Search Results: "pm"

14 May 2024

Matthew Palmer: "Is This Project Still Maintained?"

If you wander around a lot of open source repositories on the likes of GitHub, you ll invariably stumble over repos that have an issue (or more than one!) with a title like the above. Sometimes sitting open and unloved, often with a comment or two from the maintainer and a bunch of I ll help out! followups that never seemed to pan out. Very rarely, you ll find one that has been closed, with a happy ending. These issues always fascinate me, because they say a lot about what it means to maintain an open source project, the nature of succession (particularly in a post-Jia Tan world), and the expectations of users and the impedence mismatch between maintainers, contributors, and users. I ve also recently been thinking about pre-empting this sort of issue, and opening my own issue that answers the question before it s even asked.

Why These Issues Are Created As both a producer and consumer of open source software, I completely understand the reasons someone might want to know whether a project is abandoned. It s comforting to be able to believe that there s someone on the other end of the line , and that if you have a problem, you can ask for help with a non-zero chance of someone answering you. There s also a better chance that, if the maintainer is still interested in the software, that compatibility issues and at least show-stopper bugs might get fixed for you. But often there s more at play. There is a delusion that maintained open source software comes with entitlements an expectation that your questions, bug reports, and feature requests will be attended to in some fashion. This comes about, I think, in part because there are a lot of open source projects that are energetically supported, where generous volunteers do answer questions, fix reported bugs, and implement things that they don t personally need, but which random Internet strangers ask for. If you ve had that kind of user experience, it s not surprising that you might start to expect it from all open source projects. Of course, these wonders of cooperative collaboration are the exception, rather than the rule. In many (most?) cases, there is little practical difference between most projects that are maintained and those that are formally declared unmaintained . The contributors (or, most often, contributor singular) are unlikely to have the time or inclination to respond to your questions in a timely and effective manner. If you find a problem with the software, you re going to be paddling your own canoe, even if the maintainer swears that they re still maintaining it.

A Thought Appears With this in mind, I ve been considering how to get ahead of the problem and answer the question for the software projects I ve put out in the world. Nothing I ve built has anything like what you d call a community ; most have never seen an external PR, or even an issue. The last commit date on them might be years ago. By most measures, almost all of my repos look unmaintained . Yet, they don t feel unmaintained to me. I m still using the code, sometimes as often as every day, and if something broke for me, I d fix it. Anyone who needs the functionality I ve developed can use the code, and be pretty confident that it ll do what it says in the README. I m considering creating an issue in all my repos, titled Is This Project Still Maintained? , pinning it to the issues list, and pasting in something I m starting to think of as The Open Source Maintainer s Manifesto . It goes something like this:

Is This Project Still Maintained? Yes. Maybe. Actually, perhaps no. Well, really, it depends on what you mean by maintained . I wrote the software in this repo for my own benefit to solve the problems I had, when I had them. While I could have kept the software to myself, I instead released it publicly, under the terms of an open licence, with the hope that it might be useful to others, but with no guarantees of any kind. Thanks to the generosity of others, it costs me literally nothing for you to use, modify, and redistribute this project, so have at it!

OK, Whatever. What About Maintenance? In one sense, this software is maintained , and always will be. I fix the bugs that annoy me, I upgrade dependencies when not doing so causes me problems, and I add features that I need. To the degree that any on-going development is happening, it s because I want that development to happen. However, if maintained to you means responses to questions, bug fixes, upgrades, or new features, you may be somewhat disappointed. That s not maintenance , that s support , and if you expect support, you ll probably want to have a support contract , where we come to an agreement where you pay me money, and I help you with the things you need help with.

That Doesn t Sound Fair! If it makes you feel better, there are several things you are entitled to:
  1. The ability to use, study, modify, and redistribute the contents of this repository, under the terms stated in the applicable licence(s).
  2. That any interactions you may have with myself, other contributors, and anyone else in this project s spaces will be in line with the published Code of Conduct, and any transgressions of the Code of Conduct will be dealt with appropriately.
  3. actually, that s it.
Things that you are not entitled to include an answer to your question, a fix for your bug, an implementation of your feature request, or a merge (or even review) of your pull request. Sometimes I may respond, either immediately or at some time long afterwards. You may luck out, and I ll think hmm, yeah, that s an interesting thing and I ll work on it, but if I do that in any particular instance, it does not create an entitlement that I will continue to do so, or that I will ever do so again in the future.

But I ve Found a Huge and Terrible Bug! You have my full and complete sympathy. It s reasonable to assume that I haven t come across the same bug, or at least that it doesn t bother me, otherwise I d have fixed it for myself. Feel free to report it, if only to warn other people that there is a huge bug they might need to avoid (possibly by not using the software at all). Well-written bug reports are great contributions, and I appreciate the effort you ve put in, but the work that you ve done on your bug report still doesn t create any entitlement on me to fix it. If you really want that bug fixed, the source is available, and the licence gives you the right to modify it as you see fit. I encourage you to dig in and fix the bug. If you don t have the necessary skills to do so yourself, you can get someone else to fix it everyone has the same entitlements to use, study, modify, and redistribute as you do. You may also decide to pay me for a support contract, and get the bug fixed that way. That gets the bug fixed for everyone, and gives you the bonus warm fuzzies of contributing to the digital commons, which is always nice.

But My PR is a Gift! If you take the time and effort to make a PR, you re doing good work and I commend you for it. However, that doesn t mean I ll necessarily merge it into this repository, or even work with you to get it into a state suitable for merging. A PR is what is often called a gift of work . I ll have to make sure that, at the very least, it doesn t make anything actively worse. That includes introducing bugs, or causing maintenance headaches in the future (which includes my getting irrationally angry at indenting, because I m like that). Properly reviewing a PR takes me at least as much time as it would take me to write it from scratch, in almost all cases. So, if your PR languishes, it might not be that it s bad, or that the project is (dum dum dummmm!) unmaintained , but just that I don t accept this particular gift of work at this particular time. Don t forget that the terms of licence include permission to redistribute modified versions of the code I ve released. If you think your PR is all that and a bag of potato chips, fork away! I won t be offended if you decide to release a permanent fork of this software, as long as you comply with the terms of the licence(s) involved. (Note that I do not undertake support contracts solely to review and merge PRs; that reeks a little too much of pay to play for my liking)

Gee, You Sound Like an Asshole I prefer to think of myself as forthright and plain-speaking , but that brings to mind that third thing you re entitled to: your opinion. I ve written this out because I feel like clarifying the reality we re living in, in the hope that it prevents misunderstandings. If what I ve written makes you not want to use the software I ve written, that s fine you ve probably avoided future disappointment.

Opinions Sought What do you think? Too harsh? Too wishy-washy? Comment away!

Taavi V n nen: Wikimedia Hackathon Tallinn 2024

This year's Wikimedia Hackathon was held in early May in Tallinn, Estonia. Like last year, it was a great opportunity to both see people I work with regularly, including people in my own team that I had not seen in person before, and to work with and help people that I have had very limited interactions with before. Me talking with Addshore at the Wikimedia Hackathon 2024 hacking room.
Image by Olari Pilnik is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0.
I presented a session about Puppet (slides), the configuration management tool used on Wikimedia infrastructure (and some other projects I've been involved on) which I think went quite well. I also organized (read: picked a spot for in the schedule) the cuteness meetup. In addition to the sessions, the main focus of the event was, of course, hacking. As usual, I didn't make any major plans beforehand, and instead ended up working on several smaller projects as they popped up. Here is a list of things I can remember working on: Finally, a conversation I had at the hackathon resulted in me nominating Novem Linguae for mediawiki/* +2 access a few days after the hackathon. I had a great time, and the ferry trip to Tallinn was much nicer than the very early flight I had last year. I can't wait to see you all again :-) Disclosure: I am currently a Wikimedia Foundation contractor, and the Foundation did pay for my travel to Tallinn. This is my personal blog and these are my own opinions.
  1. Since backporting this change felt too risky to do on the weekend, and also I have a feeling I'd get in troble if I ran an unapproved bot that edited on random wikis on our production wiki farm.
  2. Anyone who got 5 or more patches to core.git merged during the Hackathon got a cool MediaWiki T-shirt.

12 May 2024

Elana Hashman: I am very sick

I have not been able to walk since February 18, 2023. When people ask me how I'm doing, this is the first thing that comes to mind. "Well, you know, the usual, but also I still can't walk," I think to myself. If I dream at night, I often see myself walking or running. In conversation, if I talk about going somewhere, I'll imagine walking there. Even though it's been over a year, I remember walking to the bus, riding to see my friends, going out for brunch, cooking community dinners. But these days, I can't manage going anywhere except by car, and I can't do the driving, and I can't dis/assemble and load my chair. When I'm resting in bed and follow a guided meditation, I might be asked to imagine walking up a staircase, step by step. Sometimes, I do. Other times, I imagine taking a little elevator in my chair, or wheeling up ramps. I feel like there is little I can say that can express the extent of what this illness has taken from me, but it's worth trying. To an able-bodied person, seeing me in a power wheelchair is usually "enough." One of my acquaintances cried when they last saw me in person. But frankly, I love my wheelchair. I am not "wheelchair-bound" I am bed-bound, and the wheelchair gets me out of bed. My chair hasn't taken anything from me. *** In October of 2022, I was diagnosed with myalgic encephalomyelitis. Scientists and doctors don't really know what myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is. Diseases like it have been described for over 200 years.1 It primarily affects women between the ages of 10-39, and the primary symptom is "post-exertional malaise" or PEM: debilitating, disproportionate fatigue following activity, often delayed by 24-72 hours and not relieved by sleep. That fatigue has earned the illness the misleading name of "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" or CFS, as though we're all just very tired all the time. But tired people respond to exercise positively. People with ME/CFS do not.2 Given the dearth of research and complete lack of on-label treatments, you may think this illness is at least rare, but it is actually quite common: in the United States, an estimated 836k-2.5m people3 have ME/CFS. It is frequently misdiagnosed, and it is estimated that as many as 90% of cases are missed,4 due to mild or moderate symptoms that mimic other diseases. Furthermore, over half of Long COVID cases likely meet the diagnostic criteria for ME,5 so these numbers have increased greatly in recent years. That is, ME is at least as common as rheumatoid arthritis,6 another delightful illness I have. But while any doctor knows what rheumatoid arthritis is, not enough7 have heard of "myalgic encephalomylitis." Despite a high frequency and disease burden, post-viral associated conditions (PASCs) such as ME have been neglected for medical funding for decades.8 Indeed, many people, including medical care workers, find it hard to believe that after the acute phase of illness, severe symptoms can persist. PASCs such as ME and Long COVID defy the typical narrative around common illnesses. I was always told that if I got sick, I should expect to rest for a bit, maybe take some medications, and a week or two later, I'd get better, right? But I never got better. These are complex, multi-system diseases that do not neatly fit into the Western medical system's specializations. I have seen nearly every specialty because ME/CFS affects nearly every system of the body: cardiology, nephrology, pulmonology, neurology, opthalmology, and, many, many more. You'd think they'd hand out frequent flyer cards, or a medical passport with fun stamps, but nope. Just hundreds of pages of medical records. And when I don't fit neatly into one particular specialist's box, then I'm sent back to my primary care doctor to regroup while we try to troubleshoot my latest concerning symptoms. "Sorry, can't help you. Not my department." With little available medical expertise, a lot of my disease management has been self-directed in partnership with primary care. I've read hundreds of articles, papers, publications, CME material normally reserved for doctors. It's truly out of necessity, and I'm certain I would be much worse off if I lacked the skills and connections to do this; there are so few ME/CFS experts in the US that there isn't one in my state or any adjacent state.9 So I've done a lot of my own work, much of it while barely being able to read. (A text-to-speech service is a real lifesaver.) To facilitate managing my illness, I've built a mental model of how my particular flavour of ME/CFS works based on the available research I've been able to read and how I respond to treatments. Here is my best attempt to explain it: The best way I have learned to manage this is to prevent myself from doing activities where I will exceed that aerobic threshold by wearing a heartrate monitor,12 but the amount of activity that permits in my current state of health is laughably restrictive. Most days I'm unable to spend more than one to two hours out of bed. Over time, this has meant worsening from a persistent feeling of tiredness all the time and difficulty commuting into an office or sitting at a desk, to being unable to sit at a desk for an entire workday even while working from home and avoiding physically intense chores or exercise without really understanding why, to being unable to leave my apartment for days at a time, and finally, being unable to stand for more than a minute or two or walk. But it's not merely that I can't walk. Many folks in wheelchairs are able to live excellent lives with adaptive technology. The problem is that I am so fatigued, any activity can destroy my remaining quality of life. In my worst moments, I've been unable to read, move my arms or legs, or speak aloud. Every single one of my limbs burned, as though I had caught fire. Food sat in my stomach for hours, undigested, while my stomach seemingly lacked the energy to do its job. I currently rely on family and friends for full-time caretaking, plus a paid home health aide, as I am unable to prep meals, shower, or leave the house independently. This assistance has helped me slowly improve from my poorest levels of function. While I am doing better than I was at my worst, I've had to give up essentially all of my hobbies with physical components. These include singing, cooking, baking, taking care of my houseplants, cross-stitching, painting, and so on. Doing any of these result in post-exertional malaise so I've had to stop; this reduction of activity to prevent worsening the illness is referred to as "pacing." I've also had to cut back essentially all of my volunteering and work in open source; I am only cleared by my doctor to work 15h/wk (from bed) as of writing. *** CW: severe illness, death, and suicide (skip this section) The difficulty of living with a chronic illness is that there's no light at the end of the tunnel. Some diseases have a clear treatment path: you take the medications, you complete the procedures, you hit all the milestones, and then you're done, perhaps with some long-term maintenance work. But with ME, there isn't really an end in sight. The median duration of illness reported in one 1997 study was over 6 years, with some patients reporting 20 years of symptoms.13 While a small number of patients spontaneously recover, and many improve, the vast majority of patients are unable to regain their baseline function.14 My greatest fear since losing the ability to walk is getting worse still. Because, while I already require assistance with nearly every activity of daily living, there is still room for decline. The prognosis for extremely ill patients is dismal, and many require feeding tubes and daily nursing care. This may lead to life-threatening malnutrition;15 a number of these extremely severe patients have died, either due to medical neglect or suicide.16 Extremely severe patients cannot tolerate light, sound, touch, or cognitive exertion,17 and often spend most of their time lying flat in a darkened room with ear muffs or an eye mask.18 This is all to say, my prognosis is not great. But while I recognize that the odds aren't exactly in my favour, I am also damn stubborn. (A friend once cheerfully described me as "stubbornly optimistic!") I only get one shot at life, and I do not want to spend the entirety of it barely able to perceive what's going on around me. So while my prognosis is uncertain, there's lots of evidence that I can improve somewhat,19 and there's also lots of evidence that I can live 20+ years with this disease. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but it also means I might have the gift of time something that not all my friends with severe complex illnesses have had. I feel like I owe it to myself to do the best I can to improve; to try to help others in a similar situation; and to enjoy the time that I have. I already feel like my life has been moving in slow motion for the past 4 years there's no need to add more suffering. Finding joy, as much as I can, every day, is essential to keep up my strength for this marathon. Even if it takes 20 years to find a cure, I am convinced that the standard of care is going to improve. All the research and advocacy that's been happening over the past decade is plenty to feel hopeful about.20 Hope is a discipline,21 and I try to remind myself of this on the hardest days. *** I'm not entirely sure why I decided to write this. Certainly, today is International ME/CFS Awareness Day, and I'm hoping this post will raise awareness in spaces that aren't often thinking about chronic illnesses. But I think there is also a part of me that wants to share, reach out in some way to the people I've lost contact with while I've been treading water, managing the day to day of my illness. I experience this profound sense of loss, especially when I think back to the life I had before. Everyone hits limitations in what they can do and accomplish, but there is so little I can do with the time and energy that I have. And yet, I understand even this precious little could still be less. So I pace myself. Perhaps I can inspire you to take action on behalf of those of us too fatigued to do the advocacy we need and deserve. Should you donate to a charity or advocacy organization supporting ME/CFS research? In the US, there are many excellent organizations, such as ME Action, the Open Medicine Foundation, SolveME, the Bateman Horne Center, and the Workwell Foundation. I am also happy to match any donations through the end of May 2024 if you send me your receipts. But charitable giving only goes so far, and I think this problem deserves the backing of more powerful organizations. Proportionate government funding and support is desperately needed. It's critical for us to push governments22 to provide the funding required for research that will make an impact on patients' lives now. Many organizers are running campaigns around the world, advocating for this investment. There is a natural partnership between ME advocacy and Long COVID advocacy, for example, and we have an opportunity to make a great difference to many people by pushing for research and resources inclusive of all PASCs. Some examples I'm aware of include: But outside of collective organizing, there are a lot of sick individuals out there that need help, too. Please, don't forget about us. We need you to visit us, care for us, be our confidantes, show up as friends. There are a lot of people who are very sick out here and need your care. I'm one of them.

10 May 2024

Reproducible Builds: Reproducible Builds in April 2024

Welcome to the April 2024 report from the Reproducible Builds project! In our reports, we attempt to outline what we have been up to over the past month, as well as mentioning some of the important things happening more generally in software supply-chain security. As ever, if you are interested in contributing to the project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. Table of contents:
  1. New backseat-signed tool to validate distributions source inputs
  2. NixOS is not reproducible
  3. Certificate vulnerabilities in F-Droid s fdroidserver
  4. Website updates
  5. Reproducible Builds and Insights from an Independent Verifier for Arch Linux
  6. libntlm now releasing minimal source-only tarballs
  7. Distribution work
  8. Mailing list news
  9. diffoscope
  10. Upstream patches
  11. reprotest
  12. Reproducibility testing framework

New backseat-signed tool to validate distributions source inputs kpcyrd announced a new tool called backseat-signed, after:
I figured out a somewhat straight-forward way to check if a given git archive output is cryptographically claimed to be the source input of a given binary package in either Arch Linux or Debian (or both).
Elaborating more in their announcement post, kpcyrd writes:
I believe this to be the reproducible source tarball thing some people have been asking about. As explained in the README, I believe reproducing autotools-generated tarballs isn t worth everybody s time and instead a distribution that claims to build from source should operate on VCS snapshots instead of tarballs with 25k lines of pre-generated shell-script.
Indeed, many distributions packages already build from VCS snapshots, and this trend is likely to accelerate in response to the xz incident. The announcement led to a lengthy discussion on our mailing list, as well as shorter followup thread from kpcyrd about bootstrapping Autotools projects.

NixOS is not reproducible Morten Linderud posted an post on his blog this month, provocatively titled, NixOS is not reproducible . Although quickly admitting that his title is indeed clickbait , Morten goes on to clarify the precise guarantees and promises that NixOS provides its users. Later in the most, Morten mentions that he was motivated to write the post because:
I have heavily invested my free-time on this topic since 2017, and met some of the accomplishments we have had with Doesn t NixOS solve this? for just as long and I thought it would be of peoples interest to clarify[.]

Certificate vulnerabilities in F-Droid s fdroidserver In early April, Fay Stegerman announced a certificate pinning bypass vulnerability and Proof of Concept (PoC) in the F-Droid fdroidserver tools for managing builds, indexes, updates, and deployments for F-Droid repositories to the oss-security mailing list.
We observed that embedding a v1 (JAR) signature file in an APK with minSdk >= 24 will be ignored by Android/apksigner, which only checks v2/v3 in that case. However, since fdroidserver checks v1 first, regardless of minSdk, and does not verify the signature, it will accept a fake certificate and see an incorrect certificate fingerprint. [ ] We also realised that the above mentioned discrepancy between apksigner and androguard (which fdroidserver uses to extract the v2/v3 certificates) can be abused here as well. [ ]
Later on in the month, Fay followed up with a second post detailing a third vulnerability and a script that could be used to scan for potentially affected .apk files and mentioned that, whilst upstream had acknowledged the vulnerability, they had not yet applied any ameliorating fixes.

Website updates There were a number of improvements made to our website this month, including Chris Lamb updating the archive page to recommend -X and unzipping with TZ=UTC [ ] and adding Maven, Gradle, JDK and Groovy examples to the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH page [ ]. In addition Jan Zerebecki added a new /contribute/opensuse/ page [ ] and Sertonix fixed the automatic RSS feed detection [ ][ ].

Reproducible Builds and Insights from an Independent Verifier for Arch Linux Joshua Drexel, Esther H nggi and Iy n M ndez Veiga of the School of Computer Science and Information Technology, Hochschule Luzern (HSLU) in Switzerland published a paper this month entitled Reproducible Builds and Insights from an Independent Verifier for Arch Linux. The paper establishes the context as follows:
Supply chain attacks have emerged as a prominent cybersecurity threat in recent years. Reproducible and bootstrappable builds have the potential to reduce such attacks significantly. In combination with independent, exhaustive and periodic source code audits, these measures can effectively eradicate compromises in the building process. In this paper we introduce both concepts, we analyze the achievements over the last ten years and explain the remaining challenges.
What is more, the paper aims to:
contribute to the reproducible builds effort by setting up a rebuilder and verifier instance to test the reproducibility of Arch Linux packages. Using the results from this instance, we uncover an unnoticed and security-relevant packaging issue affecting 16 packages related to Certbot [ ].
A PDF of the paper is available.

libntlm now releasing minimal source-only tarballs Simon Josefsson wrote on his blog this month that, going forward, the libntlm project will now be releasing what they call minimal source-only tarballs :
The XZUtils incident illustrate that tarballs with files that are not included in the git archive offer an opportunity to disguise malicious backdoors. [The] risk of hiding malware is not the only motivation to publish signed minimal source-only tarballs. With pre-generated content in tarballs, there is a risk that GNU/Linux distributions [ship] generated files coming from the tarball into the binary *.deb or *.rpm package file. Typically the person packaging the upstream project never realized that some installed artifacts was not re-built[.]
Simon s post goes into further details how this was achieved, and describes some potential caveats and counters some expected responses as well. A shorter version can be found in the announcement for the 1.8 release of libntlm.

Distribution work In Debian this month, Helmut Grohne filed a bug suggesting the removal of dh-buildinfo, a tool to generate and distribute .buildinfo-like files within binary packages. Note that this is distinct from the .buildinfo generation performed by dpkg-genbuildinfo. By contrast, the entirely optional dh-buildinfo generated a debian/buildinfo file that would be shipped within binary packages as /usr/share/doc/package/buildinfo_$arch.gz. Adrian Bunk recently asked about including source hashes in Debian s .buildinfo files, which prompted Guillem Jover to refresh some old patches to dpkg to make this possible, which revealed some quirks Vagrant Cascadian discovered when testing. In addition, 21 reviews of Debian packages were added, 22 were updated and 16 were removed this month adding to our knowledge about identified issues. A number issue types have been added, such as new random_temporary_filenames_embedded_by_mesonpy and timestamps_added_by_librime toolchain issues. In openSUSE, it was announced that their Factory distribution enabled bit-by-bit reproducible builds for almost all parts of the package. Previously, more parts needed to be ignored when comparing package files, but now only the signature needs to be deleted. In addition, Bernhard M. Wiedemann published theunreproduciblepackage as a proper .rpm package which it allows to better test tools intended to debug reproducibility. Furthermore, it was announced that Bernhard s work on a 100% reproducible openSUSE-based distribution will be funded by NLnet. He also posted another monthly report for his reproducibility work in openSUSE. In GNU Guix, Janneke Nieuwenhuizen submitted a patch set for creating a reproducible source tarball for Guix. That is to say, ensuring that make dist is reproducible when run from Git. [ ] Lastly, in Fedora, a new wiki page was created to propose a change to the distribution. Titled Changes/ReproduciblePackageBuilds , the page summarises itself as a proposal whereby A post-build cleanup is integrated into the RPM build process so that common causes of build irreproducibility in packages are removed, making most of Fedora packages reproducible.

Mailing list news On our mailing list this month:
  • Continuing a thread started in March 2024 about the Arch Linux minimal container now being 100% reproducible, John Gilmore followed up with a post about the practical and philosophical distinctions of local vs. remote storage of the various artifacts needed to build packages.
  • Chris Lamb asked the list which conferences readers are attending these days: After peak Covid and other industry-wide changes, conferences are no longer the must attend events they previously were especially in the area of software supply-chain security. In rough, practical terms, it seems harder to justify conference travel today than it did in mid-2019. The thread generated a number of responses which would be of interest to anyone planning travel in Q3 and Q4 of 2024.
  • James Addison wrote to the list about a quirk in Git related to its core.autocrlf functionality, thus helpfully passing on a slightly off-topic and perhaps not of direct relevance to anyone on the list today note that might still be the kind of issue that is useful to be aware of if-and-when puzzling over unexpected git content / checksum issues (situations that I do expect people on this list encounter from time-to-time) .

diffoscope diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. This month, Chris Lamb made a number of changes such as uploading versions 263, 264 and 265 to Debian and made the following additional changes:
  • Don t crash on invalid .zip files, even if we encounter their badness halfway through the file and not at the time of their initial opening. [ ]
  • Prevent odt2txt tests from always being skipped due to an (impossibly) new version requirement. [ ]
  • Avoid parens-in-parens in test skipping messages. [ ]
  • Ensure that tests with >=-style version constraints actually print the tool name. [ ]
In addition, Fay Stegerman fixed a crash when there are (invalid) duplicate entries in .zip which was originally reported in Debian bug #1068705). [ ] Fay also added a user-visible note to a diff when there are duplicate entries in ZIP files [ ]. Lastly, Vagrant Cascadian added an external tool pointer for the zipdetails tool under GNU Guix [ ] and proposed updates to diffoscope in Guix as well [ ] which were merged as [264] [265], fixed a regression in test coverage and increased verbosity of the test suite[ ].

Upstream 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 appropriate. This month, we wrote a large number of such patches, including:

reprotest reprotest is our tool for building the same source code twice in different environments and then checking the binaries produced by each build for any differences. This month, reprotest version 0.7.27 was uploaded to Debian unstable) by Vagrant Cascadian who made the following additional changes:
  • Enable specific number of CPUs using --vary=num_cpus.cpus=X. [ ]
  • Consistently use 398 days for time variation, rather than choosing randomly each time. [ ]
  • Disable builds of arch:any packages. [ ]
  • Update the description for the build_path.path option in README.rst. [ ]
  • Update escape sequences for compatibility with Python 3.12. (#1068853). [ ]
  • Remove the generic upstream signing-key [ ] and update the packages signing key with the currently active team members [ ].
  • Update the packaging Standards-Version to 4.7.0. [ ]
In addition, Holger Levsen fixed some spelling errors detected by the spellintian tool [ ] and Vagrant Cascadian updated reprotest in GNU Guix to 0.7.27.

Reproducibility testing framework The Reproducible Builds project operates a comprehensive testing framework running primarily at tests.reproducible-builds.org in order to check packages and other artifacts for reproducibility. In April, an enormous number of changes were made by Holger Levsen:
  • Debian-related changes:
    • Adjust for changed internal IP addresses at Codethink. [ ]
    • Automatically cleanup failed diffoscope user services if there are too many failures. [ ][ ]
    • Configure two new nodes at infomanik.cloud. [ ][ ]
    • Schedule Debian experimental even less. [ ][ ]
  • Breakage detection:
    • Exclude currently building packages from breakage detection. [ ]
    • Be more noisy if diffoscope crashes. [ ]
    • Health check: provide clickable URLs in jenkins job log for failed pkg builds due to diffoscope crashes. [ ]
    • Limit graph to about the last 100 days of breakages only. [ ]
    • Fix all found files with bad permissions. [ ]
    • Prepare dealing with diffoscope timeouts. [ ]
    • Detect more cases of failure to debootstrap base system. [ ]
    • Include timestamps of failed job runs. [ ]
  • Documentation updates:
    • Document how to access arm64 nodes at Codethink. [ ]
    • Document how to use infomaniak.cloud. [ ]
    • Drop notes about long stalled LeMaker HiKey960 boards sponsored by HPE and hosted at ETH. [ ]
    • Mention osuosl4 and osuosl5 and explain their usage. [ ]
    • Mention that some packages are built differently. [ ][ ]
    • Improve language in a comment. [ ]
    • Add more notes how to query resource usage from infomaniak.cloud. [ ]
  • Node maintenance:
    • Add ionos4 and ionos14 to THANKS. [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]
    • Deprecate Squid on ionos1 and ionos10. [ ]
    • Drop obsolete script to powercycle arm64 architecture nodes. [ ]
    • Update system_health_check for new proxy nodes. [ ]
  • Misc changes:
    • Make the update_jdn.sh script more robust. [ ][ ]
    • Update my SSH public key. [ ]
In addition, Mattia Rizzolo added some new host details. [ ]
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:

9 May 2024

Dirk Eddelbuettel: RcppArmadillo 0.12.8.3.0 on CRAN: Upstream Bugfix

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) 1144 other packages on CRAN, downloaded 34.2 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 583 times according to Google Scholar. Conrad released a new upstream bugfix yesterday (for a corner case with fftw3). We uploaded it yesterday too but it took a day for the hard-working CRAN maintainers to concur that the one (!) NOTE from reverse-dependency checking over 1100 packages was in a fact a false positve. And so it appeared on CRAN (very) early this morning. We also made a change removing a long-redundant setter for C++11 mode via the plugin. No other changes were made. The set of changes since the last CRAN release follows.

Changes in RcppArmadillo version 0.12.8.3.0 (2024-05-07)
  • Upgraded to Armadillo release 12.8.3 (Cortisol Injector)
    • Fix issue in fft() and fft2() in multi-threaded contexts with FFTW3 enabled
  • No longer set C++11 for the Rcpp plugin as this standard has been the default by R for very long time now.

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. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can sponsor me at GitHub.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

1 May 2024

Bits from Debian: Debian welcomes the 2024 GSOC contributors/students

GSoC logo We are very excited to announce that Debian has selected seven contributors to work under mentorship on a variety of projects with us during the Google Summer of Code. Here are the list of the projects, students, and details of the tasks to be performed.
Project: Android SDK Tools in Debian Deliverables of the project: Make the entire Android toolchain, Android Target Platform Framework, and SDK tools available in the Debian archives.
Project: Benchmarking Parallel Performance of Numerical MPI Packages Deliverables of the project: Deliver an automated method for Debian maintainers to test selected numerical Debian packages for their parallel performance in clusters, in particular to catch performance regressions from updates, and to verify expected performance gains, such as Amdahl s and Gufstafson s law, from increased cluster resources.
Project: Debian MobCom Deliverables of the project: Update the outdated mobile packages and recreate aged packages due to new dependencies. Bring in more mobile communication tools by adding about 5 new packages.
Project: Improve support of the Rust coreutils in Debian Deliverables of the project: Make uutils behave more like GNU s coreutils by improving compatibility with GNU coreutils test suit.
Project: Improve support of the Rust findutils in Debian Deliverables of the project: A safer and more performant implementation of the GNU suite's xargs, find, locate and updatedb tools in rust.
Project: Expanding ROCm support within Debian and derivatives Deliverables of the project: Building, packaging, and uploading missing ROCm software into Debian repositories, starting with simple tools and progressing to high-level applications like PyTorch, with the final deliverables comprising a series of ROCm packages meeting community quality assurance standards.
Project: procps: Development of System Monitoring, Statistics and Information Tools in Rust Deliverables of the project: Improve the usability of the entire Rust-based implementation of the procps utility on Linux.
Congratulations and welcome to all the contributors! The Google Summer of Code program is possible in Debian thanks to the efforts of Debian Developers and Debian Contributors that dedicate part of their free time to mentor contributors and outreach tasks. Join us and help extend Debian! You can follow the contributors' weekly reports on the debian-outreach mailing-list, chat with us on our IRC channel or reach out to the individual projects' team mailing lists.

Antoine Beaupr : Tor migrates from Gitolite/GitWeb to GitLab

Note: I've been awfully silent here for the past ... (checks notes) oh dear, 3 months! But that's not because I've been idle, quite the contrary, I've been very busy but just didn't have time to write about anything. So I've taken it upon myself to write something about my work this week, and published this post on the Tor blog which I copy here for a broader audience. Let me know if you like this or not.
Tor has finally completed a long migration from legacy Git infrastructure (Gitolite and GitWeb) to our self-hosted GitLab server. Git repository addresses have therefore changed. Many of you probably have made the switch already, but if not, you will need to change: 
https://git.torproject.org/
to: 
https://gitlab.torproject.org/
In your Git configuration. The GitWeb front page is now an archived listing of all the repositories before the migration. Inactive git repositories were archived in GitLab legacy/gitolite namespace and the gitweb.torproject.org and git.torproject.org web sites now redirect to GitLab. Best effort was made to reproduce the original gitolite repositories faithfully and also avoid duplicating too much data in the migration. But it's possible that some data present in Gitolite has not migrated to GitLab. User repositories are particularly at risk, because they were massively migrated, and they were "re-forked" from their upstreams, to avoid wasting disk space. If a user had a project with a matching name it was assumed to have the right data, which might be inaccurate. The two virtual machines responsible for the legacy service (cupani for git-rw.torproject.org and vineale for git.torproject.org and gitweb.torproject.org) have been shutdown. Their disks will remain for 3 months (until the end of July 2024) and their backups for another year after that (until the end of July 2025), after which point all the data from those hosts will be destroyed, with only the GitLab archives remaining. The rest of this article expands on how this was done and what kind of problems we faced during the migration.

Where is the code? Normally, nothing should be lost. All repositories in gitolite have been either explicitly migrated by their owners, forcibly migrated by the sysadmin team (TPA), or explicitly destroyed at their owner's request. An exhaustive rewrite map translates gitolite projects to GitLab projects. Some of those projects actually redirect to their parent in cases of empty repositories that were obvious forks. Destroyed repositories redirect to the GitLab front page. Because the migration happened progressively, it's technically possible that commits pushed to gitolite were lost after the migration. We took great care to avoid that scenario. First, we adopted a proposal (TPA-RFC-36) in June 2023 to announce the transition. Then, in March 2024, we locked down all repositories from any further changes. Around that time, only a handful of repositories had changes made after the adoption date, and we examined each repository carefully to make sure nothing was lost. Still, we built a diff of all the changes in the git references that archivists can peruse to check for data loss. It's large (6MiB+) because a lot of repositories were migrated before the mass migration and then kept evolving in GitLab. Many other repositories were rebuilt in GitLab from parent to rebuild a fork relationship which added extra references to those clones. A note to amateur archivists out there, it's probably too late for one last crawl now. The Git repositories now all redirect to GitLab and are effectively unavailable in their original form. That said, the GitWeb site was crawled into the Internet Archive in February 2024, so at least some copy of it is available in the Wayback Machine. At that point, however, many developers had already migrated their projects to GitLab, so the copies there were already possibly out of date compared with the repositories in GitLab. Software Heritage also has a copy of all repositories hosted on Gitolite since June 2023 and have continuously kept mirroring the repositories, where they will be kept hopefully in eternity. There's an issue where the main website can't find the repositories when you search for gitweb.torproject.org, instead search for git.torproject.org. In any case, if you believe data is missing, please do let us know by opening an issue with TPA.

Why? This is an old project in the making. The first discussion about migrating from gitolite to GitLab started in 2020 (almost 4 years ago). But going further back, the first GitLab experiment was in 2016, almost a decade ago. The current GitLab server dates from 2019, replacing Trac for issue tracking in 2020. It was originally supposed to host only mirrors for merge requests and issue trackers but, naturally, one thing led to another and eventually, GitLab had grown a container registry, continuous integration (CI) runners, GitLab Pages, and, of course, hosted most Git repositories. There were hesitations at moving to GitLab for code hosting. We had discussions about the increased attack surface and ways to mitigate that, but, ultimately, it seems the issues were not that serious and the community embraced GitLab. TPA actually migrated its most critical repositories out of shared hosting entirely, into specific servers (e.g. the Puppet Git repository is just on the Puppet server now), leveraging Git's decentralized nature and removing an entire attack surface from our infrastructure. Some of those repositories are mirrored back into GitLab, but the authoritative copy is not on GitLab. In any case, the proposal to migrate from Gitolite to GitLab was effectively just formalizing a fait accompli.

How to migrate from Gitolite / cgit to GitLab The progressive migration was a challenge. If you intend to migrate between hosting platforms, we strongly recommend to make a "flag day" during which you migrate all repositories at once. This ensures a smoother transition and avoids elaborate rewrite rules. When Gitolite access was shutdown, we had repositories on both GitLab and Gitolite, without a clear relationship between the two. A priori, the plan then was to import all the remaining Gitolite repositories into the legacy/gitolite namespace, but that seemed wasteful, particularly for large repositories like Tor Browser which uses nearly a gigabyte of disk space. So we took special care to avoid duplicating repositories. When the mass migration started, only 71 of the 538 Gitolite repositories were Migrated to GitLab in the gitolite.conf file. So, given that we had hundreds of repositories to migrate:, we developed some automation to "save time". We already automate similar ad-hoc tasks with Fabric, so we used that framework here as well. (Our normal configuration management tool is Puppet, which is a poor fit here.) So a relatively large amount of Python code was produced to basically do the following:
  1. check if all on-disk repositories are listed in gitolite.conf (and vice versa) and either add missing repositories or delete them from disk if garbage
  2. for each repository in gitolite.conf, if its category is marked Migrated to GitLab, skip, otherwise;
  3. find a matching GitLab project by name, prompt the user for multiple matches
  4. if a match is found, redirect if the repository is non-empty
    • we have GitLab projects that look like the real thing, but are only present to host migrated Trac issues
    • in such cases we cloned the Gitolite project locally and pushed to the existing repository instead
  5. otherwise, a new repository is created in the legacy/gitolite namespace, using the "import" mechanism in GitLab to automatically import the repository from Gitolite, creating redirections and updating gitolite.conf to document the change
User repositories (those under the user/ directory in Gitolite) were handled specially. First, the existing redirection map was checked to see if a similarly named project was migrated (so that, e.g. user/dgoulet/tor is properly treated as a fork of tpo/core/tor). Then the parent project was forked in GitLab and the Gitolite project force-pushed to the fork. This allows us to show the fork relationship in GitLab and, more importantly, benefit from the "pool" feature in GitLab which deduplicates disk usage between forks. Sometimes, we found no such relationships. Then we simply imported multiple repositories with similar names in the legacy/gitolite namespace, sometimes creating forks between user repositories, on a first-come-first-served basis from the gitolite.conf order. The code used in this migration is now available publicly. We encourage other groups planning to migrate from Gitolite/GitWeb to GitLab to use (and contribute to) our fabric-tasks repository, even though it does have its fair share of hard-coded assertions. The main entry point is the gitolite.mass-repos-migration task. A typical migration job looked like: 
anarcat@angela:fabric-tasks$ fab -H cupani.torproject.org gitolite.mass-repos-migration 
[...]
INFO: skipping project project/help/infra in category Migrated to GitLab
INFO: skipping project project/help/wiki in category Migrated to GitLab
INFO: skipping project project/jenkins/jobs in category Migrated to GitLab
INFO: skipping project project/jenkins/tools in category Migrated to GitLab
INFO: searching for projects matching fastlane
INFO: Successfully connected to https://gitlab.torproject.org
import gitolite project project/tor-browser/fastlane into gitlab legacy/gitolite/project/tor-browser/fastlane with desc 'Tor Browser app store and deployment configuration for Fastlane'? [Y/n] 
INFO: importing gitolite project project/tor-browser/fastlane into gitlab legacy/gitolite/project/tor-browser/fastlane with desc 'Tor Browser app store and deployment configuration for Fastlane'
INFO: building a new connect to cupani
INFO: defaulting name to fastlane
INFO: importing project into GitLab
INFO: Successfully connected to https://gitlab.torproject.org
INFO: loading group legacy/gitolite/project/tor-browser
INFO: archiving project
INFO: creating repository fastlane (fastlane) in namespace legacy/gitolite/project/tor-browser from https://git.torproject.org/project/tor-browser/fastlane into https://gitlab.torproject.org/legacy/gitolite/project/tor-browser/fastlane
INFO: migrating Gitolite repository project/tor-browser/fastlane to GitLab project legacy/gitolite/project/tor-browser/fastlane
INFO: uploading 399 bytes to /srv/git.torproject.org/repositories/project/tor-browser/fastlane.git/hooks/pre-receive
INFO: making /srv/git.torproject.org/repositories/project/tor-browser/fastlane.git/hooks/pre-receive executable
INFO: adding entry to rewrite_map /home/anarcat/src/tor/tor-puppet/modules/profile/files/git/gitolite2gitlab.txt
INFO: modifying gitolite.conf to add: "config gitweb.category = Migrated to GitLab"
INFO: rewriting gitolite config /home/anarcat/src/tor/gitolite-admin/conf/gitolite.conf to change project project/tor-browser/fastlane to category Migrated to GitLab
INFO: skipping project project/bridges/bridgedb-admin in category Migrated to GitLab
[...]
In the above, you can see migrated repositories skipped then the fastlane project being archived into GitLab. Another example with a later version of the script, processing only user repositories and showing the interactive prompt and a force-push into a fork: 
$ fab -H cupani.torproject.org  gitolite.mass-repos-migration --include 'user/.*' --exclude '.*tor-?browser.*'
INFO: skipping project user/aagbsn/bridgedb in category Migrated to GitLab
[...]
INFO: skipping project user/phw/atlas in category Migrated to GitLab
INFO: processing project user/phw/obfsproxy (Philipp's obfsproxy repository) in category Users' development repositories (Attic)
INFO: Successfully connected to https://gitlab.torproject.org
INFO: user repository detected, trying to find fork phw/obfsproxy
WARNING: no existing fork found, entering user fork subroutine
INFO: found 6 GitLab projects matching 'obfsproxy' (https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/phw/obfsproxy.git)
0 legacy/gitolite/debian/obfsproxy
1 legacy/gitolite/debian/obfsproxy-legacy
2 legacy/gitolite/user/asn/obfsproxy
3 legacy/gitolite/user/ioerror/obfsproxy
4 tpo/anti-censorship/pluggable-transports/obfsproxy
5 tpo/anti-censorship/pluggable-transports/obfsproxy-legacy
select parent to fork from, or enter to abort: ^G4
INFO: repository is not empty: in-pack: 2104, packs: 1, size-pack: 414
fork project tpo/anti-censorship/pluggable-transports/obfsproxy into legacy/gitolite/user/phw/obfsproxy^G [Y/n] 
INFO: loading project tpo/anti-censorship/pluggable-transports/obfsproxy
INFO: forking project user/phw/obfsproxy into namespace legacy/gitolite/user/phw
INFO: waiting for fork to complete...
INFO: fork status: started, sleeping...
INFO: fork finished
INFO: cloning and force pushing from user/phw/obfsproxy to legacy/gitolite/user/phw/obfsproxy
INFO: deleting branch protection: <class 'gitlab.v4.objects.branches.ProjectProtectedBranch'> =>  'id': 2723, 'name': 'master', 'push_access_levels': [ 'id': 2864, 'access_level': 40, 'access_level_description': 'Maintainers', 'deploy_key_id': None ], 'merge_access_levels': [ 'id': 2753, 'access_level': 40, 'access_level_description': 'Maintainers' ], 'allow_force_push': False 
INFO: cloning repository git-rw.torproject.org:/srv/git.torproject.org/repositories/user/phw/obfsproxy.git in /tmp/tmp6orvjggy/user/phw/obfsproxy
Cloning into bare repository '/tmp/tmp6orvjggy/user/phw/obfsproxy'...
INFO: pushing to GitLab: https://gitlab.torproject.org/legacy/gitolite/user/phw/obfsproxy
remote: 
remote: To create a merge request for bug_10887, visit:        
remote:   https://gitlab.torproject.org/legacy/gitolite/user/phw/obfsproxy/-/merge_requests/new?merge_request%5Bsource_branch%5D=bug_10887        
remote: 
[...]
To ssh://gitlab.torproject.org/legacy/gitolite/user/phw/obfsproxy
 + 2bf9d09...a8e54d5 master -> master (forced update)
 * [new branch]      bug_10887 -> bug_10887
[...]
INFO: migrating repo
INFO: migrating Gitolite repository https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/phw/obfsproxy.git to GitLab project https://gitlab.torproject.org/legacy/gitolite/user/phw/obfsproxy
INFO: adding entry to rewrite_map /home/anarcat/src/tor/tor-puppet/modules/profile/files/git/gitolite2gitlab.txt
INFO: modifying gitolite.conf to add: "config gitweb.category = Migrated to GitLab"
INFO: rewriting gitolite config /home/anarcat/src/tor/gitolite-admin/conf/gitolite.conf to change project user/phw/obfsproxy to category Migrated to GitLab
INFO: processing project user/phw/scramblesuit (Philipp's ScrambleSuit repository) in category Users' development repositories (Attic)
INFO: user repository detected, trying to find fork phw/scramblesuit
WARNING: no existing fork found, entering user fork subroutine
WARNING: no matching gitlab project found for user/phw/scramblesuit
INFO: user fork subroutine failed, resuming normal procedure
INFO: searching for projects matching scramblesuit
import gitolite project user/phw/scramblesuit into gitlab legacy/gitolite/user/phw/scramblesuit with desc 'Philipp's ScrambleSuit repository'?^G [Y/n] 
INFO: checking if remote repo https://git.torproject.org/user/phw/scramblesuit exists
INFO: importing gitolite project user/phw/scramblesuit into gitlab legacy/gitolite/user/phw/scramblesuit with desc 'Philipp's ScrambleSuit repository'
INFO: importing project into GitLab
INFO: Successfully connected to https://gitlab.torproject.org
INFO: loading group legacy/gitolite/user/phw
INFO: creating repository scramblesuit (scramblesuit) in namespace legacy/gitolite/user/phw from https://git.torproject.org/user/phw/scramblesuit into https://gitlab.torproject.org/legacy/gitolite/user/phw/scramblesuit
INFO: archiving project
INFO: migrating Gitolite repository https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/phw/scramblesuit.git to GitLab project https://gitlab.torproject.org/legacy/gitolite/user/phw/scramblesuit
INFO: adding entry to rewrite_map /home/anarcat/src/tor/tor-puppet/modules/profile/files/git/gitolite2gitlab.txt
INFO: modifying gitolite.conf to add: "config gitweb.category = Migrated to GitLab"
INFO: rewriting gitolite config /home/anarcat/src/tor/gitolite-admin/conf/gitolite.conf to change project user/phw/scramblesuit to category Migrated to GitLab
[...]
Acute eyes will notice the bell used as a notification mechanism as well in this transcript. A lot of the code is now useless for us, but some, like "commit and push" or is-repo-empty live on in the git module and, of course, the gitlab module has grown some legs along the way. We've also found fun bugs, like a file descriptor exhaustion in bash, among other oddities. The retirement milestone and issue 41215 has a detailed log of the migration, for those curious. This was a challenging project, but it feels nice to have this behind us. This gets rid of 2 of the 4 remaining machines running Debian "old-old-stable", which moves a bit further ahead in our late bullseye upgrades milestone. Full transparency: we tested GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and other large language models to see if they could answer the question "write a set of rewrite rules to redirect GitWeb to GitLab". This has become a standard LLM test for your faithful writer to figure out how good a LLM is at technical responses. None of them gave an accurate, complete, and functional response, for the record. The actual rewrite rules as of this writing follow, for humans that actually like working answers provided by expert humans instead of artificial intelligence which currently seem to be, glorified, mansplaining interns.

git.torproject.org rewrite rules Those rules are relatively simple in that they rewrite a single URL to its equivalent GitLab counterpart in a 1:1 fashion. It relies on the rewrite map mentioned above, of course. 
RewriteEngine on
# this RewriteMap connects the gitweb projects to their GitLab
# equivalent
RewriteMap gitolite2gitlab "txt:/etc/apache2/gitolite2gitlab.txt"
# if this becomes a performance bottleneck, convert to a DBM map with:
#
#  $ httxt2dbm -i mapfile.txt -o mapfile.map
#
# and:
#
# RewriteMap mapname "dbm:/etc/apache/mapfile.map"
#
# according to reports lavamind found online, we hit such a
# performance bottleneck only around millions of entries, which is not our case
# those two rules can go away once all the projects are
# migrated to GitLab
#
# this matches the request URI so we can check the RewriteMap
# for a match next
#
# WARNING: this won't match URLs without .git in them, which
# *do* work now. one possibility would be to match the request
# URI (without query string!) with:
#
# /git/(.*)(.git)?/(((branches hooks info objects/).*) git-.* upload-pack receive-pack HEAD config description)?.
#
# I haven't been able to figure out the actual structure of
# those URLs, so it's really hard to figure out the boundaries
# of the project name here. I stopped after pouring around the
# http-backend.c code in git
# itself. https://www.git-scm.com/docs/http-protocol is also
# kind of incomplete and unsatisfying.
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(git/)?(.*).git/.*$
# this makes the RewriteRule match only if there's a match in
# the rewrite map
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%2 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteRule ^/(git/)?(.*).git/(.*)$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$2 .git/$3 [R=302,L]
# Fallback everything else to GitLab
RewriteRule (.*) https://gitlab.torproject.org [R=302,L]

gitweb.torproject.org rewrite rules Those are the vastly more complicated GitWeb to GitLab rewrite rules. Note that we say "GitWeb" but we were actually not running GitWeb but cgit, as the former didn't actually scale for us. 
RewriteEngine on
# this RewriteMap connects the gitweb projects to their GitLab
# equivalent
RewriteMap gitolite2gitlab "txt:/etc/apache2/gitolite2gitlab.txt"
# special rule to process targets of the old spec.tpo site and
# bring them to the right redirect on the new spec.tpo site. that should turn, for example:
#
# https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/address-spec.txt
#
# into:
#
# https://spec.torproject.org/address-spec
RewriteRule ^/torspec.git/tree/(.*).txt$ https://spec.torproject.org/$1 [R=302]
# list of endpoints taken from cgit's cmd.c
# those two RewriteCond are necessary because we don't move
# all repositories at once. once the migration is completed,
# they can be removed.
#
# and yes, they are copied all over the place below
#
# create a match for the project name to check if the project
# has been moved to GitLab
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git(/.*)?$
# this makes the RewriteRule match only if there's a match in
# the rewrite map
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
# main project page, like summary below
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/?$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 / [R=302,L]
# summary
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/summary/?$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 / [R=302,L]
# about
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/about/?$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 / [R=302,L]
# commit
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteCond "% QUERY_STRING " "(.*(?:^ &))id=([^&]*)(&.*)?$"
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/commit/? https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/commit/%2 [R=302,L,QSD]
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/commit/? https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/commits/HEAD [R=302,L]
# diff, incomplete because can diff arbitrary refs and files in cgit but not in GitLab, hard to parse
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteCond % QUERY_STRING  id=([^&]*)
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/diff/? https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/commit/%1 [R=302,L,QSD]
# patch
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteCond % QUERY_STRING  id=([^&]*)
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/patch/? https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/commit/%1.patch [R=302,L,QSD]
# rawdiff, incomplete because can show only one file diff, which GitLab cannot
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteCond % QUERY_STRING  id=([^&]*)
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/rawdiff/?$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/commit/%1.diff [R=302,L,QSD]
# log
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteCond % QUERY_STRING  h=([^&]*)
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/log/?$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/commits/%1 [R=302,L,QSD]
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/log/?$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/commits/HEAD [R=302,L]
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/log(/?.*)$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/commits/HEAD$2 [R=302,L]
# atom
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteCond % QUERY_STRING  h=([^&]*)
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/atom/?$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/commits/%1 [R=302,L,QSD]
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/atom/?$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/commits/HEAD [R=302,L,QSD]
# refs, incomplete because two pages in GitLab, defaulting to "tags"
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/refs/?$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/tags [R=302,L]
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteCond % QUERY_STRING  h=([^&]*)
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/tag/? https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/tags/%1 [R=302,L,QSD]
# tree
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteCond % QUERY_STRING  id=([^&]*)
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/tree(/?.*)$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/tree/%1$2 [R=302,L,QSD]
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/tree(/?.*)$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/tree/HEAD$2 [R=302,L]
# /-/tree has no good default in GitLab, revert to HEAD which is a good
# approximation (we can't assume "master" here anymore)
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/tree/?$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/tree/HEAD [R=302,L]
# plain
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteCond % QUERY_STRING  h=([^&]*)
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/plain(/?.*)$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/raw/%1$2 [R=302,L,QSD]
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/plain(/?.*)$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/raw/HEAD$2 [R=302,L]
# blame: disabled
#RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
#RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
#RewriteCond % QUERY_STRING  h=([^&]*)
#RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/blame(/?.*)$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/blame/%1$2 [R=302,L,QSD]
# same default as tree above
#RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
#RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
#RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/blame(/?.*)$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/blame/HEAD/$2 [R=302,L]
# stats
RewriteCond % REQUEST_URI  ^/(.*).git/.*$
RewriteCond $ gitolite2gitlab:%1 NOT_FOUND  !NOT_FOUND
RewriteRule ^/(.*).git/stats/?$ https://gitlab.torproject.org/$ gitolite2gitlab:$1 /-/graphs/HEAD [R=302,L]
# still TODO:
# repolist: once migration is complete
#
# cannot be done:
# atom: needs a feed token, user must be logged in
# blob: no direct equivalent
# info: not working on main cgit website?
# ls_cache: not working, irrelevant?
# objects: undocumented?
# snapshot: pattern too hard to match on cgit's side
# special case, we keep a copy of the main index on the archive
RewriteRule ^/?$ https://archive.torproject.org/websites/gitweb.torproject.org.html [R=302,L]
# Fallback: everything else to GitLab
RewriteRule .* https://gitlab.torproject.org [R=302,L]
The reference copy of those is available in our (currently private) Puppet git repository.

30 April 2024

Russell Coker: Links April 2024

Ron Garret wrote an insightful refutation to 2nd amendment arguments [1]. Interesting article from the UK about British Gas losing a civil suit about bill collecting techniques that are harassment [2]. This should be a criminal offence investigated by the police and prosecuted by the CPS. David Brin wrote a new version of his essay about dealing with blackmail in the US political system [3]. Cory Doctorow gave an insightful lecture about Enshittification for the Transmediale festival in Berlin [4]. This link has video and a transcript, I read the transcript. The Cut has an insightful article by a journalist who gave $50k in cash to a scammer and compares the scam to techniques used to extort false confessions [5]. Truth Dig has an informative article about how Nick Bostrom is racist and how his advocacy of eugenics influences Effective Altruism and a lot of Silicon Valley [6]. Bruce Scneier and Nathan Sanders wrote an insightful article about the problems with a frontier slogan for AI development [7]. Brian Krebs wrote an informative article about the links between Chinese APT companies and the Chinese government [8].
Related posts:
  1. Links March 2024 Bruce Schneier wrote an interesting blog post about his workshop...
  2. Links January 2024 Long Now has an insightful article about domestication that considers...
  3. Links April 2021 Dr Justin Lehmiller s blog post comparing his official (academic style)...

28 April 2024

Russell Coker: USB PSUs

I just bought a new USB PSU from AliExpress [1]. I got this to reduce the clutter in my bedroom, I charge my laptop, PineTime, and a few phones at the same time and a single PSU with lots of ports makes it easier. Also I bought a couple of really short USB-C cables as it s been proven by both real life tests and mathematical modelling that shorter cables get tangled less. This power supply is based on Gallium Nitride (GaN) [2] technology which makes it efficient and cool. One thing I only learned about after that purchase is the new USB PPS standard (see the USB Wikipedia page for details [3]). The PPS (Programmable Power Supply) standard allows (quoting Wikipedia) allowing a voltage range of 3.3 to 21 V in 20 mV steps, and a current specified in 50 mA steps, to facilitate constant-voltage and constant-current charging . What this means in practice (when phones support it which for me will probably be 2029 or something) is that the phone could receive power exactly matching the voltage needed for the battery and not have any voltage conversion inside the phone. Phones are designed to stop charging at a certain temperature, this probably doesn t concern people in places like Northern Europe but in Australia it can be an issue. Removing the heat dissipation from inefficiencies in voltage change circuitry means the phone will be cooler when charging and can charge at a higher rate. There is a Certified USB Fast Charger logo for chargers which do this, but it seems that at the moment they just include PPS in the feature list. So I highly recommend that GaN and PPS be on your feature list for your next USB PSU, but failing that the 240W PSU I bought for $36 was a good deal.
Related posts:
  1. USB-PD and GaN A recent development is cheap Gallium Nitride based power...
  2. Power Supplies and Wires For some time I ve been wondering how the wire size...
  3. Qi Phone Charging I have just bought a wireless phone charging system based...

Evgeni Golov: Running Ansible Molecule tests in parallel

Or "How I've halved the execution time of our tests by removing ten lines". Catchy, huh? Also not exactly true, but quite close. Enjoy! Molecule?! "Molecule project is designed to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles." No idea about the development part (I have vim and mkdir), but it's really good for integration testing. You can write different test scenarios where you define an environment (usually a container), a playbook for the execution and a playbook for verification. (And a lot more, but that's quite unimportant for now, so go read the docs if you want more details.) If you ever used Beaker for Puppet integration testing, you'll feel right at home (once you've thrown away Ruby and DSLs and embraced YAML for everything). I'd like to point out one thing, before we continue. Have another look at the quote above. "Molecule project is designed to aid in the development and testing of Ansible roles." That's right. The project was started in 2015 and was always about roles. There is nothing wrong about that, but given the Ansible world has moved on to collections (which can contain roles), you start facing challenges. Challenges using Ansible Molecule in the Collections world The biggest challenge didn't change since the last time I looked at the topic in 2020: running tests for multiple roles in a single repository ("monorepo") is tedious. Well, guess what a collection is? Yepp, a repository with multiple roles in it. It did get a bit better though. There is pytest-ansible now, which has integration for Molecule. This allows the execution of Molecule and even provides reasonable logging with something as short as: 
% pytest --molecule roles/
That's much better than the shell script I used in 2020! However, being able to execute tests is one thing. Being able to execute them fast is another one. Given Molecule was initially designed with single roles in mind, it has switches to run all scenarios of a role (--all), but it has no way to run these in parallel. That's fine if you have one or two scenarios in your role repository. But what if you have 10 in your collection? "No way?!" you say after quickly running molecule test --help, "But there is " 
% molecule test --help
Usage: molecule test [OPTIONS] [ANSIBLE_ARGS]...
 
  --parallel / --no-parallel      Enable or disable parallel mode. Default is disabled.
Yeah, that switch exists, but it only tells Molecule to place things in separate folders, you still need to parallelize yourself with GNU parallel or pytest. And here our actual journey starts! Running Ansible Molecule tests in parallel To run Molecule via pytest in parallel, we can use pytest-xdist, which allows pytest to run the tests in multiple processes. With that, our pytest call becomes something like this: 
% MOLECULE_OPTS="--parallel" pytest --numprocesses auto --molecule roles/
What does that mean? However, once we actually execute it, we see: 
% MOLECULE_OPTS="--parallel" pytest --numprocesses auto --molecule roles/
 
WARNING  Driver podman does not provide a schema.
INFO     debian scenario test matrix: dependency, cleanup, destroy, syntax, create, prepare, converge, idempotence, side_effect, verify, cleanup, destroy
INFO     Performing prerun with role_name_check=0...
WARNING  Retrying execution failure 250 of: ansible-galaxy collection install -vvv --force ../..
ERROR    Command returned 250 code:
 
OSError: [Errno 39] Directory not empty: 'roles'
 
FileExistsError: [Errno 17] File exists: b'/home/user/namespace.collection/collections/ansible_collections/namespace/collection'
 
FileNotFoundError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: b'/home/user/namespace.collection//collections/ansible_collections/namespace/collection/roles/my_role/molecule/debian/molecule.yml'
You might see other errors, other paths, etc, but they all will have one in common: they indicate that either files or directories are present, while the tool expects them not to be, or vice versa. Ah yes, that fine smell of race conditions. I'll spare you the wild-goose chase I went on when trying to find out what the heck was calling ansible-galaxy collection install here. Instead, I'll just point at the following line: 
INFO     Performing prerun with role_name_check=0...
What is this "prerun" you ask? Well "To help Ansible find used modules and roles, molecule will perform a prerun set of actions. These involve installing dependencies from requirements.yml specified at the project level, installing a standalone role or a collection." Turns out, this step is not --parallel-safe (yet?). Luckily, it can easily be disabled, for all our roles in the collection: 
% mkdir -p .config/molecule
% echo 'prerun: false' >> .config/molecule/config.yml
This works perfectly, as long as you don't have any dependencies. And we don't have any, right? We didn't define any in a molecule/collections.yml, our collection has none. So let's push a PR with that and see what our CI thinks. 
OSError: [Errno 39] Directory not empty: 'tests'
Huh? 
FileExistsError: [Errno 17] File exists: b'remote.sh' -> b'/home/runner/work/namespace.collection/namespace.collection/collections/ansible_collections/ansible/posix/tests/utils/shippable/aix.sh'
What? 
ansible_compat.errors.InvalidPrerequisiteError: Found collection at '/home/runner/work/namespace.collection/namespace.collection/collections/ansible_collections/ansible/posix' but missing MANIFEST.json, cannot get info.
Okay, okay, I get the idea But why? Well, our collection might not have any dependencies, BUT MOLECULE HAS! When using Docker containers, it uses community.docker, when using Podman containers.podman, etc So we have to install those before running Molecule, and everything should be fine. We even can use Molecule to do this! 
$ molecule dependency --scenario <scenario>
And with that knowledge, the patch to enable parallel Molecule execution on GitHub Actions using pytest-xdist becomes: 
diff --git a/.config/molecule/config.yml b/.config/molecule/config.yml
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..32ed66d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/.config/molecule/config.yml
@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+prerun: false
diff --git a/.github/workflows/test.yml b/.github/workflows/test.yml
index 0f9da0d..df55a15 100644
--- a/.github/workflows/test.yml
+++ b/.github/workflows/test.yml
@@ -58,9 +58,13 @@ jobs:
       - name: Install Ansible
         run: pip install --upgrade https://github.com/ansible/ansible/archive/$  matrix.ansible  .tar.gz
       - name: Install dependencies
-        run: pip install molecule molecule-plugins pytest pytest-ansible
+        run: pip install molecule molecule-plugins pytest pytest-ansible pytest-xdist
+      - name: Install collection dependencies
+        run: cd roles/repository && molecule dependency -s suse
       - name: Run tests
-        run: pytest -vv --molecule roles/
+        run: pytest -vv --numprocesses auto --molecule roles/
+        env:
+          MOLECULE_OPTS: --parallel
   ansible-lint:
     runs-on: ubuntu-latest
But you promised us to delete ten lines, that's just a +7-2 patch! Oh yeah, sorry, the +10-20 (so a net -10) is the foreman-operations-collection version of the patch, that also migrates from an ugly bash script to pytest-ansible. And yes, that cuts down the execution from ~26 minutes to ~13 minutes. In the collection I originally tested this with, it's a more moderate "from 8-9 minutes to 5-6 minutes", which is still good though :)

26 April 2024

Robert McQueen: Update from the GNOME board

It s been around 6 months since the GNOME Foundation was joined by our new Executive Director, Holly Million, and the board and I wanted to update members on the Foundation s current status and some exciting upcoming changes.

Finances As you may be aware, the GNOME Foundation has operated at a deficit (nonprofit speak for a loss ie spending more than we ve been raising each year) for over three years, essentially running the Foundation on reserves from some substantial donations received 4-5 years ago. The Foundation has a reserves policy which specifies a minimum amount of money we have to keep in our accounts. This is so that if there is a significant interruption to our usual income, we can preserve our core operations while we work on new funding sources. We ve now hit the buffers of this reserves policy, meaning the Board can t approve any more deficit budgets to keep spending at the same level we must increase our income. One of the board s top priorities in hiring Holly was therefore her experience in communications and fundraising, and building broader and more diverse support for our mission and work. Her goals since joining as well as building her familiarity with the community and project have been to set up better financial controls and reporting, develop a strategic plan, and start fundraising. You may have noticed the Foundation being more cautious with spending this year, because Holly prepared a break-even budget for the Board to approve in October, so that we can steady the ship while we prepare and launch our new fundraising initiatives.

Strategy & Fundraising The biggest prerequisite for fundraising is a clear strategy we need to explain what we re doing and why it s important, and use that to convince people to support our plans. I m very pleased to report that Holly has been working hard on this and meeting with many stakeholders across the community, and has prepared a detailed and insightful five year strategic plan. The plan defines the areas where the Foundation will prioritise, develop and fund initiatives to support and grow the GNOME project and community. The board has approved a draft version of this plan, and over the coming weeks Holly and the Foundation team will be sharing this plan and running a consultation process to gather feedback input from GNOME foundation and community members. In parallel, Holly has been working on a fundraising plan to stabilise the Foundation, growing our revenue and ability to deliver on these plans. We will be launching a variety of fundraising activities over the coming months, including a development fund for people to directly support GNOME development, working with professional grant writers and managers to apply for government and private foundation funding opportunities, and building better communications to explain the importance of our work to corporate and individual donors.

Board Development Another observation that Holly had since joining was that we had, by general nonprofit standards, a very small board of just 7 directors. While we do have some committees which have (very much appreciated!) volunteers from outside the board, our officers are usually appointed from within the board, and many board members end up serving on multiple committees and wearing several hats. It also means the number of perspectives on the board is limited and less representative of the diverse contributors and users that make up the GNOME community. Holly has been working with the board and the governance committee to reduce how much we ask from individual board members, and improve representation from the community within the Foundation s governance. Firstly, the board has decided to increase its size from 7 to 9 members, effective from the upcoming elections this May & June, allowing more voices to be heard within the board discussions. After that, we re going to be working on opening up the board to more participants, creating non-voting officer seats to represent certain regions or interests from across the community, and take part in committees and board meetings. These new non-voting roles are likely to be appointed with some kind of application process, and we ll share details about these roles and how to be considered for them as we refine our plans over the coming year.

Elections We re really excited to develop and share these plans and increase the ways that people can get involved in shaping the Foundation s strategy and how we raise and spend money to support and grow the GNOME community. This brings me to my final point, which is that we re in the run up to the annual board elections which take place in the run up to GUADEC. Because of the expansion of the board, and four directors coming to the end of their terms, we ll be electing 6 seats this election. It s really important to Holly and the board that we use this opportunity to bring some new voices to the table, leading by example in growing and better representing our community. Allan wrote in the past about what the board does and what s expected from directors. As you can see we re working hard on reducing what we ask from each individual board member by increasing the number of directors, and bringing additional members in to committees and non-voting roles. If you re interested in seeing more diverse backgrounds and perspectives represented on the board, I would strongly encourage you consider standing for election and reach out to a board member to discuss their experience. Thanks for reading! Until next time. Best Wishes,
Rob
President, GNOME Foundation Update 2024-04-27: It was suggested in the Discourse thread that I clarify the interaction between the break-even budget and the 1M EUR committed by the STF project. This money is received in the form of a contract for services rather than a grant to the Foundation, and must be spent on the development areas agreed during the planning and application process. It s included within this year s budget (October 23 September 24) and is all expected to be spent during this fiscal year, so it doesn t have an impact on the Foundation s reserves position. The Foundation retains a small % fee to support its costs in connection with the project, including the new requirement to have our accounts externally audited at the end of the financial year. We are putting this money towards recruitment of an administrative assistant to improve financial and other operational support for the Foundation and community, including the STF project and future development initiatives. (also posted to GNOME Discourse, please head there if you have any questions or comments)

Russell Coker: Humane AI Pin

I wrote a blog post The Shape of Computers [1] exploring ideas of how computers might evolve and how we can use them. One of the devices I mentioned was the Humane AI Pin, which has just been the recipient of one of the biggest roast reviews I ve ever seen [2], good work Marques Brownlee! As an aside I was once given a product to review which didn t work nearly as well as I think it should have worked so I sent an email to the developers saying sorry this product failed to work well so I can t say anything good about it and didn t publish a review. One of the first things that caught my attention in the review is the note that the AI Pin doesn t connect to your phone. I think that everything should connect to everything else as a usability feature. For security we don t want so much connecting and it s quite reasonable to turn off various connections at appropriate times for security, the Librem5 is an example of how this can be done with hardware switches to disable Wifi etc. But to just not have connectivity is bad. The next noteworthy thing is the external battery which also acts as a magnetic attachment from inside your shirt. So I guess it s using wireless charging through your shirt. A magnetically attached external battery would be a great feature for a phone, you could quickly swap a discharged battery for a fresh one and keep using it. When I tried to make the PinePhonePro my daily driver [3] I gave up and charging was one of the main reasons. One thing I learned from my experiment with the PinePhonePro is that the ratio of charge time to discharge time is sometimes more important than battery life and being able to quickly swap batteries without rebooting is a way of solving that. The reviewer of the AI Pin complains later in the video about battery life which seems to be partly due to wireless charging from the detachable battery and partly due to being physically small. It seems the phablet form factor is the smallest viable personal computer at this time. The review glosses over what could be the regarded as the 2 worst issues of the device. It does everything via the cloud (where the cloud means a computer owned by someone I probably shouldn t trust ) and it records everything. Strange that it s not getting the hate the Google Glass got. The user interface based on laser projection of menus on the palm of your hand is an interesting concept. I d rather have a Bluetooth attached tablet or something for operations that can t be conveniently done with voice. The reviewer harshly criticises the laser projection interface later in the video, maybe technology isn t yet adequate to implement this properly. The first criticism of the device in the review part of the video is of the time taken to answer questions, especially when Internet connectivity is poor. His question who designed the Washington Monument took 8 seconds to start answering it in his demonstration. I asked the Alpaca LLM the same question running on 4 cores of a E5-2696 and it took 10 seconds to start answering and then printed the words at about speaking speed. So if we had a free software based AI device for this purpose it shouldn t be difficult to get local LLM computation with less delay than the Humane device by simply providing more compute power than 4 cores of a E5-2696v3. How does a 32 core 1.05GHz Mali G72 from 2017 (as used in the Galaxy Note 9) compare to 4 cores of a 2.3GHz Intel CPU from 2015? Passmark says that Intel CPU can do 48GFlop with all 18 cores so 4 cores can presumably do about 10GFlop which seems less than the claimed 20-32GFlop of the Mali G72. It seems that with the right software even older Android phones could give adequate performance for a local LLM. The Alpaca model I m testing with takes 4.2G of RAM to run which is usable in a Note 9 with 8G of RAM or a Pixel 8 Pro with 12G. A Pixel 8 Pro could have 4.2G of RAM reserved for a LLM and still have as much RAM for other purposes as my main laptop as of a few months ago. I consider the speed of Alpaca on my workstation to be acceptable but not great. If we can get FOSS phones running a LLM at that speed then I think it would be great for a first version we can always rely on newer and faster hardware becoming available. Marques notes that the cause of some of the problems is likely due to a desire to make it a separate powerful product in the future and that if they gave it phone connectivity in the start they would have to remove that later on. I think that the real problem is that the profit motive is incompatible with good design. They want to have a product that s stand-alone and justifies the purchase price plus subscription and that means not making it a phone accessory . While I think that the best thing for the user is to allow it to talk to a phone, a PC, a car, and anything else the user wants. He compares it to the Apple Vision Pro which has the same issue of trying to be a stand-alone computer but not being properly capable of it. One of the benefits that Marques cites for the AI Pin is the ability to capture voice notes. Dictaphones have been around for over 100 years and very few people have bought them, not even in the 80s when they became cheap. While almost everyone can occasionally benefit from being able to make a note of an idea when it s not convenient to write it down there are few people who need it enough to carry a separate device, not even if that device is tiny. But a phone as a general purpose computing device with microphone can easily be adapted to such things. One possibility would be to program a phone to start a voice note when the volume up and down buttons are pressed at the same time or when some other condition is met. Another possibility is to have a phone have a hotkey function that varies by what you are doing, EG if bushwalking have the hotkey be to take a photo or if on a flight have it be taking a voice note. On the Mobile Apps page on the Debian wiki I created a section for categories of apps that I think we need [4]. In that section I added the following list:
  1. Voice input for dictation
  2. Voice assistant like Google/Apple
  3. Voice output
  4. Full operation for visually impaired people
One thing I really like about the AI Pin is that it has the potential to become a really good computing and personal assistant device for visually impaired people funded by people with full vision who want to legally control a computer while driving etc. I have some concerns about the potential uses of the AI Pin while driving (as Marques stated an aim to do), but if it replaces the use of regular phones while driving it will make things less bad. Marques concludes his video by warning against buying a product based on the promise of what it can be in future. I bought the Librem5 on exactly that promise, the difference is that I have the source and the ability to help make the promise come true. My aim is to spend thousands of dollars on test hardware and thousands of hours of development time to help make FOSS phones a product that most people can use at low price with little effort. Another interesting review of the pin is by Mrwhostheboss [5], one of his examples is of asking the pin for advice about a chair but without him knowing the pin selected a different chair in the room. He compares this to using Google s apps on a phone and seeing which item the app has selected. He also said that he doesn t want to make an order based on speech he wants to review a page of information about it. I suspect that the design of the pin had too much input from people accustomed to asking a corporate travel office to find them a flight and not enough from people who look through the details of the results of flight booking services trying to save an extra $20. Some people might say if you need to save $20 on a flight then a $24/month subscription computing service isn t for you , I reject that argument. I can afford lots of computing services because I try to get the best deal on every moderately expensive thing I pay for. Another point that Mrwhostheboss makes is regarding secret SMS, you probably wouldn t want to speak a SMS you are sending to your SO while waiting for a train. He makes it clear that changing between phone and pin while sharing resources (IE not having a separate phone number and separate data store) is a desired feature. The most insightful point Mrwhostheboss made was when he suggested that if the pin had come out before the smartphone then things might have all gone differently, but now anything that s developed has to be based around the expectations of phone use. This is something we need to keep in mind when developing FOSS software, there s lots of different ways that things could be done but we need to meet the expectations of users if we want our software to be used by many people. I previously wrote a blog post titled Considering Convergence [6] about the possible ways of using a phone as a laptop. While I still believe what I wrote there I m now considering the possibility of ease of movement of work in progress as a way of addressing some of the same issues. I ve written a blog post about Convergence vs Transferrence [7].
Related posts:
  1. PinePhonePro First Impression Hardware I received my PinePhone Pro [1] on Thursday, it...
  2. I Just Ordered a Nexus 6P Last year I wrote a long-term review of Android phones...
  3. Smart Phones Should Measure Charge Speed My first mobile phone lasted for days between charges. I...

18 April 2024

Jonathan McDowell: Sorting out backup internet #2: 5G modem

Having setup recursive DNS it was time to actually sort out a backup internet connection. I live in a Virgin Media area, but I still haven t forgiven them for my terrible Virgin experiences when moving here. Plus it involves a bigger contractual commitment. There are no altnets locally (though I m watching youfibre who have already rolled out in a few Belfast exchanges), so I decided to go for a 5G modem. That gives some flexibility, and is a bit easier to get up and running. I started by purchasing a ZTE MC7010. This had the advantage of being reasonably cheap off eBay, not having any wifi functionality I would just have to disable (it s going to plug it into the same router the FTTP connection terminates on), being outdoor mountable should I decide to go that way, and, finally, being powered via PoE. For now this device sits on the window sill in my study, which is at the top of the house. I printed a table stand for it which mostly does the job (though not as well with a normal, rather than flat, network cable). The router lives downstairs, so I ve extended a dedicated VLAN through the study switch, down to the core switch and out to the router. The PoE study switch can only do GigE, not 2.5Gb/s, but at present that s far from the limiting factor on the speed of the connection. The device is 3 branded, and, as it happens, I ve ended up with a 3 SIM in it. Up until recently my personal phone was with them, but they ve kicked me off Go Roam, so I ve moved. Going with 3 for the backup connection provides some slight extra measure of resiliency; we now have devices on all 4 major UK networks in the house. The SIM is a preloaded data only SIM good for a year; I don t expect to use all of the data allowance, but I didn t want to have to worry about unexpected excess charges. Performance turns out to be disappointing; I end up locking the device to 4G as the 5G signal is marginal - leaving it enabled results in constantly switching between 4G + 5G and a significant extra latency. The smokeping graph below shows a brief period where I removed the 4G lock and allowed 5G: Smokeping 4G vs 5G graph (There s a handy zte.js script to allow doing this from the device web interface.) I get about 10Mb/s sustained downloads out of it. EE/Vodafone did not lead to significantly better results, so for now I m accepting it is what it is. I tried relocating the device to another part of the house (a little tricky while still providing switch-based PoE, but I have an injector), without much improvement. Equally pinning the 4G to certain bands provided a short term improvement (I got up to 40-50Mb/s sustained), but not reliably so. speedtest.net results This is disappointing, but if it turns out to be a problem I can look at mounting it externally. I also assume as 5G is gradually rolled out further things will naturally improve, but that might be wishful thinking on my part. Rather than wait until my main link had a problem I decided to try a day working over the 5G connection. I spend a lot of my time either in browser based apps or accessing remote systems via SSH, so I m reasonably sensitive to a jittery or otherwise flaky connection. I picked a day that I did not have any meetings planned, but as it happened I ended up with an adhoc video call arranged. I m pleased to say that it all worked just fine; definitely noticeable as slower than the FTTP connection (to be expected), but all workable and even the video call was fine (at least from my end). Looking at the traffic graph shows the expected ~ 10Mb/s peak (actually a little higher, and looking at the FTTP stats for previous days not out of keeping with what we see there), and you can just about see the ~ 3Mb/s symmetric use by the video call at 2pm: 4G traffic during the work day The test run also helped iron out the fact that the content filter was still enabled on the SIM, but that was easily resolved. Up next, vaguely automatic failover.

17 April 2024

Dirk Eddelbuettel: RcppArmadillo 0.12.8.2.1 on CRAN: Micro Fix

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) 1135 other packages on CRAN, downloaded 33.7 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 579 times according to Google Scholar. Yesterday s release accommodates reticulate by suspending a single test that now croaks creating a reverse-dependency issue for that package. No other changes were made. The set of changes since the last CRAN release follows.

Changes in RcppArmadillo version 0.12.8.2.1 (2024-04-15)
  • One-char bug fix release commenting out one test that upsets reticulate when accessing a scipy sparse matrix

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. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can sponsor me at GitHub.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

13 April 2024

Simon Josefsson: Reproducible and minimal source-only tarballs

With the release of Libntlm version 1.8 the release tarball can be reproduced on several distributions. We also publish a signed minimal source-only tarball, produced by git-archive which is the same format used by Savannah, Codeberg, GitLab, GitHub and others. Reproducibility of both tarballs are tested continuously for regressions on GitLab through a CI/CD pipeline. If that wasn t enough to excite you, the Debian packages of Libntlm are now built from the reproducible minimal source-only tarball. The resulting binaries are reproducible on several architectures. What does that even mean? Why should you care? How you can do the same for your project? What are the open issues? Read on, dear reader This article describes my practical experiments with reproducible release artifacts, following up on my earlier thoughts that lead to discussion on Fosstodon and a patch by Janneke Nieuwenhuizen to make Guix tarballs reproducible that inspired me to some practical work. Let s look at how a maintainer release some software, and how a user can reproduce the released artifacts from the source code. Libntlm provides a shared library written in C and uses GNU Make, GNU Autoconf, GNU Automake, GNU Libtool and gnulib for build management, but these ideas should apply to most project and build system. The following illustrate the steps a maintainer would take to prepare a release: 
git clone https://gitlab.com/gsasl/libntlm.git
cd libntlm
git checkout v1.8
./bootstrap
./configure
make distcheck
gpg -b libntlm-1.8.tar.gz
The generated files libntlm-1.8.tar.gz and libntlm-1.8.tar.gz.sig are published, and users download and use them. This is how the GNU project have been doing releases since the late 1980 s. That is a testament to how successful this pattern has been! These tarballs contain source code and some generated files, typically shell scripts generated by autoconf, makefile templates generated by automake, documentation in formats like Info, HTML, or PDF. Rarely do they contain binary object code, but historically that happened. The XZUtils incident illustrate that tarballs with files that are not included in the git archive offer an opportunity to disguise malicious backdoors. I blogged earlier how to mitigate this risk by using signed minimal source-only tarballs. The risk of hiding malware is not the only motivation to publish signed minimal source-only tarballs. With pre-generated content in tarballs, there is a risk that GNU/Linux distributions such as Trisquel, Guix, Debian/Ubuntu or Fedora ship generated files coming from the tarball into the binary *.deb or *.rpm package file. Typically the person packaging the upstream project never realized that some installed artifacts was not re-built through a typical autoconf -fi && ./configure && make install sequence, and never wrote the code to rebuild everything. This can also happen if the build rules are written but are buggy, shipping the old artifact. When a security problem is found, this can lead to time-consuming situations, as it may be that patching the relevant source code and rebuilding the package is not sufficient: the vulnerable generated object from the tarball would be shipped into the binary package instead of a rebuilt artifact. For architecture-specific binaries this rarely happens, since object code is usually not included in tarballs although for 10+ years I shipped the binary Java JAR file in the GNU Libidn release tarball, until I stopped shipping it. For interpreted languages and especially for generated content such as HTML, PDF, shell scripts this happens more than you would like. Publishing minimal source-only tarballs enable easier auditing of a project s code, to avoid the need to read through all generated files looking for malicious content. I have taken care to generate the source-only minimal tarball using git-archive. This is the same format that GitLab, GitHub etc offer for the automated download links on git tags. The minimal source-only tarballs can thus serve as a way to audit GitLab and GitHub download material! Consider if/when hosting sites like GitLab or GitHub has a security incident that cause generated tarballs to include a backdoor that is not present in the git repository. If people rely on the tag download artifact without verifying the maintainer PGP signature using GnuPG, this can lead to similar backdoor scenarios that we had for XZUtils but originated with the hosting provider instead of the release manager. This is even more concerning, since this attack can be mounted for some selected IP address that you want to target and not on everyone, thereby making it harder to discover. With all that discussion and rationale out of the way, let s return to the release process. I have added another step here: 
make srcdist
gpg -b libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz
Now the release is ready. I publish these four files in the Libntlm s Savannah Download area, but they can be uploaded to a GitLab/GitHub release area as well. These are the SHA256 checksums I got after building the tarballs on my Trisquel 11 aramo laptop: 
91de864224913b9493c7a6cec2890e6eded3610d34c3d983132823de348ec2ca  libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz
ce6569a47a21173ba69c990965f73eb82d9a093eb871f935ab64ee13df47fda1  libntlm-1.8.tar.gz
So how can you reproduce my artifacts? Here is how to reproduce them in a Ubuntu 22.04 container: 
podman run -it --rm ubuntu:22.04
apt-get update
apt-get install -y --no-install-recommends autoconf automake libtool make git ca-certificates
git clone https://gitlab.com/gsasl/libntlm.git
cd libntlm
git checkout v1.8
./bootstrap
./configure
make dist srcdist
sha256sum libntlm-*.tar.gz
You should see the exact same SHA256 checksum values. Hooray! This works because Trisquel 11 and Ubuntu 22.04 uses the same version of git, autoconf, automake, and libtool. These tools do not guarantee the same output content for all versions, similar to how GNU GCC does not generate the same binary output for all versions. So there is still some delicate version pairing needed. Ideally, the artifacts should be possible to reproduce from the release artifacts themselves, and not only directly from git. It is possible to reproduce the full tarball in a AlmaLinux 8 container replace almalinux:8 with rockylinux:8 if you prefer RockyLinux: 
podman run -it --rm almalinux:8
dnf update -y
dnf install -y make wget gcc
wget https://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/libntlm/libntlm-1.8.tar.gz
tar xfa libntlm-1.8.tar.gz
cd libntlm-1.8
./configure
make dist
sha256sum libntlm-1.8.tar.gz
The source-only minimal tarball can be regenerated on Debian 11: 
podman run -it --rm debian:11
apt-get update
apt-get install -y --no-install-recommends make git ca-certificates
git clone https://gitlab.com/gsasl/libntlm.git
cd libntlm
git checkout v1.8
make -f cfg.mk srcdist
sha256sum libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz
As the Magnus Opus or chef-d uvre, let s recreate the full tarball directly from the minimal source-only tarball on Trisquel 11 replace docker.io/kpengboy/trisquel:11.0 with ubuntu:22.04 if you prefer. 
podman run -it --rm docker.io/kpengboy/trisquel:11.0
apt-get update
apt-get install -y --no-install-recommends autoconf automake libtool make wget git ca-certificates
wget https://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/libntlm/libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz
tar xfa libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz
cd libntlm-v1.8
./bootstrap
./configure
make dist
sha256sum libntlm-1.8.tar.gz
Yay! You should now have great confidence in that the release artifacts correspond to what s in version control and also to what the maintainer intended to release. Your remaining job is to audit the source code for vulnerabilities, including the source code of the dependencies used in the build. You no longer have to worry about auditing the release artifacts. I find it somewhat amusing that the build infrastructure for Libntlm is now in a significantly better place than the code itself. Libntlm is written in old C style with plenty of string manipulation and uses broken cryptographic algorithms such as MD4 and single-DES. Remember folks: solving supply chain security issues has no bearing on what kind of code you eventually run. A clean gun can still shoot you in the foot. Side note on naming: GitLab exports tarballs with pathnames libntlm-v1.8/ (i.e.., PROJECT-TAG/) and I ve adopted the same pathnames, which means my libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz tarballs are bit-by-bit identical to GitLab s exports and you can verify this with tools like diffoscope. GitLab name the tarball libntlm-v1.8.tar.gz (i.e., PROJECT-TAG.ARCHIVE) which I find too similar to the libntlm-1.8.tar.gz that we also publish. GitHub uses the same git archive style, but unfortunately they have logic that removes the v in the pathname so you will get a tarball with pathname libntlm-1.8/ instead of libntlm-v1.8/ that GitLab and I use. The content of the tarball is bit-by-bit identical, but the pathname and archive differs. Codeberg (running Forgejo) uses another approach: the tarball is called libntlm-v1.8.tar.gz (after the tag) just like GitLab, but the pathname inside the archive is libntlm/, otherwise the produced archive is bit-by-bit identical including timestamps. Savannah s CGIT interface uses archive name libntlm-1.8.tar.gz with pathname libntlm-1.8/, but otherwise file content is identical. Savannah s GitWeb interface provides snapshot links that are named after the git commit (e.g., libntlm-a812c2ca.tar.gz with libntlm-a812c2ca/) and I cannot find any tag-based download links at all. Overall, we are so close to get SHA256 checksum to match, but fail on pathname within the archive. I ve chosen to be compatible with GitLab regarding the content of tarballs but not on archive naming. From a simplicity point of view, it would be nice if everyone used PROJECT-TAG.ARCHIVE for the archive filename and PROJECT-TAG/ for the pathname within the archive. This aspect will probably need more discussion. Side note on git archive output: It seems different versions of git archive produce different results for the same repository. The version of git in Debian 11, Trisquel 11 and Ubuntu 22.04 behave the same. The version of git in Debian 12, AlmaLinux/RockyLinux 8/9, Alpine, ArchLinux, macOS homebrew, and upcoming Ubuntu 24.04 behave in another way. Hopefully this will not change that often, but this would invalidate reproducibility of these tarballs in the future, forcing you to use an old git release to reproduce the source-only tarball. Alas, GitLab and most other sites appears to be using modern git so the download tarballs from them would not match my tarballs even though the content would. Side note on ChangeLog: ChangeLog files were traditionally manually curated files with version history for a package. In recent years, several projects moved to dynamically generate them from git history (using tools like git2cl or gitlog-to-changelog). This has consequences for reproducibility of tarballs: you need to have the entire git history available! The gitlog-to-changelog tool also output different outputs depending on the time zone of the person using it, which arguable is a simple bug that can be fixed. However this entire approach is incompatible with rebuilding the full tarball from the minimal source-only tarball. It seems Libntlm s ChangeLog file died on the surgery table here. So how would a distribution build these minimal source-only tarballs? I happen to help on the libntlm package in Debian. It has historically used the generated tarballs as the source code to build from. This means that code coming from gnulib is vendored in the tarball. When a security problem is discovered in gnulib code, the security team needs to patch all packages that include that vendored code and rebuild them, instead of merely patching the gnulib package and rebuild all packages that rely on that particular code. To change this, the Debian libntlm package needs to Build-Depends on Debian s gnulib package. But there was one problem: similar to most projects that use gnulib, Libntlm depend on a particular git commit of gnulib, and Debian only ship one commit. There is no coordination about which commit to use. I have adopted gnulib in Debian, and add a git bundle to the *_all.deb binary package so that projects that rely on gnulib can pick whatever commit they need. This allow an no-network GNULIB_URL and GNULIB_REVISION approach when running Libntlm s ./bootstrap with the Debian gnulib package installed. Otherwise libntlm would pick up whatever latest version of gnulib that Debian happened to have in the gnulib package, which is not what the Libntlm maintainer intended to be used, and can lead to all sorts of version mismatches (and consequently security problems) over time. Libntlm in Debian is developed and tested on Salsa and there is continuous integration testing of it as well, thanks to the Salsa CI team. Side note on git bundles: unfortunately there appears to be no reproducible way to export a git repository into one or more files. So one unfortunate consequence of all this work is that the gnulib *.orig.tar.gz tarball in Debian is not reproducible any more. I have tried to get Git bundles to be reproducible but I never got it to work see my notes in gnulib s debian/README.source on this aspect. Of course, source tarball reproducibility has nothing to do with binary reproducibility of gnulib in Debian itself, fortunately. One open question is how to deal with the increased build dependencies that is triggered by this approach. Some people are surprised by this but I don t see how to get around it: if you depend on source code for tools in another package to build your package, it is a bad idea to hide that dependency. We ve done it for a long time through vendored code in non-minimal tarballs. Libntlm isn t the most critical project from a bootstrapping perspective, so adding git and gnulib as Build-Depends to it will probably be fine. However, consider if this pattern was used for other packages that uses gnulib such as coreutils, gzip, tar, bison etc (all are using gnulib) then they would all Build-Depends on git and gnulib. Cross-building those packages for a new architecture will therefor require git on that architecture first, which gets circular quick. The dependency on gnulib is real so I don t see that going away, and gnulib is a Architecture:all package. However, the dependency on git is merely a consequence of how the Debian gnulib package chose to make all gnulib git commits available to projects: through a git bundle. There are other ways to do this that doesn t require the git tool to extract the necessary files, but none that I found practical ideas welcome! Finally some brief notes on how this was implemented. Enabling bootstrappable source-only minimal tarballs via gnulib s ./bootstrap is achieved by using the GNULIB_REVISION mechanism, locking down the gnulib commit used. I have always disliked git submodules because they add extra steps and has complicated interaction with CI/CD. The reason why I gave up git submodules now is because the particular commit to use is not recorded in the git archive output when git submodules is used. So the particular gnulib commit has to be mentioned explicitly in some source code that goes into the git archive tarball. Colin Watson added the GNULIB_REVISION approach to ./bootstrap back in 2018, and now it no longer made sense to continue to use a gnulib git submodule. One alternative is to use ./bootstrap with --gnulib-srcdir or --gnulib-refdir if there is some practical problem with the GNULIB_URL towards a git bundle the GNULIB_REVISION in bootstrap.conf. The srcdist make rule is simple: 
git archive --prefix=libntlm-v1.8/ -o libntlm-1.8-src.tar.gz HEAD
Making the make dist generated tarball reproducible can be more complicated, however for Libntlm it was sufficient to make sure the modification times of all files were set deterministically to the timestamp of the last commit in the git repository. Interestingly there seems to be a couple of different ways to accomplish this, Guix doesn t support minimal source-only tarballs but rely on a .tarball-timestamp file inside the tarball. Paul Eggert explained what TZDB is using some time ago. The approach I m using now is fairly similar to the one I suggested over a year ago. If there are problems because all files in the tarball now use the same modification time, there is a solution by Bruno Haible that could be implemented. Side note on git tags: Some people may wonder why not verify a signed git tag instead of verifying a signed tarball of the git archive. Currently most git repositories uses SHA-1 for git commit identities, but SHA-1 is not a secure hash function. While current SHA-1 attacks can be detected and mitigated, there are fundamental doubts that a git SHA-1 commit identity uniquely refers to the same content that was intended. Verifying a git tag will never offer the same assurance, since a git tag can be moved or re-signed at any time. Verifying a git commit is better but then we need to trust SHA-1. Migrating git to SHA-256 would resolve this aspect, but most hosting sites such as GitLab and GitHub does not support this yet. There are other advantages to using signed tarballs instead of signed git commits or git tags as well, e.g., tar.gz can be a deterministically reproducible persistent stable offline storage format but .git sub-directory trees or git bundles do not offer this property. Doing continous testing of all this is critical to make sure things don t regress. Libntlm s pipeline definition now produce the generated libntlm-*.tar.gz tarballs and a checksum as a build artifact. Then I added the 000-reproducability job which compares the checksums and fails on mismatches. You can read its delicate output in the job for the v1.8 release. Right now we insists that builds on Trisquel 11 match Ubuntu 22.04, that PureOS 10 builds match Debian 11 builds, that AlmaLinux 8 builds match RockyLinux 8 builds, and AlmaLinux 9 builds match RockyLinux 9 builds. As you can see in pipeline job output, not all platforms lead to the same tarballs, but hopefully this state can be improved over time. There is also partial reproducibility, where the full tarball is reproducible across two distributions but not the minimal tarball, or vice versa. If this way of working plays out well, I hope to implement it in other projects too. What do you think? Happy Hacking!

Russell Coker: Software Needed for Work

When I first started studying computer science setting up a programming project was easy, write source code files and a Makefile and that was it. IRC was the only IM system and email was the only other communications system that was used much. Writing Makefiles is difficult but products like the Borland Turbo series of IDEs did all that for you so you could just start typing code and press a function key to compile and run (F5 from memory). Over the years the requirements and expectations of computer use have grown significantly. The typical office worker is now doing many more things with computers than serious programmers used to do. Running an IM system, an online document editing system, and a series of web apps is standard for companies nowadays. Developers have to do all that in addition to tools for version control, continuous integration, bug reporting, and feature tracking. The development process is also more complex with extra steps for reproducible builds, automated tests, and code coverage metrics for the tests. I wonder how many programmers who started in the 90s would have done something else if faced with Github as their introduction. How much of this is good? Having the ability to send instant messages all around the world is great. Having dozens of different ways of doing so is awful. When a company uses multiple IM systems such as MS-Teams and Slack and forces some of it s employees to use them both it s getting ridiculous. Having different friend groups on different IM systems is anti-social networking. In the EU the Digital Markets Act [1] forces some degree of interoperability between different IM systems and as it s impossible to know who s actually in the EU that will end up being world-wide. In corporations document management often involves multiple ways of storing things, you have Google Docs, MS Office online, hosted Wikis like Confluence, and more. Large companies tend to use several such systems which means that people need to learn multiple systems to be able to work and they also need to know which systems are used by the various groups that they communicate with. Microsoft deserves some sort of award for the range of ways they have for managing documents, Sharepoint, OneDrive, Office Online, attachments to Teams rooms, and probably lots more. During WW2 the predecessor to the CIA produced an excellent manual for simple sabotage [2]. If something like that was written today the section General Interference with Organisations and Production would surely have something about using as many incompatible programs and web sites as possible in the work flow. The proliferation of software required for work is a form of denial of service attack against corporations. The efficiency of companies doesn t really bother me. It sucks that companies are creating a demoralising workplace that is unpleasant for workers. But the upside is that the biggest companies are the ones doing the worst things and are also the most afflicted by these problems. It s almost like the Bureau of Sabotage in some of Frank Herbert s fiction [3]. The thing that concerns me is the effect of multiple standards on free software development. We have IRC the most traditional IM support system which is getting replaced by Matrix but we also have some projects using Telegram, and Jabber hasn t gone away. I m sure there are others too. There are also multiple options for version control (although github seems to dominate the market), forums, bug trackers, etc. Reporting bugs or getting support in free software often requires interacting with several of them. Developing free software usually involves dealing with the bug tracking and documentation systems of the distribution you use as well as the upstream developers of the software. If the problem you have is related to compatibility between two different pieces of free software then you can end up dealing with even more bug tracking systems. There are real benefits to some of the newer programs to track bugs, write documentation, etc. There is also going to be a cost in changing which gives an incentive for the older projects to keep using what has worked well enough for them in the past, How can we improve things? Use only the latest tools? Prioritise ease of use? Aim more for the entry level contributors?
Related posts:
  1. Source Escrow for Proprietary Software British taxpayers are paying for extra support for Windows XP...
  2. Car Drivers vs Mechanics and Free Software In a comment on my post about Designing Unsafe Cars...
  3. Advertising Free Software Projects Today I just noticed the following advert on one of...

11 April 2024

Reproducible Builds: Reproducible Builds in March 2024

Welcome to the March 2024 report from the Reproducible Builds project! In our reports, we attempt to outline what we have been up to over the past month, as well as mentioning some of the important things happening more generally in software supply-chain security. As ever, if you are interested in contributing to the project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. Table of contents:
  1. Arch Linux minimal container userland now 100% reproducible
  2. Validating Debian s build infrastructure after the XZ backdoor
  3. Making Fedora Linux (more) reproducible
  4. Increasing Trust in the Open Source Supply Chain with Reproducible Builds and Functional Package Management
  5. Software and source code identification with GNU Guix and reproducible builds
  6. Two new Rust-based tools for post-processing determinism
  7. Distribution work
  8. Mailing list highlights
  9. Website updates
  10. Delta chat clients now reproducible
  11. diffoscope updates
  12. Upstream patches
  13. Reproducibility testing framework

Arch Linux minimal container userland now 100% reproducible In remarkable news, Reproducible builds developer kpcyrd reported that that the Arch Linux minimal container userland is now 100% reproducible after work by developers dvzv and Foxboron on the one remaining package. This represents a real world , widely-used Linux distribution being reproducible. Their post, which kpcyrd suffixed with the question now what? , continues on to outline some potential next steps, including validating whether the container image itself could be reproduced bit-for-bit. The post, which was itself a followup for an Arch Linux update earlier in the month, generated a significant number of replies.

Validating Debian s build infrastructure after the XZ backdoor From our mailing list this month, Vagrant Cascadian wrote about being asked about trying to perform concrete reproducibility checks for recent Debian security updates, in an attempt to gain some confidence about Debian s build infrastructure given that they performed builds in environments running the high-profile XZ vulnerability. Vagrant reports (with some caveats):
So far, I have not found any reproducibility issues; everything I tested I was able to get to build bit-for-bit identical with what is in the Debian archive.
That is to say, reproducibility testing permitted Vagrant and Debian to claim with some confidence that builds performed when this vulnerable version of XZ was installed were not interfered with.

Making Fedora Linux (more) reproducible In March, Davide Cavalca gave a talk at the 2024 Southern California Linux Expo (aka SCALE 21x) about the ongoing effort to make the Fedora Linux distribution reproducible. Documented in more detail on Fedora s website, the talk touched on topics such as the specifics of implementing reproducible builds in Fedora, the challenges encountered, the current status and what s coming next. (YouTube video)

Increasing Trust in the Open Source Supply Chain with Reproducible Builds and Functional Package Management Julien Malka published a brief but interesting paper in the HAL open archive on Increasing Trust in the Open Source Supply Chain with Reproducible Builds and Functional Package Management:
Functional package managers (FPMs) and reproducible builds (R-B) are technologies and methodologies that are conceptually very different from the traditional software deployment model, and that have promising properties for software supply chain security. This thesis aims to evaluate the impact of FPMs and R-B on the security of the software supply chain and propose improvements to the FPM model to further improve trust in the open source supply chain. PDF
Julien s paper poses a number of research questions on how the model of distributions such as GNU Guix and NixOS can be leveraged to further improve the safety of the software supply chain , etc.

Software and source code identification with GNU Guix and reproducible builds In a long line of commendably detailed blog posts, Ludovic Court s, Maxim Cournoyer, Jan Nieuwenhuizen and Simon Tournier have together published two interesting posts on the GNU Guix blog this month. In early March, Ludovic Court s, Maxim Cournoyer, Jan Nieuwenhuizen and Simon Tournier wrote about software and source code identification and how that might be performed using Guix, rhetorically posing the questions: What does it take to identify software ? How can we tell what software is running on a machine to determine, for example, what security vulnerabilities might affect it? Later in the month, Ludovic Court s wrote a solo post describing adventures on the quest for long-term reproducible deployment. Ludovic s post touches on GNU Guix s aim to support time travel , the ability to reliably (and reproducibly) revert to an earlier point in time, employing the iconic image of Harold Lloyd hanging off the clock in Safety Last! (1925) to poetically illustrate both the slapstick nature of current modern technology and the gymnastics required to navigate hazards of our own making.

Two new Rust-based tools for post-processing determinism Zbigniew J drzejewski-Szmek announced add-determinism, a work-in-progress reimplementation of the Reproducible Builds project s own strip-nondeterminism tool in the Rust programming language, intended to be used as a post-processor in RPM-based distributions such as Fedora In addition, Yossi Kreinin published a blog post titled refix: fast, debuggable, reproducible builds that describes a tool that post-processes binaries in such a way that they are still debuggable with gdb, etc.. Yossi post details the motivation and techniques behind the (fast) performance of the tool.

Distribution work In Debian this month, since the testing framework no longer varies the build path, James Addison performed a bulk downgrade of the bug severity for issues filed with a level of normal to a new level of wishlist. In addition, 28 reviews of Debian packages were added, 38 were updated and 23 were removed this month adding to ever-growing knowledge about identified issues. As part of this effort, a number of issue types were updated, including Chris Lamb adding a new ocaml_include_directories toolchain issue [ ] and James Addison adding a new filesystem_order_in_java_jar_manifest_mf_include_resource issue [ ] and updating the random_uuid_in_notebooks_generated_by_nbsphinx to reference a relevant discussion thread [ ]. In addition, Roland Clobus posted his 24th status update of reproducible Debian ISO images. Roland highlights that the images for Debian unstable often cannot be generated due to changes in that distribution related to the 64-bit time_t transition. Lastly, Bernhard M. Wiedemann posted another monthly update for his reproducibility work in openSUSE.

Mailing list highlights Elsewhere on our mailing list this month:

Website updates There were made a number of improvements to our website this month, including:
  • Pol Dellaiera noticed the frequent need to correctly cite the website itself in academic work. To facilitate easier citation across multiple formats, Pol contributed a Citation File Format (CIF) file. As a result, an export in BibTeX format is now available in the Academic Publications section. Pol encourages community contributions to further refine the CITATION.cff file. Pol also added an substantial new section to the buy in page documenting the role of Software Bill of Materials (SBOMs) and ephemeral development environments. [ ][ ]
  • Bernhard M. Wiedemann added a new commandments page to the documentation [ ][ ] and fixed some incorrect YAML elsewhere on the site [ ].
  • Chris Lamb add three recent academic papers to the publications page of the website. [ ]
  • Mattia Rizzolo and Holger Levsen collaborated to add Infomaniak as a sponsor of amd64 virtual machines. [ ][ ][ ]
  • Roland Clobus updated the stable outputs page, dropping version numbers from Python documentation pages [ ] and noting that Python s set data structure is also affected by the PYTHONHASHSEED functionality. [ ]

Delta chat clients now reproducible Delta Chat, an open source messaging application that can work over email, announced this month that the Rust-based core library underlying Delta chat application is now reproducible.

diffoscope diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. This month, Chris Lamb made a number of changes such as uploading versions 259, 260 and 261 to Debian and made the following additional changes:
  • New features:
    • Add support for the zipdetails tool from the Perl distribution. Thanks to Fay Stegerman and Larry Doolittle et al. for the pointer and thread about this tool. [ ]
  • Bug fixes:
    • Don t identify Redis database dumps as GNU R database files based simply on their filename. [ ]
    • Add a missing call to File.recognizes so we actually perform the filename check for GNU R data files. [ ]
    • Don t crash if we encounter an .rdb file without an equivalent .rdx file. (#1066991)
    • Correctly check for 7z being available and not lz4 when testing 7z. [ ]
    • Prevent a traceback when comparing a contentful .pyc file with an empty one. [ ]
  • Testsuite improvements:
    • Fix .epub tests after supporting the new zipdetails tool. [ ]
    • Don t use parenthesis within test skipping messages, as PyTest adds its own parenthesis. [ ]
    • Factor out Python version checking in test_zip.py. [ ]
    • Skip some Zip-related tests under Python 3.10.14, as a potential regression may have been backported to the 3.10.x series. [ ]
    • Actually test 7z support in the test_7z set of tests, not the lz4 functionality. (Closes: reproducible-builds/diffoscope#359). [ ]
In addition, Fay Stegerman updated diffoscope s monkey patch for supporting the unusual Mozilla ZIP file format after Python s zipfile module changed to detect potentially insecure overlapping entries within .zip files. (#362) Chris Lamb also updated the trydiffoscope command line client, dropping a build-dependency on the deprecated python3-distutils package to fix Debian bug #1065988 [ ], taking a moment to also refresh the packaging to the latest Debian standards [ ]. Finally, Vagrant Cascadian submitted an update for diffoscope version 260 in GNU Guix. [ ]

Upstream patches This month, we wrote a large number of patches, including: Bernhard M. Wiedemann used reproducibility-tooling to detect and fix packages that added changes in their %check section, thus failing when built with the --no-checks option. Only half of all openSUSE packages were tested so far, but a large number of bugs were filed, including ones against caddy, exiv2, gnome-disk-utility, grisbi, gsl, itinerary, kosmindoormap, libQuotient, med-tools, plasma6-disks, pspp, python-pypuppetdb, python-urlextract, rsync, vagrant-libvirt and xsimd. Similarly, Jean-Pierre De Jesus DIAZ employed reproducible builds techniques in order to test a proposed refactor of the ath9k-htc-firmware package. As the change produced bit-for-bit identical binaries to the previously shipped pre-built binaries:
I don t have the hardware to test this firmware, but the build produces the same hashes for the firmware so it s safe to say that the firmware should keep working.

Reproducibility testing framework The Reproducible Builds project operates a comprehensive testing framework running primarily at tests.reproducible-builds.org in order to check packages and other artifacts for reproducibility. In March, an enormous number of changes were made by Holger Levsen:
  • Debian-related changes:
    • Sleep less after a so-called 404 package state has occurred. [ ]
    • Schedule package builds more often. [ ][ ]
    • Regenerate all our HTML indexes every hour, but only every 12h for the released suites. [ ]
    • Create and update unstable and experimental base systems on armhf again. [ ][ ]
    • Don t reschedule so many depwait packages due to the current size of the i386 architecture queue. [ ]
    • Redefine our scheduling thresholds and amounts. [ ]
    • Schedule untested packages with a higher priority, otherwise slow architectures cannot keep up with the experimental distribution growing. [ ]
    • Only create the stats_buildinfo.png graph once per day. [ ][ ]
    • Reproducible Debian dashboard: refactoring, update several more static stats only every 12h. [ ]
    • Document how to use systemctl with new systemd-based services. [ ]
    • Temporarily disable armhf and i386 continuous integration tests in order to get some stability back. [ ]
    • Use the deb.debian.org CDN everywhere. [ ]
    • Remove the rsyslog logging facility on bookworm systems. [ ]
    • Add zst to the list of packages which are false-positive diskspace issues. [ ]
    • Detect failures to bootstrap Debian base systems. [ ]
  • Arch Linux-related changes:
    • Temporarily disable builds because the pacman package manager is broken. [ ][ ]
    • Split reproducible_html_live_status and split the scheduling timing . [ ][ ][ ]
    • Improve handling when database is locked. [ ][ ]
  • Misc changes:
    • Show failed services that require manual cleanup. [ ][ ]
    • Integrate two new Infomaniak nodes. [ ][ ][ ][ ]
    • Improve IRC notifications for artifacts. [ ]
    • Run diffoscope in different systemd slices. [ ]
    • Run the node health check more often, as it can now repair some issues. [ ][ ]
    • Also include the string Bot in the userAgent for Git. (Re: #929013). [ ]
    • Document increased tmpfs size on our OUSL nodes. [ ]
    • Disable memory account for the reproducible_build service. [ ][ ]
    • Allow 10 times as many open files for the Jenkins service. [ ]
    • Set OOMPolicy=continue and OOMScoreAdjust=-1000 for both the Jenkins and the reproducible_build service. [ ]
Mattia Rizzolo also made the following changes:
  • Debian-related changes:
    • Define a systemd slice to group all relevant services. [ ][ ]
    • Add a bunch of quotes in scripts to assuage the shellcheck tool. [ ]
    • Add stats on how many packages have been built today so far. [ ]
    • Instruct systemd-run to handle diffoscope s exit codes specially. [ ]
    • Prefer the pgrep tool over grepping the output of ps. [ ]
    • Re-enable a couple of i386 and armhf architecture builders. [ ][ ]
    • Fix some stylistic issues flagged by the Python flake8 tool. [ ]
    • Cease scheduling Debian unstable and experimental on the armhf architecture due to the time_t transition. [ ]
    • Start a few more i386 & armhf workers. [ ][ ][ ]
    • Temporarly skip pbuilder updates in the unstable distribution, but only on the armhf architecture. [ ]
  • Other changes:
    • Perform some large-scale refactoring on how the systemd service operates. [ ][ ]
    • Move the list of workers into a separate file so it s accessible to a number of scripts. [ ]
    • Refactor the powercycle_x86_nodes.py script to use the new IONOS API and its new Python bindings. [ ]
    • Also fix nph-logwatch after the worker changes. [ ]
    • Do not install the stunnel tool anymore, it shouldn t be needed by anything anymore. [ ]
    • Move temporary directories related to Arch Linux into a single directory for clarity. [ ]
    • Update the arm64 architecture host keys. [ ]
    • Use a common Postfix configuration. [ ]
The following changes were also made by:
  • Jan-Benedict Glaw:
    • Initial work to clean up a messy NetBSD-related script. [ ][ ]
  • Roland Clobus:
    • Show the installer log if the installer fails to build. [ ]
    • Avoid the minus character (i.e. -) in a variable in order to allow for tags in openQA. [ ]
    • Update the schedule of Debian live image builds. [ ]
  • Vagrant Cascadian:
    • Maintenance on the virt* nodes is completed so bring them back online. [ ]
    • Use the fully qualified domain name in configuration. [ ]
Node maintenance was also performed by Holger Levsen, Mattia Rizzolo [ ][ ] and Vagrant Cascadian [ ][ ][ ][ ]
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:

9 April 2024

Ian Jackson: Why we ve voted No to CfD for Derril Water solar farm

[personal profile] ceb and I are members of the Derril Water Solar Park cooperative. We were recently invited to vote on whether the coop should bid for a Contract for Difference, in a government green electricity auction. We ve voted No. Green electricity from your mainstream supplier is a lie For a while [personal profile] ceb and I have wanted to contribute directly to green energy provision. This isn t really possible in the mainstream consumer electricy market. Mainstream electricity suppliers 100% green energy tariffs are pure greenwashing. In a capitalist boondoogle, they basically divvy up the electricity so that customers on the (typically more expensive) green tariff get the green electricity, and the other customers get whatever is left. (Of course the electricity is actually all mixed up by the National Grid.) There are fewer people signed up for these tariffs than there is green power generated, so this basically means signing up for a green tariff has no effect whatsoever, other than giving evil people more money. Ripple About a year ago we heard about Ripple. The structure is a little complicated, but the basic upshot is: Ripple promote and manage renewable energy schemes. The schemes themselves are each an individual company; the company is largely owned by a co-operative. The co-op is owned by consumers of electricity in the UK., To stop the co-operative being an purely financial investment scheme, shares ownership is limited according to your electricity usage. The electricity is be sold on the open market, and the profits are used to offset members electricity bills. (One gotcha from all of this is that for this to work your electricity billing provider has to be signed up with Ripple, but ours, Octopus, is.) It seemed to us that this was a way for us to directly cause (and pay for!) the actual generation of green electricity. So, we bought shares in one these co-operatives: we are co-owners of the Derril Water Solar Farm. We signed up for the maximum: funding generating capacity corresponding to 120% of our current electricity usage. We paid a little over 5000 for our shares. Contracts for Difference The UK has a renewable energy subsidy scheme, which goes by the name of Contracts for Difference. The idea is that a renewable energy generation company bids in advance, saying that they ll sell their electricity at Y price, for the duration of the contract (15 years in the current round). The lowest bids win. All the electricity from the participating infrastructure is sold on the open market, but if the market price is low the government makes up the difference, and if the price is high, the government takes the winnings. This is supposedly good for giving a stable investment environment, since the price the developer is going to get now doesn t depends on the electricity market over the next 15 years. The CfD system is supposed to encourage development, so you can only apply before you ve commissioned your generation infrastructure. Ripple and CfD Ripple recently invited us to agree that the Derril Water co-operative should bid in the current round of CfDs. If this goes ahead, and we are one of the auction s winners, the result would be that, instead of selling our electricity at the market price, we ll sell it at the fixed CfD price. This would mean that our return on our investment (which show up as savings on our electricity bills) would be decoupled from market electricity prices, and be much more predictable. They can t tell us the price they d want to bid at, and future electricity prices are rather hard to predict, but it s clear from the accompanying projections that they think we d be better off on average with a CfD. The documentation is very full of financial projections and graphs; other factors aren t really discussed in any detail. The rules of the co-op didn t require them to hold a vote, but very sensibly, for such a fundamental change in the model, they decided to treat it roughly the same way as for a rules change: they re hoping to get 75% Yes votes. Voting No The reason we re in this co-op at all is because we want to directly fund renewable electricity. Participating in the CfD auction would involve us competing with capitalist energy companies for government subsidies. Subsidies which are supposed to encourage the provision of green electricity. It seems to us that participating in this auction would remove most of the difference between what we hoped to do by investing in Derril Water, and just participating in the normal consumer electricity market. In particular, if we do win in the auction, that s probably directly removing the funding and investment support model for other, market-investor-funded, projects. In other words, our buying into Derril Water ceases to be an additional green energy project, changing (in its minor way) the UK s electricity mix. It becomes a financial transaction much more tenously connected (if connected at all) to helping mitigate the climate emergency. So our conclusion was that we must vote against.

comment count unavailable comments

5 April 2024

Paul Wise: FLOSS Activities March 2024

Focus This month I didn't have any particular focus. I just worked on issues in my info bubble.

Changes

Issues

Administration
  • Debian wiki: approve accounts

Communication
  • Respond to queries from Debian users and contributors on the mailing lists and IRC

Sponsors The SWH work was sponsored. All other work was done on a volunteer basis.

Dirk Eddelbuettel: RcppArmadillo 0.12.8.2.0 on CRAN: Upstream Fix

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) 1136 other packages on CRAN, downloaded 33.5 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 578 times according to Google Scholar. This release brings a new upstream bugfix release Armadillo 12.8.2 prepared by Conrad two days ago. It took the usual day to noodle over 1100+ reverse dependencies and ensure two failures were independent of the upgrade (i.e., no change to worse in CRAN parlance). It took CRAN another because we hit a random network outage for (spurious) NOTE on a remote URL, and were then caught in the shrapnel from another large package ecosystem update spuriously pointing some build failures that were due to a missing rebuild to us. All good, as human intervention comes to the rescue. The set of changes since the last CRAN release follows.

Changes in RcppArmadillo version 0.12.8.2.0 (2024-04-02)
  • Upgraded to Armadillo release 12.8.2 (Cortisol Injector)
    • Workaround for FFTW3 header clash
    • Workaround in testing framework for issue under macOS
    • Minor cleanups to reduce code bloat
    • Improved documentation

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. If you like this or other open-source work I do, you can sponsor me at GitHub.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

Next.

Previous.