ][ ]
Chris also added a further note for the build_date_in_manpage_generated_by_spf13_cobra issue. [ ]
In addition, there is a new page showing verification rebuilds of OpenWrt APK packages and firmware images, powered by rebuilderd:

Three new scholarly papers Yan Li, Nan Jiang, Qihang Zhou, Shaowen Xu, Yamin Xie and Xiaoqi Jia of the Chinese Academy of Sciences published a paper titled VCAligner: Aligning Source Distribution Versions with Upstream Git Commits to Secure Supply Chain:
We present VCAligner, a content-based alignment methodology that constructs inverted indexes over VCS histories to precisely map released artifacts to their originating commits, independent of fragile version tags. We evaluated VCAligner on a dataset of 2,984 verifiable PyPI packages derived from the 4,000 most-downloaded projects linked to public GitHub upstreams. Our results reveal a critical weakness in conventional tag-based heuristics: while they appear effective on 85% of the dataset, the residual 15% failure rate generates a catastrophic downstream audit workload of over 10.3 million commits. In contrast, VCAligner reduces this burden by two orders of magnitude ( 158 ), bounding the total workload to under 65,000 commits. Furthermore, we provide the large-scale characterization of Packaging Noise, classifying artifact divergence into structural additions (Path Phantoms) and content mutations (Blob Phantoms), thereby isolating the distinct attack surfaces of malicious injection and code tampering.

Jens Dietrich and Spencer Sun from the Victoria University of Wellington together with Tim W. White and Behnaz Hassanshahi from Oracle Inc pre-published their paper No Snake Oil: Verifying Python Package Builds (PDF):
Python has become the default language for interacting with AI, with packages being distributed through registries like the Python Package Index (PyPI). This creates a need to analyse supply chains comprising such packages. One such analysis is to rebuild packages in order to identify compromised builds injecting malware. Independent rebuilds in hardened environments have the added advantage that they can generate and record provenance in order to increase the trustworthiness of packages. Two tools that are designed to automate such rebuilds and run them at scale are macaron and oss-rebuild. We study 12,180 popular releases from PyPI and find that the byte-for-byte equivalence rate is generally low. We analyse the reasons why they produce different wheels, and find that equivalence between the original and rebuilt wheels can often still be established, preserving most of the guarantees users expect from rebuildable releases. We present and evaluate daleq4py, a tool to establish the equivalence of Python wheels through the kernel of a normalisation function that is based on provenance-preserving datalog rules. Experimental results show that daleq4py substantially expands the set of rebuilds that can be accepted as equivalent. Although only 15.4% of macaron rebuilds and 19.1% of oss-rebuild rebuilds are byte-for-byte identical to the published PyPI wheels, daleq4py establishes wheel equivalence for 60.2% and 78.9% of source-equivalent rebuilds, respectively.

Denise Nanni, Julien Malka, Stefano Zacchiroli and Th o Zimmermann from T l com Paris together with Gabriele D Angelo from the University of Bologna pre-published their paper Understanding Build Reproducibility in the F-Droid Ecosystem (PDF), which was accepted at the 2026 ACM Conference on Reproducibility and Replicability:
The security of open source applications benefits considerably from the possibility of rebuilding their source and verifying the output. F-Droid, a prominent distribution for open source Android applications, systematically rebuilds them from source and tests their bitwise reproducibility at app publishing time. However, F-Droid offers no guarantee that app reproducibility will continue to hold in the future. As software ecosystems evolve, reproducibility may degrade, with potential negative consequences for software preservation and security. We present the first empirical study of build reproducibility in the F-Droid app ecosystem. Analyzing historical reproducibility logs, we find that the overall bitwise reproducibility rate has been steadily increasing over time (as new versions of apps are published). We then evaluate how reproducibility holds in time for fixed app versions, by attempting to rebuild 18 904 app versions that F-Droid had previously confirmed bitwise reproducible, published between September 2018 and February 2026, achieving an 83% rebuild success rate, and identify missing dependencies as the dominant cause of failure, accounting for 76% of non-rebuildable cases. Among successfully rebuilt apps, 94% are also bitwise reproducible-i.e., they still yield bitwise identical artifacts upon rebuild. Together, these results show that while bitwise reproducibility largely holds for apps that can be rebuilt, rebuildability itself is highly sensitive to temporal decay.

Patches The Reproducible Builds project detects, dissects and attempts to fix as many currently-unreproducible packages as possible. We endeavour to send all of our patches upstream where applicable or possible. This month, we wrote a large number of such patches, including:

Misc news On our mailing list this month, Colin Winter of Markovian Protocol wrote to our mailing list on the topic of Reproducible verification for retained logs:
Reproducible builds remove trust in the builder: anyone re-derives the same artifact from the same source, byte for byte. The same shape applies one layer over, to a retained record. Most record-keeping regimes (the EU AI Act s Article 12 logging is the current example) require that events be recorded and logs retained, but not that a retained log be verifiable, by a party who was not present, as unaltered and existing when claimed. That leaves an integrity obligation resting on trusting the party being audited.
(Full thread)

Finally, if you are interested in contributing to the Reproducible Builds project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. However, you can get in touch with us via:

4 August 2026

Russell Coker: Monitors for Work

The Corporate Monitor Issue Some time ago I worked in the IT department of a company that had a corporate standard of two 27 FUllHD (either 1920*1080 or 1920*1200) monitors for the desktop. I was pushing to make the standard be one 32 4K monitor or the two cheaper monitors. They ended up making one 27 4K monitor an option which was still a better option for many users than two FullHD monitors due to having twice the pixels even though it had half the screen area. It was a surprise to me when hardly anyone took up that option. One man who worked there brought a wide curved monitor from home and ran with one of the FullHD monitors on each side of that. As an employee in the IT department I had concerns about expensive personal equipment being used in the office regarding who s going to pay the bill if it gets broken. But I was assured that it was his old monitor that he didn t need after buying a better one for gaming at home and he wouldn t be too upset if something happened to it. This isn t the only time I ve witnessed such problems of companies paying large salaries for skilled people and providing poor equipment for them to do the work. One previous time I raised a OH&S issue because the outdated monitors were so blurry but the company determined that the monitors wouldn t cause health problems and spending $150 per employee on better replacements was a waste of money. Computer hardware tends to become cheaper over time and one thing that has become really cheap recently is portable monitors. Kogan has a 15.6 FullHD monitor with USB-C and mini-HDMI inputs for $89 [1]. It wouldn t be difficult for someone to put one of those on each side of the monitor or monitors that their employer provides and put them in a desk drawer at the end of the day to minimise risk. The same Kogan page has a 16 monitor with 2560*1600 resolution for $189. Company Ownership I previously wrote about the potential benefits to companies in not owning all those keyboards, mice, and headsets when they could just give each employee the money and have them buy their own [2]. I don t think we are at the stage where that can be applied to monitors as the cheapest price for a decent monitor is about $500 which takes it out of the disposable price range that keyboards and mice are in. Also from an IT support perspective there are real support issues with monitors and cables having compatibility issues. But paying small amounts of money to reimburse employees who buy cheap portable monitors to supplement their main monitor is a more reasonable option. For some people that will allow noteworthy improvements in work performance. Who Will it Help? I don t think that adding such portable monitors will directly help the majority of workers. I think that to maximise performance and efficiency we need to chase the long tail of improvements. Big monitors, really big monitors (65 at a larger distance), multiple monitors, standing desks, and whatever else people want. There was some research from Microsoft some years ago (back when 27 was a really big monitor) showing that some tasks had a 50% increase in performance with a larger monitor. Now that 27 is about the smallest monitor size commonly available the potential for improvement is reduced. Probably most workers now already have monitors that provide the benefits to them that the big monitors in Microsoft research provided. But there will always be some portion of the user base who will benefit. If you can get a 50% performance boost for 1% of the users that s really worth doing. If you can get a 0.5% benefit for 100% of the users that is also worth doing and will theoretically give equal benefits. Costs of Employees It is claimed that the total cost of an employee including all overheads of management and providing office facilities etc amounts to twice their base salary. If that is the case then a minimum wage employee in Australia costs $100k per year, someone at the low end of the IT pay scale costs $200k, and someone at the high end of the IT scale is around $400k. It seems clearly worthwhile to spend $1000 in hardware purchases for a $100k employee who declares that it will really help their work, anything which is noticeable to the user is going to be more than a 1% difference in performance. For someone at the high end of the IT pay scale spending $40,000 on hardware to improve their performance could pay for itself. This is not only due to direct return on investment but because the people who do such work are often in key roles in important projects. If there s too much work for one person on minimum wage to do then you just hire another person. You can t hire another senior IT person and have them just do the work, it can take months to get up to speed. But as management in corporations seems unable to recognise this cheap hardware employees can afford to buy with their own money can bridge the gap. Job Interviews In future when interviewing for jobs I ll ask about the hardware that s to be used. I won t say I m not interested in this job offer because you don t respect your employees enough to buy adequate hardware , but I may make it a condition of working at a company that the hardware on my desk will not be obsolete.
Related posts:
  1. Cheap Peripherals for Work A problem with a lot of the purchase of peripherals...
  2. monitors for developers Michael Davies recently blogged that all developers should have big...
  3. 4K Monitors A couple of years ago a relative who uses a...

Dirk Eddelbuettel: #058: Reverse Dependencies Made Easy, Fast, Reliable

Welcome to post 58 in the R4 series. R and the CRAN repositories maintain a very high level of what we might call quality assurrance by requiring that newly-added code does not break any existing dependencies. This is frequently called a reverse-dependency check . For any given CRAN package one can quickly determine it reverse dependencies. Calling tools::package_dependencies(pkgName, reverse=TRUE) will for a scalar or vector-valued argument return a named list with the reverse dependencies. It is then a matter of looping over this list. There are helper functions in base R as well as in contributed packages on and off CRAN. I also wrote my own with package prrd which, while possibly a wee bit specialised and under-documented has served me well to check on Rcpp and related packages which can indeed have a large number of reverse dependencies. I recently looked into one of these contributed runner packages, and while I will refrain from naming its implementation language let me just mention that the term cargo cult may be a real thing here. What go me interested in this was the fact that if one has a simple-to-use runner then the fact that r2u makes it fast, easy, reliable: pick all three (to borrow its slogan) to deal with actual depencies if Ubuntu has indeed been selected as the host. We will maintain the position that if you can in fact integrate with the system-wide package management then any alternative per-repo package management approach not doing so will likely be dominated by an approach that does integrate with the system facilities. Which is what precisely what r2u does, and offers. And why it is used enough to by now have shipped eighty eight million binary packages. So I tested it for the reverse-dependency check task. What I learned by looking into the (much more complicated) runner was that it at the end of the day it hands the actual task of running the reverse dependecies off to a helper function rev_check that is part of the xfun package by Yuhui. I quickly found that besides xfun we would also need its suggested dependency tinytex which in turn would error unless the tlmgr binary was present. So as the sole requirement (on an Ubuntu system with r2u) turns out to be 
$ apt install r-cran-xfun r-cran-tinytex texlive-base
where we do it all in one apt call (as root in the container). (Given r2u we could also call install.packages(c("xfun","tinytext")) followed by apt install texlive-base but it is simpler for this setup step to be just one call). With that we are basically done. I did this (twice) using a rocker/r2u container with r2u preinstalled, mounting a local work and scrap directory for the container. In it we expand the package to be tested (i.e. tar xaf pkgName_*tar.gz for a given source package pkgName from CRAN) and then just call with the package name and expanded direcrtory. I.e. I used this call to test my package AsioHeaders (which has just three reverse dependencies) to both name it and to point to the expanded source directory created for this purposed: 
> system.time( res <- xfun::rev_check("AsioHeaders", src="AsioHeaders") )
## ... earlier output omitted for brevity here ...
   user  system elapsed 
 35.732   3.333 149.683 
> res
   httpgd ipaddress websocket 
        0         0         0 
>
and about a good two minutes later I would get the timing result and the summary in variable res. As I checked the current CRAN version, the check was as expected free of concerns or issues. To support this, r2u did indeed go off and install about sixty seven binary packages (and the total includes all binary dependencies fully resolved) delivering on the just works promise by the r2u documentation. As another check, I did the same for RcppAnnoy which has seven reverse dependencies and needed about two hundred CRAN packages to be installed. The full test took just over four minutes with the timing function reporting some nice gains from parallelisation as total user compute time was on the order of just under eight minutes. Again, test results were clean and free of worries as expected: 
> system.time( res <- xfun::rev_check("RcppAnnoy", src="RcppAnnoy") )
## ... earlier output omitted for brevity here ...
   user  system elapsed 
471.765 378.220 266.855 
> res
   bbknnR  bigANNOY  blocking     scDHA    Seurat      uwot VectrixDB 
        0         0         0         0         0         0         0 
>
Overall this was a rather useful quick excursion as it demonstrates that - existing functions can be used to orchestrate a reverse dependency check - with reasonable dependency scale we can do this on a single machine quite easily taking advantage of parallel computing on multi-core machines - using r2u gives us fast, easy, reliable package installation making testing of packages we might not otherwise use or know a breeze - doing this in an ephemeral Docker container facilitates easy build-up of required resources and leaves no side effects behind which might affect our normal development environment

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can now sponsor me at GitHub.

3 August 2026

John Goerzen: Celebrating 45 Years of Kermit with the First New C-Kermit Release in 15 Years (and working with a decades-old C codebase)

1981 was a different time for computing. It was expensive (both hardware and software), and it was far from a given that machines from one vendor would be able to talk to those from another. In fact, Columbia University had just such a problem, so in 1981, Frank da Cruz and Bill Catchings designed a serial protocol they called Kermit. Because of the many quirks of the DEC-20 and IBM mainframes, the Kermit protocol was highly adaptable from the start: able to handle systems that had trouble processing more than 96 bytes of data at once, able to transfer 8-bit files over 7-bit links, able to translate between character sets (ASCII and EBCDIC then; now also various Unicodes), and of course, handling of error-prone serial links. Kermit spread rapidly; by 1982, Kermit had been ported to MS-DOS and Unix. Eventually, C-Kermit (an implementation of Kermit in C) became the flagship Kermit. It gained TCP support, an interactive CLI, a powerful scripting language (with features from the shell, Lisp, and expect), and optimizations for today s high-speed links, such as jumbo packets, sliding windows, and streaming modes. Along the way, Kermit flew on the International Space Station, ran data collection from sensors during hurricanes, and many other uses including postal systems, Boeing 787 manufacturing, and more. Today, I use it as a powerful ssh wrapper (letting me easily transfer files through multiple nested ssh, sudo, su, etc. commands), a BBS client, to exchange data with me HP 48GX calculator, and so on. It s also used today to transmit firmware updates to embedded devices. And, of course, anyone that works with vintage systems is likely to use Kermit at some point. It wouldn t be until the late 1990s that the TCP/IP stack was finally adopted by most OS vendors, establishing something of a common basis for communication. Of course, we assume this today. Though transferring large files between OSs (say, Linux, Windows, MacOS, Android, iPad, etc.) is still a challenge, even though they all speak TCP/IP! I find that the easiest way to get large files from two computers is to spin up Kermit (see ckwin for a Windows fork of C-Kermit) and just set up a TCP connection over the LAN. In fact, I added a new show interfaces command in C-Kermit 11, making it easy to see your system s local IPs. For most of its history, Columbia s Kermit project was self-funded. Columbia charged for commercial use, which limited its inclusion in Linux distributions. In 2011, 30 years after its founding, Columbia canceled the Kermit Project and released C-Kermit as Open Source under a BSD license. Frank da Cruz, who had still been working with the Kermit project all those years, volunteered to continue maintaining Kermit outside Columbia, and continued development with alpha and beta releases through his retirement from the project in 2025. I dive into this C codebase As Debian maintainer of Kermit, I noticed some areas where it wasn t matching modern expectations. One area was, not surprising for a project of its age, security. Another area was that its character set or line-ending conversions are usually not desired now; we are used to byte-identical binary transfers, and the defaults caused confusion and even some rare instances of data corruption. So I started making a few patches last year. I ve worked with old C codebases before, such as Varnish. I ve generally hated it. You usually find a mix of bad and terrible practices, unclear memory management, and so forth. But I ve been living in the C-Kermit codebase for a few months now, and I enjoy it. Yes, this thing is still designed to build on VMS, OS/2, and with compilers that haven t heard of ANSI and those that require modern practices. (That em-dash was mine; I knew how to use them before LLMs existed and I m not going to stop just because LLMs have copied people like me! No AI was used for this post.) The there is an elegance in all of that. As I worked, I fixed a bunch more potential security issues, both with memory safety and with protecting against a malicious remote in roughly the same manner that some patches to scp did a few years back. I added IPv6 support, of course conditionally compiled because some systems C-Kermit builds on have never heard of IPv6 and never will. (And, of course, with fallback algorithms at runtime for systems that have IPv6 support but not IPv6 connectivity.) I added unit tests and Python-based end-to-end tests, running nearly 2000 test cases in total. Along the way, I found and fixed a number of bugs going back decades. I learned about FIONREAD being broken on macOS, about NetBSD s bugs in the pty driver, and fixed bugs in the Kermit protocol implementation itself. I added compatibility tests with the gkermit and ekermit (embedded) implementations, as well as the last full release, C-Kermit 9.0.302 from 2011 (which was difficult to get compiled on a modern system). There is an extensive changelog describing all the improvements in C-Kermit 11. C-Kermit development had never really used a VCS at any point, though Kermit veteran Jeffrey Altman imported historical releases into a Git repo, along with some patches that hadn t made it into a release (which I also pulled in.) There was a lot of disabled code behind COMMENT, along with commentary describing why it was no longer used. With Git, we would now generally just remove the old code and explain why in a commit message. I went through and did so with a lot of it, meaning that, at last check, C-Kermit actually has fewer lines of code now than it used to. Towards a new release It became apparent pretty quickly that I was making more changes than would make sense as a Debian patch series. Not only that, but they would be more widely applicable to more than just Debian and Ubuntu users. As Linux and BSD distributions were running everything from the last non-beta release (2011 s 9.0.302) to the last beta release (about 1.5 years ago), depending on their different policies about running betas, even sharing patches in a useful fashion was going to be quite difficult. So, I spun up a project at Open Kermit to coordinate future development in the open and keep Kermit going. With modern CI, I run that test suite on Linux (x86_64 and arm64), macOS, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. It builds binary releases on all those platforms, plus a statically-linked Linux binary built with musl libc. You can download the latest C-Kermit release, and of course contribute to C-Kermit and its website. Dedication Frank da Cruz was directly involved with Kermit for 44 years. I m not aware of any other Open Source project founder being involved for so long. Richard Stallman started working on GNU Emacs in 1984, 3 years after Frank started working on Kermit, but Richard hasn t been in that role since around 2008. Accordingly, C-Kermit 11 bears this dedication:
I dedicate this release of C-Kermit to Frank da Cruz. Frank was directly involved with Kermit for 44 years, from its initial design in 1981 all the way through 2025. He maintained Kermit as an Open Source project after Columbia University ended its sponsorship. I know of no other Open Source project where the founder remains so personally involved for so long. When Kermit was begun, transfers between different hardware and operating systems were difficult or impossible. Frank helped build a bridge. Kermit glued systems together, from the International Space Station to pocket calculators, and set a new standard for interoperability. It continues to do so. Kermit is still one of the quietly-working pillars of computing today, enabling everything from firmware upgrades to radios. And, yes, it still reliably transfers files over serial lines. As we start to spend a lot of time in the Kermit codebase, we do so standing on the shoulders of a giant. Thanks, Frank, for your decades of work on Kermit. John Goerzen, July 2026

2 August 2026

Ben Hutchings: FOSS activity in July 2026

31 July 2026

Jonathan McDowell: My CPU died

I built my current house server back in 2019. It had an upgrade from the original Ryzen 2700 to a 5700G in late 2021, but otherwise is still running with the original setup. Back in November it developed some erratic behaviour (initially manifesting as problems with the TPM, which is ironic as I ve spent a bunch of time at my day job trying to improve TPM reliability), culminating in unreliable reboots. I had a limited amount of ability to swap parts out, but ultimately decided it was a motherboard issue (thinking perhaps VRM problems), found a replacement locally, and everything seemed fine. Until May. At that point I rebooted the machine for a Debian point release, and it failed to come back. Fans would spin, but there was no sign of actual life. I ended up pressing a temporary machine into service (that could at least run the Home Assistant container, and a few other critical bits) while I tried to work out what was wrong. I d kept the previous motherboard, and still had the Ryzen 2700, so I did a bunch of swaps (and obtained a motherboard buzzer to try and get some indication about whether there were useful beep codes being emitted), and ultimately came to the conclusion that the CPU had died. I m not quite clear what happened here. I played it safe and replaced the PSU at the same time, in case that was the original cause back in November and ultimately damaged the CPU, but both old + new motherboards worked just fine with the 2700. That left a decision about what to do. This previous server was from 2013, so this machine has now lasted longer than that and I could justifiably upgrade. However when I went to look at what the equivalent modern machine would be it s only a couple of generations later (Zen 5 vs Zen 3), and 64GB RAM alone would have set me back ~ 1k. For not a lot of gain. So I ended up buying a replacement Ryzen 5700G, hopefully allowing me to put off thinking about an upgrade until Zen 6 is out, and RAM prices are saner (though I understand that might take a couple of years). It s not the first time I ve had a faulty PSU be the cause of a dead machine, but it was a pretty frustrating experience.

27 July 2026

Dirk Eddelbuettel: #057: Conditionally Quieten Compilers

Welcome to post 57 in the R4 series. R packages with compiled codes can use the file src/Makevars to set compilation flags. We often rely on this to set libraries, include directories or compilation options. When using external libraries, be it header-only or via headers and linking, we are often experiencing compilation noise when these libraries tickle warnings under generally-recommended flags such as -Wall -pedantic. Two packages I maintain are clearly repeat offenders here: Eigen, and BH. Both cam generate pages and pages of compiler output. This is generally not great as it may hide genuine warnings from our own code. What makes matters worse is that some of the available and specific options for the compilers are treated by R CMD check as non-portable leading to a nag on package checking. Examples are -Wno-parentheses, -Wno-maybe-uninitialize or -Wno-nunnull. I have long resorted to adding these to my per-user ~/.R/Makevars. When added there, compilation is quieter, but R CMD check still nags here where the option is set but not at CRAN or r-universe. A situation that is not ideal but what somewhat stable . More recently, I realized there was an available check we can use to conditionally add extra compilation flags but leave them off by default. That makes local development quiet allowing us to focus on the quality of our additions here without noise from third-party libraries we may use. At the same time we do not need to do anything else to let CRAN do its work. The check we now use is whether there is a .git/ directory present. If so, we are indeed building from local sources and can add extra flags. If not, we are likely building from a tar.gz source archive which is the case for CRAN and hence do not set these. An example use is this recent additional to package qlcal where this bit of R code is invoked from a minimal shell script configure and replaces the stub @XTRAFLAGS@ in src/Makevars.in (or src/Makevars.win.in) 
if (dir.exists(".git"))  
    ## development from a .git directory can use these flags
    xtraflags <- "-Wno-nonnull -Wno-deprecated-declarations"
  else  
    ## else build from tarball so stick with existing flags
    xtraflags <- ""
 
win <- if (Sys.info()[["sysname"]] == "Windows") ".win" else ""
infile <- file.path("src", paste0("Makevars", win, ".in"))
outfile <- file.path("src", paste0("Makevars", win))
lines <- readLines(infile)
lines <- gsub("@XTRAFLAGS@", xtraflags, lines)
writeLines(lines, outfile)
With this change, local compilation is quiet, yet CRAN has nothing to nag about (as seen at the qlcal results page). Similarly, one can also check from an actual configure file written in autoconf. Here is a similar example from RcppEigen (showing some relevants parts of the whole file) 
# PKG_CXXFLAGS initialized earlier ...

## Check if building locally
AC_MSG_CHECKING([whether .git/ exists])
if test -d "$srcdir/.git"; then
    AC_MSG_RESULT([yes, adding extra flags])
    AC_SUBST([PKG_CXXFLAGS],["$ PKG_CXXFLAGS  -Wno-ignored-attributes -Wno-maybe-uninitialized"])
else
    AC_MSG_RESULT([no, consider adding '-Wno-ignored-attributes -Wno-maybe-uninitialized' to ~/.R/Makevars])
fi

AC_SUBST([PKG_CXXFLAGS], ["$ PKG_CXXFLAGS "])
AC_CONFIG_FILES([src/Makevars])
AC_OUTPUT
Once again, with this change compilation is quiet locally, yet unaffected at CRAN. Just what we want. Give it a try in your packages.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can now sponsor me at GitHub.

25 July 2026

Dirk Eddelbuettel: RcppArmadillo 15.4.2-1 on CRAN: Small Upstream Fixes

armadillo image Armadillo is a powerful and expressive C++ template library for linear algebra and scientific computing. It aims towards a good balance between speed and ease of use, has a syntax deliberately close to Matlab, and is useful for algorithm development directly in C++, or quick conversion of research code into production environments. RcppArmadillo integrates this library with the R environment and language and is widely used by (currently) 1293 other packages on CRAN, downloaded 47.8 million times (per the partial logs from the cloud mirrors of CRAN), and the CSDA paper (preprint / vignette) by Conrad and myself has been cited 710 times according to Google Scholar. This versions updates to the 15.4.2 upstream Armadillo release made this week, as well as to included 15.4.1 version we released only to GitHub and r-universe so do not exceed the (roughly) monthly cadence. For this release, we had run the usual complete reverse-dependency check which came back spotless, and did CRAN so no email exchange needed despite nearly 1300 reverse dependencies. Automation can be helpful when used with a well-maintained software stack. The package has also already been updated for Debian, built for r2u, and will build shortly at CRAN for the different binary releases. All changes since the last CRAN release follow.

Changes in RcppArmadillo version 15.4.2-1 (2026-07-25)
  • Upgraded to Armadillo release 15.4.2 (Medium Roast Agave)
    • Fix speed regressions in diagvec() and diagmat()

Changes in RcppArmadillo version 15.4.1-1 [github-only] (2026-07-09)
  • Upgraded to Armadillo release 15.4.1 (Medium Roast Agave)
    • Fix for rare infinite recursion bug in sparse version of diagmat()
    • More efficient checks for aliasing

Courtesy of my CRANberries, there is a diffstat report relative to previous release. More detailed information is on the RcppArmadillo page. Questions, comments etc should go to the rcpp-devel mailing list off the Rcpp R-Forge page.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can sponsor me at GitHub.

22 July 2026

Freexian Collaborators: Monthly report about Debian Long Term Support, June 2026 (by Thorsten Alteholz)

The Debian LTS Team, funded by [Freexian s Debian LTS offering] (https://www.freexian.com/lts/debian/), is pleased to report its activities for June.

Activity summary During the month of June, 20 contributors have been paid to work on Debian LTS (links to individual contributor reports are located below). The team released 48 DLAs fixing 231 CVEs. Debian 12 ( bookworm ) has been handed over to the LTS Team on June 11th. During this handover Sylvain helped to update relevant tools and documentation. If you benefit from Debian, especially during the full 5-year lifecycle, please consider subscribing as a sponsor of Debian LTS: https://www.freexian.com/lts/debian/. Moreover, Debian 11 ( bullseye ) will reach the end of the Debian LTS period on August 31st. After that, Freexian will continue the security support under the Extended LTS offer. The team published several notable updates:
  • haveged update (DLA-4616-1), prepared by Thorsten, to address local privilege escalation.
  • tomcat9 update (DLA-4619-1), prepared by Markus, to address, among others, an authentication bypass.
  • apache2 update (DLA-4620-1), prepared by Bastien, to address a HTTP/2 bomb.
  • apache2 update (DLA-4629-1), prepared by Bastien, to address, among others, remote code execution and privilege escalation.
  • libinput update (DLA-4626-1), prepared by Santiago, to address local privilege escalation and arbitrary code execution.
  • asterisk update (DLA-4631-1), prepared by Thorsten, to address, among others, wrong processing of invalid or untrusted certificates.
  • nginx update (DLA-4634-1), prepared by Charles, to address a remote code execution and denial of service.
  • firefox-esr update (DLA-4635-1), prepared by Emilio, to address dozens of CVEs, among other things, related to arbitrary code execution and privilege escalation.
  • thunderbird update (DLA-4636-1), prepared by Emilio, to address dozens of CVEs, among other things, related to arbitrary code execution.
  • chromium update (DLA-4654-1), prepared by Emilio, to address dozens of CVEs, among other things, related to arbitrary code execution.
Contributions from outside the LTS Team: We are greatly thankful for the contributions from people outside the LTS Team:
  • Salvatore Bonaccorso prepared a libhttp-daemon-perl update, that was released by Santiago as DLA-4639-1.
  • Salvatore also directly uploaded libgd-perl DLA-4638-1 and libconfig-inifiles-perl DLA-4637-1.
  • Peter Palfrader prepared a tor update, that was released by Santiago as DLA-4656-1.
  • Pieter Lenaerts prepared a beets update, that was released by Emmanuel as DLA-4641-1.
  • Noah Meyerhans prepared a cloud-init update DLA-4645-1.
The LTS Team has also contributed with updates to the latest Debian releases:
  • Besides publishing DLA-4642-1 for package u-boot Andreas also prepared an NMU for an upload to sid and prepared a stable-proposed-update (SPU) bug for trixie, which was already acknowledged by a stable release manager (SRM).
  • Andreas also prepared an upload of package atril for trixie, which was handled by the security team as DSA-6349-1.
  • Besides publishing DLA-4620-1 for package apache Bastien also prepared an upload for trixie, which was handled by the security team as DSA-6323-1.
  • Tobi uploaded package mesa to trixie and bookworm.
  • Thorsten fixed some (not security related but RC) issues in package dahdi-linux. This was in preparation to fix lots of security issues in asterisk. Unfortunately the maintainer ignored the corresponding debdiff and prefered to upload a new upstream version. Anyway, the concerns of the security team about security support of asterisk could be overcome and asterisk can migrate to tesing and again be part of a Debian release.

Individual Debian LTS contributor reports

Thanks to our sponsors Sponsors that joined recently are in bold.

18 July 2026

Bits from Debian: DebConf26 welcomes its sponsors

Alt DebConf26 by Romina Molina DebConf26, the 27th edition of the Debian conference is taking place at the Facultad de Ingenier a en Ciencias H dricas of the Universidad Nacional del Litoral, in Santa Fe, Argentina. We appreciate the organizers for their hard work, and hope this event will be highly beneficial for those who attend in person as well as online. This event would not be possible without the help from our generous sponsors. We would like to warmly welcome the sponsors of DebConf26, and introduce them to you. We have two Platinum sponsors. Our Gold sponsors are: Our Silver sponsors are: Bronze sponsors: And finally, our Supporter level sponsors: A special thanks to the Facultad de Ingenier a y Ciencias H dricas - FICH UNL, our Venue Partner! Thanks to all our sponsors for their support! Their contributions enable a diverse global community of Debian developers and maintainers to collaborate, support one another, and share knowledge at DebConf26.

15 July 2026

Freexian Collaborators: Debian Contributions: Python 3.14 as default transition, DebConf 26 preparations, debvm, pconr and more! (by Anupa Ann Joseph)

Debian Contributions: 2026-06 Contributing to Debian is part of Freexian s mission. This article covers the latest achievements of Freexian and their collaborators. All of this is made possible by organizations subscribing to our Long Term Support contracts and consulting services.

Python 3.14 as default transition, by Stefano Rivera Debian has had Python 3.13 and 3.14 in unstable and testing since December 2025, with Python 3.13 as the default version (/usr/bin/python3 = 3.13). This gave time for packages to implement support and detect issues in their test suites. A slot to transition to 3.14 as default was requested from the release team in March, and they indicated that we would likely be able to schedule it in late June. In preparation, Stefano reviewed the open bugs against Python interpreters and squashed some in uploads of the latest point releases of Python: 3.13.14 and 3.14.6. Also in June, Python 3.15.0 beta 2 and beta 3 released. Stefano uploaded these to Debian experimental. The 3.15 betas were reason to attempt to revive review of a blocked upstream patch to support Debian multiarch in stable ABI Python extensions, now that Python 3.15 is adding a new stable ABI abi3t.

DebConf 26 preparations, by Stefano Rivera, Antonio Terceiro, Lucas Kanashiro, Santiago Ruano Rinc n and Anupa Ann Joseph DebConf 26, the annual Debian Developer Conference, is being held in Santa Fe, Argentina, in July. Stefano Rivera, Antonio Terceiro, Lucas Kanashiro, Santiago Ruano and Anupa Ann Joseph contributed to the preparations for the event.
  • As usual, Stefano has been supporting the conference website and registration, helping the local team to get accurate data on attendee numbers.
  • Antonio has been supporting the conference website and helping the content team to put together the conference schedule.
  • Santiago has been helping the local team on different topics regarding logistics.
  • Anupa assisted with the accommodation arrangements for DebCamp and DebConf, working alongside Nattie.
  • Lucas has been coordinating the conference schedule and communicating with some speakers.

debvm, by Helmut Grohne The debvm tool used for creating and running ephemeral virtual machines saw a number of small improvements. The requirement of having a filesystem label has been removed in favor of using a uuid and /etc/fstab is no longer created. A memory balloon is enabled by default and this enables qemu to automatically release free guest memory to the host. Booting Ubuntu VMs regressed as a result of their use of uutils and has been fixed. The --architecture flag is back to be able to better support Hurd, which is a work-in-progress of Johannes Schauer Marin Rodrigues. Thanks to Jochen Sprickerhof, you can more easily create VMs for autopkgtest-virt-qemu using --hook-dir=/usr/share/mmdebstrap/hooks/autopkgtest-create-qemu. There also are a few documentation and error message improvements. All of this is pending in git waiting to be uploaded once development slows down. While booting a machine from virtiofsd succeeded, turning the proof-of-concept into production remains for later.

pconr, by Helmut Grohne At DebConf25, Helmut reported on a schroot substitute called unschroot. The second iteration uses varlink IPC to construct a container. That varlink API is now separated into a new project called programmable container runtime. It is meant to provide more flexibility in constructing containers than established solutions such as the unshare command from util-linux, bubblewrap or podman provide while still managing repetitive complexity such as process orchestration for the developer. A new example that uses this infrastructure is a better containment for mmdebstrap eliminating chroot escape. There also is an asyncvarlink/0.3.2 release taking steps to become more maintainable in Debian to eventually get pconr into Debian.

Miscellaneous contributions
  • Stefano did routine uploads (mostly new upstream versions) of python-pip, python-pipx, hatchling, dh-python, beautifulsoup4, python-virtualenv, python-mitogen.
  • Stefano uploaded a snowball mini-transition: snowball, snowball-data, and pystemmer
  • Stefano did some debian.net team admin, setting up a container and later a VM for vote.debian.net.
  • Stefano responded to a semi-escalation to the Debian Technical Committee, after some communication between an upstream, a bug reporter, and a Debian package maintainer went sideways and got heated.
  • Emilio managed several transitions, and filed bugs against the few remaining GCC 13 rdeps.
  • Antonio did salsa maintenance work, debugging service issues, approving user registrations, and processing support requests.
  • Antonio worked on Debian CI maintenance, including but not limited to deploying new armhf and armel workers, fixing bugs and preparing an upcoming release of debci.
  • Antonio did several maintenance tasks for MiniDebConf websites.
  • Antonio uploaded ruby-bunny, ruby-sinatra and ruby-mustermann, fixing a few FTBFS bugs among them.
  • Carles using po-debconf-manager: Reviewed Catalan translations for 5 packages, submitted 6 packages. Added a draft blog/update about the po-debconf-manager project.
  • Carles submitted a new Geeqie Catalan translation: it had accumulated a large number of untranslated strings over the last 4 years.
  • Carles contributed to the Debian wiki: improved documentation for the Framework Laptop and added a new section Battery charging control (after doing some debugging and testing). He wrote a page about Signal Desktop. Carles started looking at testing/documenting Mailman2 -> Mailman3 migration.
  • Carles, in relation to the migration process, double checked old pages without relevant information in the Debian wiki.
  • Thorsten did another upload of package hplip to fix some bugs.
  • In the context of the Google Summer of Code 2026 project, Santiago continued co-mentoring Aryan Karamtoth, who is working on the Linux live-patching project. As part of the team, Santiago guided Aryan to help design the different workflows and to study the different tools available, including the upstream klp-build (that was introduced in v6.19), and compare it with SUSE s klp-build.
  • Colin clarified the bug tracking system s documentation to indicate that maintainers may sometimes reasonably ask users to file bugs upstream themselves.
  • Colin fixed 15 packages for pytest 9.1.
  • Colin fixed a depthcharge-tools regression with Python 3.14 as default that broke debian-installer builds.
  • Helmut continued to report undeclared file conflicts and correspond about them.
  • Helmut wrote patches for strace to enable cross building and a 32bit personality on arm64.
  • Helmut continued maintaining rebootstrap working fixing build failures in fontconfig, gettext and sqlite3 as well as changing the way packages from gcc builds are installed to better serve a need reported by Samuel Thibault.

14 July 2026

Gunnar Wolf: Got your keys ready for DebConf26?

Yay! Finally it s that time of year DebCamp is underway, and soon it will be time for DebConf! As it is by now tradition, it s my task to coordinate the DebConf26 keysigning party. And, as usual, I have set up the list of DebConf26 keysigning maps for everybody involved. So, if you are taking part of DebConf, make sure to:

11 July 2026

Reproducible Builds: Reproducible Builds in June 2026

Welcome to the June 2026 report from the Reproducible Builds project! In these reports, we outline the most important things that we have been up to over the past month. As a quick recap about what problem our project intends to solve, whilst anyone may inspect the source code of free software for malicious flaws, almost all software is distributed to end users as pre-compiled binaries. The motivation behind the reproducible builds effort is to ensure no flaws have been introduced during this compilation process by promising identical results are always generated from a given source, thus allowing multiple third-parties to come to a consensus on whether a build was compromised or not. If you are interested in contributing to the project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. In this month s report, we cover:

  1. Only installing reproducible packages with repro-threshold
  2. Distribution work
  3. diffoscope development
  4. From our mailing list
  5. Documentation updates
  6. Patches
  7. Four new scholarly papers

Only installing reproducible packages with repro-threshold A very interesting demonstration is now available showing how you might configure your Debian system to only install packages that have been reproduced by m/n rebuilders. This is implemented via a reproduced+https:// APT transport ( a mechanism for communicating between the APT client and its repository source commonly HTTP):
Every package download is intercepted by repro-threshold, which queries two independent rebuilders for a signed attestation before allowing installation to proceed. [It] is important to note that [an] install will only succeed if all package dependencies are also reproducible.
The demo gives examples of how to quickly experiment with this using a Docker container.

Distribution work In Debian this month: The IzzyOnDroid Android APK repository reached its next milestone this month, now covering 2 out of every 3 apps (66.7%) with reproducible builds. Their documentation for debugging and fixing failed builds has steadily grown as well. More clients have picked up showing reproducibility results (e.g. Droid-ify), and Neo Store now can be configured to stick to only reproducible applications. Further, an independent builder has been added to the build farm, increasing the trust level even more as APK builds can have multiple confirmations now. At the same time, IzzyOnDroid s rbtlog got several new features. The most outstanding is caching for frequently used resources such as reproducible-apk-tools, command-line tools and NodeJS in order to counter ongoing issues with GitHub availability, while at the same time saving bandwidth and build time. This change also enables some other some smaller enhancements such as being able to configure build timeouts per recipe for those builds running longer than the average, release pattern filtering for update checks or having a field for maintainer notes to shortly summing up e.g. why a reproducible build failed.
Lastly, Bernhard M. Wiedemann posted another openSUSE monthly update for their reproducibility work there.

diffoscope development diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. This month, Chris Lamb made the following changes, including preparing and uploading versions 319, 320, 321, 322 and 323 to Debian:
  • Debian adds an extra Flags: line in the output of ocamlobjinfo, so adjust the test for cross-distribution compatibility. [ ]
  • Bump debhelper compatibility level to 14. [ ]
  • Fix compatibility with Ocaml 5.4.1. [ ]
  • Use --long-form-style arguments when calling apktool in order to support apktool version 3. [ ]
  • Support Androguard version 4 and previous versions at the same time. [ ]
  • Update copyright years. [ ]
In addition, Jochen Sprickerhof added better header detection for the Sphinx documentation system [ ], Michael Daniels fixed the tests when run with zipdetails version 4.006 [ ] and Zbigniew J drzejewski-Szmek added a version of the deprecated os.path.commonprefix method [ ]. In addition, Vagrant Cascadian updated diffoscope in GNU Guix to version 321 and 323.
Chris Lamb also made the following changes to strip-nondeterminism, our tool to remove specific non-deterministic results from a completed build:
  • Skip symlinks when manually called via /usr/bin/strip-nondeterminism. (#1139000)
  • Update debian/watch format. [ ]
  • Drop Rules-Requires-Root: no and Priority: optional fields. [ ]
  • Bump Standards-Version to version 4.7.4. [ ]

From our mailing list On our mailing list this month:
  • kpcyrd posted to our mailing list regarding the waves of malware uploads to aur.archlinux.org . Curiously, every incident I looked at used npmjs.com for malware delivery , specifically where the npm package includes an (automatically executed) preinstall script that is an ELF binary.
  • kpcyrd also announced the release of debian-repro-status version 0.4.0, a tool written to give you an approximate idea of how viable it would be to enforce a reproducible packages only update policy for the computer system you ve built :
    The change updates dependencies to the latest versions, and adds support for multiple -H options, to query results from multiple rebuilderd instances. The results are also now fetched concurrently.
  • kpcyrd also reported that, whilst taking a screenshot for the above release, they noticed that the debian:sid container now is 100% reproducible.
  • Finally, kpcyrd also created a pull request against the add-determinism package to update the itertools and zip Python dependencies.

Documentation updates Yet again, there were a number of improvements made to our website this month including:
  • Chris Lamb added a reminder re. using the UTC variants of the Javascript Date methods. [ ]
  • Mattia Rizzolo moved OTF to the old sponsors list. Thank you for your support!. [ ]
  • kpcyrd updated the Rust documentation to recommend using the --release argument for consistency. [ ]

Patches The Reproducible Builds project detects, dissects and attempts to fix as many currently-unreproducible packages as possible. We endeavour to send all of our patches upstream where applicable or possible. This month, we wrote a large number of such patches, including:

Four new scholarly papers Kenichiro Muto and Kuniyasu Suzaki of the Institute of Information Security in Yokohama, Japan published an interesting paper this month titled Attestable Build Chain: Enabling Trust in Reproducible Builds (PDF). Their abstract is as follows: Ensuring trust in software supply chains requires verifying not only artifacts but also the processes that produce them. Although Reproducible Builds (R-B) require rebuilding to validate artifacts, they cannot verify whether the build was executed with the intended toolchain and inputs and may reproduce unintended or compromised builds without detection. We present Attestable Build Chain, a framework for externally verifying build-time execution without rebuilding. Rather than preventing compromise, it provides verifiable, tamper-evident evidence of actual build-time execution, enabling verification of build process integrity from observed file accesses during the build. [ ]
Julien Malka, Stefano Zacchiroli and Th o Zimmermann published a 50-page report detailing A Decade of Software Reproducibility in the Nix Package Ecosystem:
We find that functional package management enables extremely high rebuildability over time (near-universal ability to reconstitute historical build environments and rebuild software packages), while bitwise reproducibility has steadily improved and reaches a high point in recent years (up to 93% in 2024). Early years show substantially lower bitwise reproducibility, indicating that functional package management alone does not guarantee bitwise-identical outputs, and that the observed high level of bitwise reproducibility is not solely due to the package management approach. Common causes of unreproducibility, both in the rebuildability and bitwise reproducibility dimensions, include management of dates in build and test processes; we quantify their prevalence and other common causes using manual analysis of logs of rebuild failures and automated analysis of diffoscope.
A PDF of their report is available online
Tim Bastin of L3montree GmbH and Jacek Galowicz of Applicative Systems GmbH from DevGuard published a paper detailing How We Built a Sovereign, Reproducible Container Supply Chain for DevGuard:
This paper presents how the DevGuard project rebuilt its OCI container pipeline around reproducible Nix builds and independent dual-platform digest verification. DevGuard images are built hermetically from pinned source revisions, signed with Sigstore/Cosign, and verified through digest comparison across GitHub Actions and sovereign GitLab infrastructure hosted on container.gov.de. We describe the practical integration of reproducible OCI image builds into existing CI/CD workflows and argue that independently reproducible container digests provide a stronger integrity guarantee against build tampering than provenance alone. The paper further discusses remaining trust assumptions and the relevance of sovereign build infrastructure for government and regulated environments.

Finally, Yiseul Choi, Junga Kim, Jun-Ho Hong and Seongmin Kim of the Department of Convergence Security Engineering at the Sungshin Women s University in Seoul, Korea titled Attestation-based verification of SBOM integrity via consumer-side reproducibility:
Software bills of materials (SBOMs) support supply chain transparency, but they do not prove that a delivered SBOM reproducibly corresponds to its software artifact. Existing signing and provenance mechanisms protect integrity and traceability, yet lack consumer-side reproducible verification. We propose an SBOM integrity verification framework combining procedure disclosure, consumer-side reproduction, authority-generated reference evidence, and digest comparison. A trusted authority records a reference digest, and consumers compare it with locally reproduced and delivered SBOM digests. Experiments on 100 real-world container images show detection of artifact tampering, SBOM substitution, distribution modification, and adaptive tampering beyond signature-based approaches


Finally, if you are interested in contributing to the Reproducible Builds project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. However, you can get in touch with us via:

6 July 2026

Aigars Mahinovs: How to make a good group photo

Taking a good group photo consists of multiple aspects: I can say with confidence that nearly everything here comes from having failed to do these things right at least once, even on the latest attempts, so this is an ideal to reach towards, not something we expect to hit every time. The Goal The main goal of a big event group photo is capture both the moment itself and each individual person inside that moment. We want people, who were not there to see all the people involved and get an impression of what it was like being there. It needs to show the breadth and depth of people that make up this group, this project. And we want people who were there to be able to look back the next week, the next year or in ten years and remember - ah, yes, I was there, I was standing right there with this grin on my face next to this wonderful person and I was feeling great. Hardware Based on the goal we want to have high level photographic gear that is able to capture both a broad enough picture to encompass all the people and some of their surroundings to communicate the context (without undue distortions) and to deliver enough detail and resolution so that faces and facial expressions and underlying feelings of every single person in that group could be clearly seen and preserved. To both capture the context and minimise distortion the final picture should be just a bit wider than normal human field of view. That is about 50mm for a full-frame camera or 35mm for a typical 1.6 crop camera. You can go a bit wider if there are no better alternatives (as detailed in the scouting section), but be prepared that corners of the image will be distorted and not really usable (but we can fix that in processing step). Or you can go to unusual aspect ratios, like we did in Debconf 10. In the absence of a 100MP+ camera, you will need to be stitching together multiple frames to achieve resolution high enough to have enough pixels-per-face to see emotions clearly. This means that the photos you will actually be taking will be tighter than the overall field of view mentioned above. Still, a higher resolution camera body is preferable - nowadays 24MP-32MP cameras APS-C provide a good compromise between resolution and price, but 45-67MP full-frame cameras also exist on the market. Assume that we will be shooting in a bright environment, so most likely with quite low ISO settings, that means that high-ISO noise characteristics of more expensive cameras will not really play a role here. You will also not need very fast burst modes, even manual speed of one frame per second is sufficient. You will also want to get as much detail as possible out of your lens, and this is the most important part. You can do amazing work in all other steps of the process and have a great camera too, but if you pair it with a lens that is not sharp, then the end result will be disappointing. You want the lens that is sharpest corner-to-corner when stepped down to about f/8-f/11, that you can get for your system. You also want that lens to be about 85mm full-size sensor or 50mm for 1.6 crop size. Luckily that kind of range is also a great range for optical design and sharpest lenses are typically available in exactly these kinds of sizes. You absolutely want to have a fixed focal length lens, not a zoom lens. Even profession grade zoom lenses often deliver worse image quality compared to fixed lenses that cost less 1/10th of their price (when shooting in the same focal length). Newer design lenses are better than older lenses - optical design, coatings and precision manufacturing have advanced a lot over the decades. Retro look is great for mood, but not as good for actual resolution and clarity. You don't need to overpay for most expensive lenses because those often only improve image quality on lower F-stops. To encompass the whole group we will need to shoot at f/8 and in bright light, so the extra benefits of those f/1.2-capable super expensive lenses will not come into play here. We will have no use for a flash here. A tripod will be too restrictive when rapidly repositioning the camera between different parts of the panorama shoot. But a monopod might help with stability - I have not tried that myself, however. For my last photos I used a Canon EOS R7 (32.5MP) with Canon RF 50mm f/1.8 STM lens and considering an upgrade to Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC DN for the next time. Scouting Scouting a good location for the group photo is another big chunk of a successful picture. The critical piece of the puzzle is lens-to-face distance. In order to keep everyone's face in-focus and have enough resolution on the farthest faces (without making nearest faces truly massive) we want to do everything possible to reduce the variance in lens-to-face distance - to reduce the difference in distance between closest and farthest face. The most effective way to do that is to have the photographer climb higher. To see this in action on the Debconf photos, compare Debconf6 (very high camera position, group on level ground - good) to Debconf10 (camera not too high, group on stairs, still good) and to Debconf17 (camera could not get high enough and the group is on flat ground - not great). Even the Debconf25 photo was suboptimal from this perspective. The Debconf23 photo was a very good example from the recent years - good height and also the group was positioned in a semi-circle so there were no people directly in front and very near to the camera. So you are looking for the highest point you could get to (even if that requires a special permission of key or a ladder) with a field large enough to fit the whole group comfortably. How to check that? Normally I simply take a photo from the top of the whole area and note down from there where the extreme corners of the group could be and still be fully seen in the shot - not blocked by trees, buildings and shadows. Then I go down and measure that space. Rule of thumb being - people in one horizontal line can stand 1 normal length step from each other and two horizontal lines can be half a step from each other vertically. So I can just measure a rough rectangle in steps, multiply the sides, multiply that by two and I have the rough number of people that can fit there for the photo. Once you have a candidate location or two, it is important to check them at the same time-of-day as you plan to do the photo (see organization section for that). You want to make sure that the whole area of the group is in the same illumination - if half of the group is in the sun and half in a shadow, then you will be having a very bad time later. The absolute ideal positioning for the group photo is to have everyone be in shadow, but still have enough bright skies and bright buildings in front of the people to give good illumination of the faces. Worst you can do is have the sun be behind the people (so all the faces are really dark) and second worst is have the sun be directly in front of the group, so that the faces are very well illuminated, but everyone's eyes are closed because they are being blinded by the sun. And sometimes all you can do is pray for some light clouds to provide for even and dispersed light. Debconf23 was very lucky that way. Another consideration is to how people are going to get to that place. You need to consider accessibility needs of people (it is ok, if it takes more effort or time, but it needs to be organized and communicated well in advance). And you need to consider how the big masses of people will be getting there - how to tell people where exactly it is and how to get there from various locations where people might be hanging out during the event? Having an alternate location indoors might be necessary if the weather report for the next days is not sufficiently predictable. We had to use that contingency in Debconf9, for example. Organization It's hard to take a good group photo if half of the group does not show up or is too late, so this needs some organization to happen smoothly. First of all you need to choose date and time for the photo. The photo does not take too much time from the schedule of the event and can be squeezed in after all the other events are already scheduled. In fact I prefer that as it allows you the flexibility of choosing the date based on weather conditions and time based on light and shadow conditions in potential photo spots. You don't want to choose the daytrip day as most people will be away and return times are not really predictable. You do not want to choose the morning after Cheese and Wine party for obvious reasons. First day and last two days are also sub-optimal as some people arrive late and some leave early for various personal reasons. Also you don't want it to happen just before Cheese and Wine either because then you'd have very little time and clarity to do the processing of the image on the same day. For timing, the best way, in my experience, is to schedule the photo directly after the end of talk sessions before a meal break - lunch or dinner. Typically in the Debconf schedule there are 2-3 daily breaks planned, say for Debconf25 there was lunch, afternoon break and dinner. Talks are planned to end ~10 minutes before those breaks (and meals) begin, so for example, afternoon break starts at 16:00 and all talks in the previous block end at 15:50. In such a case just schedule the "Group photo" event from 15:50 to 16:05. This gives people the info to go there directly from the end of all talks and that they will have sufficient time for break/meal afterwards. Do not forget to specify the location (as exactly as possible) in that event entry and make sure to post it at least two days in advance. People often want to wear something specific for the photo and thus need to know about it in advance. This also makes sure that people do not make alternate food plans for that specific break and don't leave the venue. Announce the date, time and the exact location as wide as possible, don't be shy. Announce and discuss mailing lists, IRC, Signal, Telegram, make sure the front desk knows in case anyone asks in-person, ... Check that it is again included in the announcements email on the day preceding the photo date. When the date has arrived, it is a good idea to check in early with people with special mobility needs to make sure they know where to go, how to get there and how much time they will need to be able to get there on time. As the final round of talks before the group photo is starting up, it is time to recruit "runners". I've had great success with this technique. The idea is pretty simple - for each room where people congregate (talk rooms, hacklabs, cafeteria, outside hackspace, front-desk, ...) go there and choose one person. You want to choose a person that you will recognise and remember among everyone else in the group, either because of who they are or what they are wearing, whatever works best for you. If they agree to help, instruct them to: "at end of talk, announce that the group photo happening now and the location, herd people towards the photo location, be the last person out, make sure there are no stragglers from this area behind you, when you arrive to the photo place I will assume that everyone else from this room is also now there, when you are there catch my attention and show this sign so I know for sure that it is all good and make sure that I did see it from you". With that sorted out all you will need to remember is how many runners you recruited and how many have reported in to figure out if everyone has now arrived or if we still have to wait for someone or some group. Then you will only have one last point of organization left - shaping the crowd into a group. People will not know what your vision for the group photo is, so you will have to give clear and LOUD instructions on where people should not be standing. Use clear, large gestures to support your words. You want to compact the group, have the people that just joined in the last moment and are standing to the side come deeper in and join the crowd. Have any holes in the middle of the crowd filled in. Forming a semi-circle instead of a blob helps with averaging face-to-lens distances. Make sure people are not in unexpected shadows. Make sure carried objects, like umbrellas of flags do not cover the faces of other people. Take the time to look at everyone face to make sure there are no people hiding behind someone's shoulder - typically they are not aware that their face is in fact not really visible. If there are such people, call them out and point directly at them and encourage them to step forward, if they wish to do so. You are the only one seeing the final picture now and only you can correct it before capturing the moment. So a few extra seconds here are worth taking, even if 300+ people are standing in scorching heat and waiting on you. When you are happy with what you are seeing, make sure to tell people clearly that you are now about to take the pictures and again remind them not to move and explicitly not to turn their heads to the side until you are done (this is the source of most of the extra work in processing). Be very loud and clear and make sure you have everyone's undivided attention before you start saying the important stuff. When done - say so. There will be other groups that will want to also have a photo taken after the main group is a bit more dispersed, so don't run away. Typically at least the T-shirt group will want a picture and also all the organizers. Final bit of organization during the group photo shooting itself is the sneaky self-insert. You may choose not to bother with it, or do it in the simplest way, like I did in Debconf6, but if you really want to blend in with the crowd, you need to have someone else take a photo of you in the exact same location at the same date and time from the same location. So you should already during shaping the crowd decide where you would fit in, it is easiest to blend in at the back of the crowd and to one or other side, so that it appears like you are just standing behind the shoulders of a couple peoples. Remember that spot - it is easiest if you stand in the exact same ground spot when your photo is taken. Just go down, recruit a volunteer to take your photo, make sure the settings are fixed to the same ones as for the group photo shots and have them take a handful of shots of you - one of you centered in the camera frame and a couple more with you more towards the corners of the frame. This distortion from being off-center in the frame may be important later. Preparation In addition to preparing the crowd for the photo, you also need to prepare yourself and the equipment. Make sure you have dusted your camera sensor and cleaned both inside and outside glass of your lens. It is usually a good idea to remove any filters from the lens. Install the hood, if that could help with blocking the sun flares. Make sure you have the right lens and that you have installed the right lens. For fixed settings I typically shoot in JPEG with RAW being there more like an emergency backup. The extra dynamic range of RAW could be used, but it is really complex to do that in combination with image blending and it is hard to get right, so I prefer an all-JPEG workflow and fix the dynamic range in the scene itself, before shooting. For Canon I am using the Standard profile that boosts the color saturation and sharpness a bit as I just enjoy that look and find it hard to get anything significantly better from RAW data even with a lot of effort. In any case make sure you have enough space on the cards to take at least 100 images and that you have a full battery. Do not use high speed burst setting because it is then too easy to take too many pictures at the start of the sequence and be stuck with your camera still in "Busy" state writing big RAW files to slowish SD cards and not allowing you to finish the full picture rapidly. You want to have the shutter speed at at least 1/100th of a second to prevent blur from both your hand movements and also from people in the shot moving around a bit (image stabilisation will not help you there). And you want to have the aperture to be around f/8 - lower apertures risk people in front or behind falling out of focus, make the lenses look less sharp. Higher apertures also start to become less sharp due to diffraction effects above f/8. ISO should stay as low as possible, ideally at ISO 100, but if there is not enough light then upping the ISO to 400 would be the first step that I would try to do and second would be decreasing the aperture to f/5.6. If there is too much light, then increasing the shutter speed should be the safe thing to do. As people start to arrive into the shooting location - check the exposure and nail down the settings, ideally in manual mode. Consider that left side could be a bit lighter or darker than right side. Err on the side of making the picture a bit too dark as there is more depth to darkness before cut-off compared to clipping on the high end. However, do not trust the exposure detection, instead take a picture and look specifically at skin tones in faces of people that already are standing in the photo area. Faces are the key bit and the exposure needs to be adjusted just to the faces and ignore darker of lighter clothing. Do some test shots and find settings where faces look not too bright, but also not very dark and fix those settings in manual mode. Now you are ready for the action. Shape the crowd, check the faces and the action can start! Execution During taking of the group photo you want to finish it fast, but at the same time you have to take the time to make it right. If you hurry too much under pressure, you risk being left with unusably blurry images and the whole effort wasted. Having already prepared and verified the manual settings makes it easier. When you are taking pictures, you have to remain as still as possible - even at very high shutter speeds even slow hand movements are still bad for image quality. So think of the movement as of biathlon athlete shooting the very middle of five, very separate targets - take a burst, reframe, then steady up for a second and only then take the next burst. 3 frames per burst are sufficient. 90% of the time the very first photo of a burst will be best. As you move from frame to frame, aim for just a bit more than half-frame overlap. This will give the opportunity to skip frames if all is good, but also have backup coverage of every face in case of problems. Proceed systematically, I typically start off on the top left of the crowd, then go right until the end of the line, then shift down half a frame and go left until the end and repeat until I am done with the crowd. After that it is very helpful to also immediately take photos of a "frame" around the whole crowd. Stitching process often distorts the frames in weird ways that leave holes in the resulting image that you can fill if you have a wide frame around the crowd. It is possible to compensate with creative cutouts in the final image (like Debconf9), but the more framing room you make, the more flexible you will be able to be with cropping of the final photo. The frame also gives you the opportunity to capture more of the context of the place and space. As an example, Debconf25 group photo in the end consisted from 9 images + 1 for sick people + 1 for me. I ended up missing the framing shots for bottom left, top left and top right corners. To get there I took 68 images. And in some years it was more than a hundred. Processing This part might be less stressful than taking the pictures from intensity perspective, but it lasts longer. Depending on you luck, skill and perfectionism it can take anywhere from 3 to 9 hours of work to complete. Before you start, however, you should first request things that you will need for other people. This can even be done before taking the actual group photo, but usually I forget. To finish the photo you will need three things: The first two you should be able to get from the respective organizers. The motto is harder. I typically try to ask the current DPL to come up with something describing the current mood of the project or of the event, but it is rare that it is that easy. Most of the time I came up with something as I was editing the photo and reflecting on what was the mood, the feeling, the mojo of this conference and of this year was like. Bend that around a recognisable phrase or expression, make it a bit more insider-relevant and you are on the right path. Some years this was the hardest part. For the panorama stitching I will describe the workflow that has served me good for years, but maybe there are better ways possible nowadays. Feel free to let me know! First I would save all photos taken and select one sharpest photo from every burst. Next I would select the minimal number of photos that appear to be covering the entire crowd. The fewer images you use, the better in the end because the most quality problems crop up in the areas where photos are getting stitched together. Fewer seams leads to fewer issues. Open Hugin (you will also need enblend and enfuse installed) and import your minimal set of images into it. Click the "Align" button and wait a while - the processor will be trying to figure out keypoints in each image and then try to match these points between the images to try to fit them all together into a single projection. To do that it will distort the images. This is the trial and error process part. You may need to add, remove or replace images to get the stitching to work or to work better. You may want to add more of the frame images to fill the ragged holes around the image. After initial alignment, go to "Move/Drag" tab and move the image a bit up in the projected field of view and make it a bit more central visually. That will help a bit with the distortions in the near-by people and people in the corners of the image. In the "Crop" tab set the initial crop - leave it generous, you can always crop more in later steps. Do not be afraid of leaving in sizable chunks of black homes, empty skies or grass. All of that can be filled in later as well. Go back to the "Assistant" tab and click "Create panorama". It is good enough to have JPEG output at 100% quality using exposure corrected low dynamic range output option. Make sure to check the "Keep intermediate images" option. This will not only generate the final, merged panorama, but also keep around the individual images after perspective correction and exposure blending steps. These are critical for fixing blending error in the next step. You might need to go back a forth a few times with a different sets of source images, maybe adding some image between other two, maybe removing another to reach a better starting point. The key part to pay attention - how many ugly stitches are there in the image. Check every face, the blending algorithms do not recognise faces and sometimes try to stitch one face from two or more images creating very weird effects. They can be fixed in the next step, but it is rather hard manual work, so the fewer such faces are in the blended image, the less work you will have. In some years I've managed to find a combination where all faces were good and in other years I had to manually fix 13-15 faces. Do not try to blend the extra pictures (like with you or with sick people) into the main panorama with Hugin - it will get very confused with the parts of the grass that it is able to see where other people were standing. The next is the final processing in GIMP. Think of it like a large and complex project - do as much as possible in separate layers, save often. Fixing wrongly stitched faces and also putting yourself into the photo are very similar activities in the end. Just the scale and the source differ. For yourself you just cut out yourself (upper torso is enough) from the separate photo. For corrupted face, choose one of two intermediate images that the Hugin created where the face is transformed, but not yet merged (with a different version of itself). In either case crop the photo to roughly the interesting size and put roughly in the right spot as a separate layer on top of the group photo background. Reduce the opacity of the small layer to 30-40% and zoom in to 400%. With that it is much simpler to position the layer with pixel precision. Then all you need to do is add a layer mask to this layer and paint it just right. Basically in layer mask black means transparent and white means non-transparent. So you need to just make everything that is you have white mask and everything that is not you have black mask. And smudge the border a bit with finger tool or blur to make the transition smoother. Easy to say. Hard to do. This is what takes most of the actual work hours in post-processing. You might miss someone. I am sure Phill is just thrilled to see me in the very middle of the Debconf25 final picture .... But do try to fix them all. Use large, sweeping geometric figures to cover up black holes, empty grass fields and other sub-optimal corner features. And then use that newly created free space to put in a large version of the logo of this years conference, decently sized motto and slightly smaller invitation to the next years conference. Do not forget to add a copyright and license statement somewhere in the corner in smaller, but still well readable font. I am using a text like: "Photo by: Full Name, Email: fullemail@debian.org, License: GPLv2+ or CCv3-BY" This ensures that this image may be used in any press coverage (with basic attribution) and also can be included in any GPL-licensed software, if that ever comes up. The same statement is also in the metadata of the image file (see Image-Metadata-Edit metadata in GIMP) along with information that states that this is "Debian Developer Conference Group photo, City, Country, Year". Image->Image properties->Comment is another place where GIMP hides this EXIF information. For ease of use, in addition to a full-resolution image it is also useful to make a lower resolution version that would still fit on a 4K screen at full resolution, so about 3840px wide. Some photo hosting services set other limits for image size as well, so it might be needed to scale the image down below 100Mpix to upload it to Google Photos, for example. Publishing So, it is finally 1AM and the group photo is ready! How do you push it out to people? Well, in all possible ways and places. Again - don't be shy, people do really want to see it. Push it to whatever you use for your shared photos. Push it to Debconf shared git (note that this is GIT-LFS repo, make sure you know how to add content to the LFS specifically). All permanent links to that in GroupPhotosAll wiki. And then send those links to IRC, Signal, Telegram groups, debconf-announce mailing list. Publish it in your blog and push that to Debian Planet. Push it in Threads, Bluesky and Mastodon. Send an email separately to Debconf orga team. And one to Debian Publicity Team so they can put it into the Debian Home Page and push via Debian micronews accounts. And that is about it. Now you can go back to enjoying the rest of the conference. Or running around doing other things that you think need to be done. It's up to you. You did it. This moment will remain with people for a very long time. And you helped. Questions? Feedback? Just ask here or here.

5 July 2026

Dirk Eddelbuettel: Rcpp 1.1.2 on CRAN: Usual Improvements in Semi-Annual Update

rcpp logo Team Rcpp is excited to share that an brandnew new version 1.1.2 of Rcpp is now on CRAN, has also been uploaded to Debian, and has already built for r2u and r-universe; Windows etc builds at CRAN should follow in due course. Rcpp has long established itself as the most popular way of enhancing R with C or C++ code. Right now, 3236 packages on CRAN depend on Rcpp for making analytical code go faster and further. On CRAN, 13.4% of all packages depend (directly) on Rcpp, and 61.4% of all compiled packages do. From the cloud mirror of CRAN (which is but a subset of all CRAN downloads), Rcpp has been downloaded 121.6 million times. The two published papers (also included in the package as preprint vignettes) have, respectively, 2263 (JSS, 2011) and 471 (TAS, 2018) citations, while the the book (Springer useR!, 2013) has another 742. The is the second update in the 1.1.* series which had, among other changes, switched to C++11 as the minimum standard. This release continues as usual with the six-months January-July cycle started with release 1.0.5 in July 2020. Interim snapshots are always available via the r-universe page and repo. We continue to strongly encourage the use of these development released and their testing we tend to run our systems with them too. Having said that, we would like to reiterate that we strongly object to the upstream R release and change management which in this 4.6.* cycle made several abrupt changes forcing packages which consume header files to make very abrupt change. Rcpp, just like numerous other CRAN packages demonstrates that API changes can be undertaken responsibly in a managed manner which allows for transition periods followed by possible warning periods, deprecations periods and finally (but only at long last) errors. What happened here is a speed run to the final stage of forced errors. Uncool and irritating for something as widely used as R. This forced us to make an interim release 1.1.1-1.1 even though we have of course had a policy of always keeping properly tested, installable, and error-free releases candidate version in the main repository branch and hence available via R-universe tested packages for all relevant platforms, and even via binaries for most (including Ubuntu LTS). It would be nice if R Core found a way to take advantage of this. Maybe development cycles, running apart for a year as they do for R, should also include selected packages. Once again I am not attempting to summarize the different changes. The full list follows below and details all these changes, their respective PRs and, if applicable, issue tickets. Big thanks from all of us to all contributors!

Changes in Rcpp release version 1.1.2 (2026-07-01)
  • Changes in Rcpp API:
    • Use of execinfo.h is again conditional to avoid build complexity (Dirk in #1445 addressing #1442)
    • An internal state component for Datetime is now int (Dirk in #1448 and #1449 fixing #1447)
    • Three new (in R 4.6.0) attribute accessors are used conditionally (Dirk in #1450 closing #1432)
    • An UBSAN error in the Sugar-based NA comparison has been corrected (I aki in #1453 fixing #1452)
    • Treatment of Inf outside of integer range in Sugar function has been corrected (I aki in #1458 fixing #1455)
    • Integer overflow protection has been added for sugar functions (I aki in #1457 fixing #1454)
    • The parent environment is now accessed via R_ParentEnv (Dirk in #1460 fixing #1459)
    • Change to returning dataptr again for better handling of empty vectors (I aki in #1462 fixing #1461)
    • Undefined behavior errors in use of ListOf proxies have been addressed (I aki in #1464 fixing #1463)
    • Under newer R version, R_UnboundValue is no longer used (I aki in #1466 fixing #1465)
    • New R API access point R_getRegisteredNamespace() is used with current R versions (Dirk in #1469 fixing #1468)
    • The Nullable::as() exporter now uses an explicit cast to the templated type (Dirk in #1471 fixing #1470)
    • A memory leak in the variadic Rcpp::warning() template has been fixed (Kevin in #1475 fixing #1474)
    • The Nullable::operatorT() has been added as a 'opt-out' (Dirk in #1477 with coordination in #1472)
    • Add templated integer-index overload for operator[] on small systems such as WASM (Jeroen Ooms in #1482)
    • The attribute accessors in AttributeProxyPolicy no longer rely on get__() (Kevin in #1484 fixing #1483)
  • Changes in Rcpp Documentation:
    • Reference in the bibliography used by the package vignettes have been updated.
  • Changes in Rcpp Deployment:
    • Excute permissions are set consistently on scripts with shebangs (Mattias Ellert in #1467)
    • R 4.5.* has been added to the CI matrix (Dirk in #1476)
    • Three nag messages issued when obsolete build flag accessors are used now show Rcpp::: (Dirk in #1480 fixing #1456)
    • Reference GitHub Actions have been updated to their current versions (Dirk in #1481)
  • Non-release Changes:
    • A non-release hotfix 1.1.1-1 used by CRAN accommodates breaking changes to the API in R 4.6.0. It would be nice to have the same level of release management in R itself that CRAN expects from us.

Thanks to my CRANberries, you can also look at a diff to the previous interim release along with pre-releases 1.1.1-1 and 1.1.1-1.1 that were needed because R-devel once again sudden decided to move fast and break things. Not our doing. And there also should not have been a need to two such uploads but it was amateur hour all around. Questions, comments etc should go to the GitHub discussion or issue section, or the Rcpp list. Bugs reports are welcome at the GitHub issue tracker as well. GitHub offers decent search for issue, pull requests and discussions; as many topics have been covered it is worth checking as well.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can sponsor me at GitHub.

3 July 2026

Colin Watson: Free software activity in June 2026

My Debian contributions this month were all sponsored by Freexian. You can also support my work directly via Liberapay or GitHub Sponsors. Thanks to new sponsor @fernandocc17! bugs.debian.org documentation Sometimes I ask users to file bugs upstream themselves because I think they d be better placed to have the ensuing discussion with the upstream maintainers directly rather than everything having to go through me. Of course sometimes they don t want to do so, perhaps because it requires creating another account somewhere. Rarely, I ve had people refuse to do this because the letter of the bug tracking system s documentation seemed to tell them not to. Since I don t believe that was the intention, I corrected this. OpenSSH I spent two and a half hours extensively revising debian/copyright so that lrc believes it to be in sync with the output of licensecheck. I m unconvinced that this was remotely worth the mind-numbing effort - as far as I can tell, it makes no difference to the practical legal position, to policy compliance, or to any reasonable user - but the DFSG team increasingly seems to be objecting to any discrepancies here any time a package crosses their radar, so this was a pre-emptive measure to avoid problems with some upcoming trips through the NEW queue. OpenSSL 4.0 I fielded a few of the OpenSSL 4.0 build failure bugs: Python packaging New upstream versions: pytest 9.1 was uploaded to unstable this month, resulting in quite a few new build/test failure bugs. I tried to keep on top of as many of these as I could; most of them had one of a small number of similar causes. Python 3.14 became the default Python version in unstable towards the end of the month, starting a transition. These usually involve quite a bit of work, and there s much more to do, but I fixed a few things: Other build/test failures: Other bugs: Rust packaging New upstream versions: Code reviews Other bits and pieces

2 July 2026

Matthew Garrett: Preventing token theft

When you log into a service you re given an authentication token. Each further request to the site includes that token, allowing the server to figure out who you are and ensuring that you have access to your data. Depending on site policy, this token may either be stored in memory (and so vanish if you restart your browser) or disk. The token is the proof of your identity. As far as the site is concerned, anyone with your token is you. These tokens may be traditional browser cookies, but they may also be stored in either site local storage or (if you re not using a browser) in some other storage location. In recent years we ve seen infostealer malware (like LummaC2) gain the ability to exfiltrate user tokens, allowing attackers to gain access to the user s data without needing to retain access to the user s machine. This attack is viable even if the site has strong MFA requirements, so passkeys don t help. Encrypting the tokens on disk doesn t prevent the malware from scraping them out of the browser s RAM or obtaining whatever key is used to encrypt them. This feels like a pretty hard problem to solve. But that hasn t stopped people from trying! Dirk Balfanz wrote an IETF draft describing a mechanism for using self-signed certificates for TLS authentication. This uses the mutual authentication feature of the TLS protocol that requires both sides prove their identity to each other. In regular TLS, the remote site presents a signed certificate that tells you who it is. When performing mutual authentication, you then present a certificate to the remote site telling it who you are. These client certificates are largely unused outside enterprise environments because they re a huge pain to deploy. It s not so much that this has sharp edges, it s that it s entirely made of sharp edges. Managing certificate deployment to your devices is hard. Browsers get confused if the certificates change under them. You have one certificate and it lives forever, so sites you present it to can track your identity. Users are prompted to choose a certificate to authenticate with, and if they pick the wrong one everything breaks and is hard to recover. I ve deployed this and I did not have a good time. But Balfanz s idea was simple. Rather than require certificates to be deployed, browsers would simply generate a certificate on the fly. The goal wasn t to prove the device or user s identity in any global way - but it would associate a TLS session with a specific certificate. You could then, for example, include a hash of the certificate in the cookie, and if someone tried to use that cookie without presenting that certificate then the cookie could be rejected. If the browser used a hardware-backed private key for the certificate then it would be impossible for an attacker to steal it. Sure, you could still steal cookies, but you wouldn t be able to use them. This was written almost 15 years ago, and seems simple, elegant, and functional. It didn t happen. Part of the reason for that is that, well, it wasn t quite so simple. One problem was privacy related. Cookies are only sent after the TLS session is established, so anyone monitoring the network doesn t know anything about the user identity. A naive implementation of this approach would have meant the client certificate being sent before session establishment, and now user identity can be tracked (no longer an issue if this was implemented on top of TLS 1.3, but this was a log time ago). This was avoided by reordering the client handshake, but that meant having to modify the TLS specification and implementations would have to be updated to support this. Another was that figuring out the granularity of the certificates was difficult. You d want to use different certificates for every site to avoid them effectively becoming tracking cookies, but you need to provide the certificate before cookies are set, and you don t know what origin the site is going to set in its cookies. If you generate a certificate for a.example.com and a different one for b.example.com, and a.example.com sets a cookie for *.example.com and includes the certificate you used for a.example.com, that cookie isn t going to work on b.example.com and things are broken. This meant supporting it wasn t as straightforward as it seemed - you d need to ensure that your cookie scope was compatible with the certificate scope. You could probably make this work well enough by aligning it with the Public Suffix List, but there was still some risk of expectations not being aligned. And, perhaps most importantly, TLS session resumption (replaced by pre-shared keys in TLS 1.3) somewhat defeats the purpose of the exercise - clients store state that allows them to re-establish a TLS connection without performing certificate exchange (this reduces overhead if a connection gets interrupted or you switch to a new network or anything along those lines), and anyone in a position to steal cookies could steal that state as well. The followup attempt was channel IDs. This simplified the implementation somewhat - rather than certificates, a raw public key would be sent, along with proof of possession of the private key in the form of a signature over a portion of the TLS handshake. This was required even in the event of session resumption, which avoided having to worry about theft of session secrets. The timing of the exchange was after the encrypted session had been established, so user identity couldn t be leaked that way either. Cookies could then be bound to this identifier. Unfortunately it didn t really deal with the problem of scoping keys in a way that would match cookie requirements, and the spec suggests that the right way of handling this is to scope keys to TLDs, which would enable user tracking across sites (Chrome s implementation apparently restricted it to eTLD+1, which would match the third party cookie policy and avoid the tracking risk). Chrome added support for this, but it was removed in early 2018. The discussion of some of the pain points in that message is interesting, explicitly calling out problems with connection coalescing across domains and the incompatibility with zero-RTT TLS1.3. The overall consensus at the time seems to be that trying to solve this entirely at the TLS layer has too many rough edges, and a different approach should be taken. And so almost 7 years after the initial draft for origin bound certificates, we come to token binding. This ended up being a rather more complex endeavour, covering 3 different RFCs describing how it impacts TLS, how to incorporate it into HTTP, and how to manage all the various parties involved in the process. The short version is that it s pretty similar to channel ID, except that there s also a documented mechanism for allowing tokens to be bound to one party and consumed by another, avoiding any need for widely scoped keys. Token binding effectively solved all the issues in the original proposal, but at the cost of somewhat more complexity. The RFC was finalised in October 2018. Chrome removed its (incomplete, draft) support for token binding in November 2018. Edge carried support until late 2024. Despite getting all the way through the RFC process, it s functionally dead. The process up until this point had been largely initiated by Google, with Microsoft contributing significantly to the token binding standards. The work had been focused on identifying a generic solution to the problem rather than tying it to any specific authentication flow. The next step was in a different direction - rather than trying to fix this for the entire internet, how about we try to fix it for OAuth? RFC 8705 is titled OAuth 2.0 Mutual-TLS Client Authentication and Certificate-Bound Access Tokens . This is basically the 2011 approach, but (a) with an explicit definition of how the certificate should be incorporated into issued auth cookies, and (b) with a proviso that well uh if you re going to use tokens issued by your IdP to authenticate to someone else then well you re going to need to use the same cert for both. This is probably fine for the company-owned-laptop case where you re actually fine with multiple sites being able to tie identities together (that s kind of the point here!), and also works for I am using an app and not a browser , but doesn t work for more generic scenarios. It also doesn t seem to take the session resumption case into account at all? Support for RFC8705 seems poor, as far as I can tell of the big players only Auth0 implements it. In theory it works fine with self-signed client certs but in reality that s going to be almost as difficult to support across multiple platforms as just issuing proper client certs in the first place, so deployment is going to be kind of a pain. But the good news is it doesn t rely on any TLS extensions or custom browser behaviour, so at the client side it works fine with any browser. Which brings us on to RFC 9449, Demonstrating Proof of Possession . This goes even further than RFC8705 in terms of reducing the burden of deployment - it works fine with existing browsers, and it doesn t even require any certs. The client generates a keypair and provides the pubkey when requesting the cookie. The cookie contains the pubkey. Every request to the service now provides the cookie with the pubkey and also provides a signature over the URI and HTTP method. If the signature matches the pubkey in the token then clearly the signature came from the machine the token was issued to, and everything is good. This does come with some downsides, though. The first is that it uses browser interfaces to generate the keys (typically crypto.subtle.generatekey()) and as far as I can tell there are no browsers that guarantee that that key is going to be generated in hardware even if it s marked non-exportable, so anyone able to steal the cookies can also steal the keys. The second is that the signature only covers the URI and HTTP method, and not the message content or any other headers, so anyone able to exfiltrate a valid signature can replay it against the same URI with different message content. The recommended way to handle this is to reject any signatures that weren t generated within the last few seconds, which is a wonderful additional way to allow clock skew to give you a Bad Day. And the third is that every single request has to be separately signed, which is not intrinsically a problem because computers are fast and have multiple cores, but if you re trying to solve the first problem by sticking the key in a TPM then you re dealing with something that s slow and single threaded and that s maybe acceptable if you re using client certificates (because there s going to be one signature per session and you can use the same session for multiple requests) but probably not if you re dealing with a user opening a browser that restores previous tabs and each of those is a webapp that fires off 100 requests in parallel. In case it wasn t clear, I don t like DPoP. It doesn t feel like it actually solves the underlying problem that we see in the real world (malware running in a context where if it can grab the tokens it can grab the keys), it adds a massive amount of overhead, and it has baked in replay vulnerabilities. I don t know why it exists and I m incredibly suspicious of vendors telling me that it fixes my problems, because if they re telling me that then I m going to end up assuming that they either don t understand my problems or they don t understand their technology, and neither of those is good. Still. Then we get to the thing that prompted me to write this - Chrome s announcement that they had launched device-bound session credentials. This is interesting because it s a Chrome feature that s explicitly intended to counter on-device malware, which was one of the things that was out of scope in 2018 when token binding was being removed. Since this is entire web level it doesn t have to be an RFC, and so is instead defined by W3C. I m going to handwave all the complexity and say that it s basically a way to register a public key when a cookie is issued, and then prove possession of the private key when it s time to renew the cookie. By making the cookies shortlived and having support for rotating them in the background, user impact is basically zero and while it s still possible for an attacker to exfiltrate and use a cookie they ll only be able to do so for a short window before it needs to be refreshed - something the attacker can t do, since they don t have the private key. This avoids the DPoP overhead because you only need to do signing once per cookie per cookie lifetime, and not on every single request. I don t like this due to the window where exfiltrated tokens can be used, but it feels like a strict improvement over the status quo. An extension called device-bound session credentials for enterprise allows pre-enrollment of device keys, so even though the actual runtime DBCE flow doesn t involve certificates, certificates can be used for device registration in enterprise environments and you can make sure that auth cookies only go to trusted devices. Unfortunately this is Chrome-only, and so we re going to need to wait for it to be backported to all the random app frameworks for it to have widespread support on mobile or for almost everyone s desktop app that s actually three websites in an Electron wrapper. Mozilla s current position is that they re not in favour of it, so I guess we ll see where Safari lands in terms of broad uptake. The last thing on my list is another client cert/OAuth binding, this one still in draft state at the time of writing. This one is aimed primarily at the use of agent-driven tooling, where you have something running in the background using a whole bunch of tools that are each acting on your behalf. Authenticating to all of them separately isn t a fun time, but giving broadly scoped access tokens to a non-deterministic agent and trusting that it ll never post them somewhere public also isn t a fun time. The key distinction between it and RFC8705 is that it s aimed at connections rather than sessions, which avoids the worries about session resumption. This is done with TLS Exporters, which in TLS 1.3 should be unique to the connection even over session resumption (TLS 1.2 may reuse some of the same key material for exporters over session resumption, so it s recommended to enforce 1.3 for this). By providing a new signature alongside the cookie on every new connection, the client proves that it still has access to the private key. This is a very new spec and I haven t had much time to work through it yet, but my naive understanding is that unlike RFC8705 this would require some additional client support to be able to regenerate the client signature on every TLS reconnection. This doesn t avoid all the problems that RFC8705 has, including how to scope certificates. For the agentic use case that probably doesn t matter - all these tools are acting on behalf of the same user, it s fine if all the sites involved know they re the same user. But it doesn t solve the general purpose user use case, and right now DBSC seems like the best we have there. But. Part of me still wonders whether Dirk Balfanz s approach was the right one. Yes, there s risk associated with TLS session resumption, but in the worst case you could just switch that off for high risk setups. The cookie scope argument is real, and also in cases where it could violate privacy the site owner could already choose to broaden their cookie scope and violate your privacy, and in cases where it breaks things you could just not make use of it. The other problems are largely fixed by TLS 1.3, and then we re just left with Browsers handle client certificates badly to which my answer is Yes, and we should fix that anyway . Despite having a pretty good answer to this solution over a decade ago, the closest we have to actual deployment is something that offers strictly worse security guarantees. And tokens keep getting stolen, and compromises keep occurring, and for the most part people shrug and get on with things.

1 July 2026

Ben Hutchings: FOSS activity in June 2026

This month s work was dominated by the transition of Debian 12 bookworm to support by the LTS team, and by review of some large updates to Linux stable branches. Linux 6.12 is currently available in bookworm-backports, but that suite will stop accepting uploads after the last bookworm point release. I updated some supporting packages in bookworm in preparation for adding Linux 6.12 there. I also prepared for the possibility that bookworm-backports would close earlier. Since the LTS team is still also maintaining Debian 11 bullseye until August, I reviewed upstream changes for both Linux 5.10 and 6.1 stable branches and reported a number of regressions and other issues.

30 June 2026

Joey Hess: big loads offgrid with a small battery (sidelined)

No matter that the hype cycle wants you to think, the renewable energy transition is the biggest thing happening in tech and it's happening faster and faster. Despite being neck deep in it personally with offgrid solar projects, most recently solar hot water, increasingly it becomes clear I'm watching from the sidelines. In Australia, everyone gets 24 kwh of free daytime electric power now. That's without installing any solar panels of their own, the grid just has that much excess capacity. All it takes to save $thousands per year (and avoid emissions) is to schedule some big loads like the hot water heater and EV to charge during the day. To save more, drop in a home battery that charges for free and powers the home through the evening. In Germany, a 2 kwh plug-in home battery costs $350 and the electric company will pay you $130 per year to plug it into your wall. There are similar offers throughout Europe. In Cuba something something geopolitics, oil blockade, belt and road => suddenly 1GW of solar farms with another gigawatt on the way. I'll soon visit South Carolina where with no subsidies whatsoever from a decidedly renewable-unfriendly government, it made sense for my dad's house to get a whole home battery and double the solar array. The resulting system will be able to power the well pump and probably also the whole geothermal HVAC system through the kind of month-long grid down events that happened in Hurricane Helene. Myself, well, I've got a by modern standards small 4 kwh home battery that powers my house offgrid, and I've recently installed a heat pump hot water heater. That's after about a decade pondering what solution to use for solar hot water, to replace an aging and horrible propane instant water heater. I've in the past considered everything from evacuated tubes to special direct drive inverters to DC resistive MPTT dump loads. The solution turned out to be just a big enough solar array, and plugging in a 120v hot water heater that needs only 500 watts in heat pump mode. Plus a small amount of code to manage when it runs. In the time I was thinking about that, economies of scale and tech improvements just wiped all those other possibilities off the map, it's not economical to install and maintain a separate evactuated tube heat collector when a pile of solar panels costs so little and when electric hot water has gotten more than 200% efficient. I also recently completed my permanant EV charger installation, with a new inverter and conduit and proper wiring, and increased the car's charge rate to 2 kw. Eliminating the need to charge anywhere except at home except on road trips. Coordinating when these two big loads run, to maximize solar production and ensure that the house battery is full at the end of the day was ... not hard at all actually? The car charger amps can be dialed up and down to match incoming solar power fairly well, and leave some room for the hot water heater. They both operate as more or less dump loads. More or less because neither one can be cycled on or off very fast (to avoid wear and tear on the car's contactor and the heat pump's compressor), so it makes sense to leave them on and skate through short cloudy sections of the day, as long as the house battery doesn't get too low. How low is too low for the house battery? Depends on the time of day. The code it's currently using, which may get tweaked over winter: 
    -- When the battery is charged enough to run major loads that may prevent
    -- charging it further.
    --
    -- This varies with the hour of day. Early in the day, the battery does not
    -- need to be as full to be considered well charged, since there is
    -- still plenty of time for it to charge up. Later in the day, with less
    -- time to charge, it needs to be more full.
    wellCharged :: Hour -> Percentage
    wellCharged (Hour hour)
              hour < 9 = Percentage 90 -- night
              pmhour <= 0 = Percentage 50
              pmhour <= 1 = Percentage 60
              pmhour <= 2 = Percentage 70
              pmhour <= 3 = Percentage 80
              pmhour <= 4 = Percentage 90
              otherwise = Percentage 95
      where
            pmhour = hour - 12
More complicated is, what to do it there's solar power to run one or the other, but not both? This is starting to get into the territory of microgrids now, or of demand response programs, so there's a whole industry or three out there doing industry things geared at the kind of no-brainer solutions I mentioned earlier. From what I've gathered, all of them involve proprietary protocols and gear. What I've done is to read the state of the hot water heater and car, and prioritize hot water over the car. Except, if the car is below 10% it urgently needs to charge. And I found a really simple way to decide when to run the low-priority load: Just check if the house battery's current charge will be considered wellCharged in an hour. So if it's 2 pm, the battery needs to be 80% charged to run the lower-priority load, and if it dips below that, that load will turn off but the high-priority load will keep running down to 70% battery. Unfortunately, getting any information out of my hot water heater relies on a vendor API server that is often down on weekends, and reverse engineered the web page of my EVSE[1] to control it, to say nothing of the nightmare of getting the car's state of charge from The Cloud. Anyway, I'm pleased with having easily tweakable code and how far I've taken this offgrid, and everything I've learned doing so, but like I said, I'm clearly observing from the sidelines over here while the most significant thing for all of us is going on over there. You might appreciate my code or method, but you'll eventually be plugging in a home battery or signing up for a free daytime power tarrif from your electric company, or having professionals install a whole home system for climate resiliance. So my question is, where does free software fit into all this? There are things like Home Assistant that do productize the kind of thing I'm doing enough to be useful more widely. But still niche. Meanwhile there are inverters and batteries that phone home to China, and every consumer facing install is either "use this device" or "integrate these 3 proprietary devices". I don't think focusing on these negatives is really useful though, I'm more trying to understand where all this is going and then maybe get out ahead of it in some useful way with free software. Your thoughts welcome.
[1] Obviously OpenEVSE exists, but it didn't meet my needs hardware wise. And I could set my EVSE to use an OCPP server but it was easier to do the screen scraping than find an appropriate one, and I have the feeling I would not appreciate learning any more about OCPP, in the same way I really don't want to know a lot about web browsers' tag soup mode.

Next.

Previous.