Re: Worthless updates

[Jon Masters]

On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > here is the kicker.  The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.  So these
> > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.  So... why is this update
> > going out?  What possible benefit does the user get from this?  Does
> > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?

My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.

> the suggestion I had made at fudcon went something like this:
> 
> 1. all packages being put in as updates would need to be marked as per 
> the type of update. the default is 'trivial'. Options might include: new 
> pkg, trivial, feature, bugfix, security
> 
> 2. We would issue security updates whenever they happened. Issue bugfix 
> updates once every 2 weeks. Everything else once a month.

Far better and more predictable. Even better would be to explicitly call
out the security updates in to a separate repo feed like $other distros.
The packages are the same (not a separate buildroot - I realize there
are non-trivial dependency issues) in my utopia, but they're easily
distinguished from non-security related features.

As it is, I agree with various blog postings by people here over the
last few days. I very rarely update my (non world facing) Fedora systems
these days unless I know I can reboot and have time to fix things. I
have rawhide systems for rawhide but I know if they break I can just fix
them later because they're not needed to get other stuff done and I can
always use another VM, or whatever. The point is, one expects rawhide to
"break", but one does not expect stable to break.

This isn't $Enterprise_Linux, it doesn't come with a guarantee and does
expect to be a moving target, but that doesn't mean there can't be a
predictable update cycle and a reasonable expectation that updates are
necessary and won't break systems.

Jon.


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Marcela Maslanova]

In perl we have to often update package to fix one thing, but
this update needs higher version of different package, so we
are forced to update package even in older releases.
Chris and Ralf explained our reasons well in previous posts.

There are more worthless updates, so you should send some general 
proposal for all packages or even better stop thread about
worthless updates/stable-testing updates. Thank you.

- "Jon Masters"  wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update,
> but
> > > here is the kicker.  The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.  So
> these
> > > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.  So... why is this
> update
> > > going out?  What possible benefit does the user get from this? 
> Does
> > > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
> 
> My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix
> serious
> issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it
> is,
> I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will
> die
> soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
> 
> > the suggestion I had made at fudcon went something like this:
> > 
> > 1. all packages being put in as updates would need to be marked as
> per 
> > the type of update. the default is 'trivial'. Options might include:
> new 
> > pkg, trivial, feature, bugfix, security
> > 
> > 2. We would issue security updates whenever they happened. Issue
> bugfix 
> > updates once every 2 weeks. Everything else once a month.
> 
> Far better and more predictable. Even better would be to explicitly
> call
> out the security updates in to a separate repo feed like $other
> distros.
> The packages are the same (not a separate buildroot - I realize there
> are non-trivial dependency issues) in my utopia, but they're easily
> distinguished from non-security related features.
> 
> As it is, I agree with various blog postings by people here over the
> last few days. I very rarely update my (non world facing) Fedora
> systems
> these days unless I know I can reboot and have time to fix things. I
> have rawhide systems for rawhide but I know if they break I can just
> fix
> them later because they're not needed to get other stuff done and I
> can
> always use another VM, or whatever. The point is, one expects rawhide
> to
> "break", but one does not expect stable to break.
> 
> This isn't $Enterprise_Linux, it doesn't come with a guarantee and
> does
> expect to be a moving target, but that doesn't mean there can't be a
> predictable update cycle and a reasonable expectation that updates
> are
> necessary and won't break systems.
> 
> Jon.
> 
> 
> -- 
> devel mailing list
> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
>>> here is the kicker.  The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.  So these
>>> functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.  So... why is this update
>>> going out?  What possible benefit does the user get from this?  Does
>>> anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
>
> My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
> soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?

Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.

At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of 
attention.

Anybody still wonders about Fedora's poor shape and it's reputation?

Ralf

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Alexander Kurtakov]

> On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > > here is the kicker.  The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.  So these
> > > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.  So... why is this update
> > > going out?  What possible benefit does the user get from this?  Does
> > > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
> 
> My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
> soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
> 

While I can totally understand the desire to stay close to upstream for the 
latest release (only), I still think that we should not allow updates other 
than bugfix and security to older versions. 
I know that this was discussed many times but still such decision will even 
benefit whoever wants to have a stable release (i.e. from the time we release 
F13 or a month late to sync it with F11 dead, F12 will receive only bugfix and 
security updates thus minimizing the chances for possible breaks in it) and 
whoever wants latest versions should simply use the latest released version.
Even if someone wants to argue that we will limit the experience of older 
versions users let me remind that there are a number or maintainers that do 
backport work only to the latest release version and doing only serious bugfix 
updates to older versions (e.g I'm in this group) . And there are even more 
aggressive maintainers who never put newer versions in older releases.

Is this idea worth discussing at all?

Alexander Kurtakov
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Till Maas]

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are 
> > working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change anything at 
> > all!
> > 
> 
> This I believe to be the crux of the problem.  When multiple updates go
> out that break large or important segments of our user base, many of us
> see a problem.  You however seem to think it's "just fine".  Many of us
> would rather put out a better operating system, and to do that, we need
> change.  Your "just fine" isn't good enough.

Are there even any  metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
with updates or new bugs introduced with updates. If updates are slowed
down, this will get even worse. Especially because the proposal is to
use time instead of test coverage as the criterion to push an update to
stable.

Regards
Till


pgpuKfMIZ9keg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Till Maas]

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > here is the kicker.  The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.  So these
> > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.  So... why is this update
> > going out?  What possible benefit does the user get from this?  Does
> > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
> >
> 
> the suggestion I had made at fudcon went something like this:
> 
> 1. all packages being put in as updates would need to be marked as per 
> the type of update. the default is 'trivial'. Options might include: new 
> pkg, trivial, feature, bugfix, security
> 
> 2. We would issue security updates whenever they happened. Issue bugfix 
> updates once every 2 weeks. Everything else once a month.

How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
only updates repo enabled by default.

Regards
Till


pgpbBYdWQf47R.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Rakesh Pandit]

On 3 March 2010 13:57, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
 Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
 here is the kicker.  The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.  So these
 functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.  So... why is this update
 going out?  What possible benefit does the user get from this?  Does
 anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
>>
>> My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
>> issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
>> I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
>> soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
> Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
>

No. Bugfixes (serious ones) and security fixes would not allow it to
happen till the time it is EOL.

-- 
Rakesh Pandit
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rakesh
freedom, friends, features, first
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Alexander Kurtakov]

> On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>> Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> >>> here is the kicker.  The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.  So these
> >>> functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.  So... why is this update
> >>> going out?  What possible benefit does the user get from this?  Does
> >>> anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
> > 
> > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> > I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
> > soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
> 
> Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
> 
> Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
> 
> At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
> attention.
> 
> Anybody still wonders about Fedora's poor shape and it's reputation?

Hmm, I would not say that Fedora is in poor shape :). When we speak about 
reputation believe me it's way worse if an update breaks smth on my sister's 
computer than me having to fix smth during installation and verifying it works 
before giving her the computer. And break does not only mean what we accept as 
a break, e.g.  a simple fonts hinting change will be considered a break if 
this causes some of her documents to look in a different way. We are not 
speaking for tech savy users only and change for this type of users means you 
have to take care of "This update broke my homework formatting" or "Where is 
that blue icon for usb devices now?" and etc.

Alexander Kurtakov
 

> 
> Ralf
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Jaroslav Reznik]

On Wednesday 03 March 2010 08:05:23 Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
> > working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change anything
> > at all!
> 
> This I believe to be the crux of the problem.  When multiple updates go
> out that break large or important segments of our user base, many of us
> see a problem.  You however seem to think it's "just fine".  Many of us
> would rather put out a better operating system, and to do that, we need
> change.  Your "just fine" isn't good enough.

And we are back in the beginning - what does "better OS" means - board is 
trying to define it, every users has different view, every developer another... 
And everyone is scared to make a decision. Yes, it's risky - you can kill 
Fedora (for someone) or you can make Fedora best (for someone). You can never 
satisfy everyone... There's advantage of open source - you are free to fork, 
to start new project, to join another project if you think you have target 
audience you want to work for.

But what we need really need is something, not two flamewars every week! So 
let's prepare proposal(s), let developers vote and then implement it. Same for 
board issues but it's not as easy to let users decide, to drag them into 
decision process and it's the MUST for community project.

Jaroslav   
-- 
Jaroslav Řezník 
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 731 455 332
Red Hat, Inc.   http://cz.redhat.com/
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Jaroslav Reznik]

On Wednesday 03 March 2010 09:40:15 Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Jon Masters wrote:
> > 
> > On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > > > here is the kicker.  The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.  So
> > > > these functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.  So... why is
> > > > this update going out?  What possible benefit does the user get from
> > > > this?  Does anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on
> > > > F11?
> > 
> > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> > I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
> > soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
> 
> While I can totally understand the desire to stay close to upstream for the
> latest release (only), I still think that we should not allow updates other
> than bugfix and security to older versions.
> I know that this was discussed many times but still such decision will even
> benefit whoever wants to have a stable release (i.e. from the time we
> release F13 or a month late to sync it with F11 dead, F12 will receive
> only bugfix and security updates thus minimizing the chances for possible
> breaks in it) and whoever wants latest versions should simply use the
> latest released version. 

It's quite similar to our KDE stability proposal [1] - (from F13 released POV) 
F11 eol, F12 stable with security and bugfix updates and F13 current version 
with latest but stable software. You can't force users to use F14 (aka 
rawhide) to be able to use latest versions with features they want.

If users want really stable (as rock) release - they can use F12 - latest 
software is not very old - only half to one year old, it's probably very 
stable. Then F13 is in supported state - gets latest but well tested updates 
until F14 (probably alpha to let some time for possible regressions to be fixed 
until rock time) is released.

This should satisfy most users - both people who wants stable Fedora (F12), 
people who wants latest software (doesn't mean unstable) F13 and brave people 
- developers/testers with F14 and really raw(hide) Fedora with 
untested/unstable software. Then it makes to support more than one released 
release ;-) 

Jaroslav

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/KDE/Stability_Proposal

> Even if someone wants to argue that we will limit
> the experience of older versions users let me remind that there are a
> number or maintainers that do backport work only to the latest release
> version and doing only serious bugfix updates to older versions (e.g I'm
> in this group) . And there are even more aggressive maintainers who never
> put newer versions in older releases.
> 
> Is this idea worth discussing at all?
> 
> Alexander Kurtakov

-- 
Jaroslav Řezník 
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 731 455 332
Red Hat, Inc.   http://cz.redhat.com/
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:53:40 -0800, Jesse wrote:

> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 02:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > That's a fair point, but there are significantly fewer people around to
> > > fix critical issues should they arise on a weekend, and after working 5
> > > weekdays, some of us like taking the weekend off.
> > 
> > Well, I'm around on the weekends and the lack of update pushes for the 
> > whole 
> > weekend has irked me more than once. My intention is not to force you or 
> > Josh Boyer to work on weekends, but maybe we can find a new volunteer to do 
> > weekend pushes (and only weekend pushes, so they wouldn't be doing Fedora 
> > work the full week)? And ideally, update pushes should eventually be 
> > automatic, just like the Rawhide composes.
> > 
> > Kevin Kofler
> > 
> 
> Except there aren't enough key people available on the weekend to clean
> up the crap if something goes wrong.

What sort of "crap"? And what precautions could be added to avoid
producing such crap that requires someone to clean it up (manually)?
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: tor dependency insanity.

[Enrico Scholz]

Paul Wouters  writes:

>>> The tor upstream has filed that as bug report as well.
>>
>> ... and understand my reasons not to activate logging
>
> That is not true. It just decided not to pick a fight over that while
> more pressing bugs required you to fix them.

ok; sorry that I thought that you were/spoke for upstream.


> upstream still has this as an open bug:
>
> http://bugs.noreply.org/flyspray/index.php?do=details&id=1133

This does not seem to mean very much... The other bugs mentioned in
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=532373 are still open
although some (all?) of them are objectively solved.



Enrico
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 03/03/2010 10:17 AM, Alexander Kurtakov wrote:
>> On Wednesday 03 March 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 03/03/2010 09:03 AM, Jon Masters wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
 On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> here is the kicker.  The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.  So these
> functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.  So... why is this update
> going out?  What possible benefit does the user get from this?  Does
> anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
>>>
>>> My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
>>> issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
>>> I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
>>> soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
>>
>> Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
>>
>> Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
>>
>> At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
>> attention.
>>
>> Anybody still wonders about Fedora's poor shape and it's reputation?
>
> Hmm, I would not say that Fedora is in poor shape :).

Well, I can not avoid to say so. ... this doesn't necessarily mean other 
distros are much better.

May-be I am too close to Fedora, may-be I am too heavily using it,
and therefore am aware about issues "occasional users" won't notice ... 
I don't know.

Just some issues I have been experiencing with Fedora 12 in recent past:

- Audio stops working twice a day (presumable culprit: Pulseaudio).
- PackageKit's "notification icons" are nonfunctional.
- 2 identical machines are issuing kernel oops seemingly due to a kernel 
bug.
- When unplugging the power cord from my netbook, my netbook shuts down 
with "battery critically low (96% full) shutting down"
- ABRT ... an master piece of an immature piece of SW which should not 
have been added to the distro.
...

> When we speak about
> reputation believe me it's way worse if an update breaks smth on my sister's
> computer than me having to fix smth during installation and verifying it works
> before giving her the computer.
This perl-module update won't affect your sister - She won't even notice 
it - But she'll very likely notice the breakage yesterday's KDE update 
has caused and she'll likely be confused by this "freaking notification 
box in the upper right corner telling her to report something" ...

> And break does not only mean what we accept as
> a break, e.g.  a simple fonts hinting change will be considered a break if
> this causes some of her documents to look in a different way. We are not
> speaking for tech savy users only and change for this type of users means you
> have to take care of "This update broke my homework formatting" or "Where is
> that blue icon for usb devices now?" and etc.
Where has that "CD icon" popped up now and on which of the virtual 
displays is this "freaking spatical desktop, popup window now" are 
questions I am fighting with, daily.

Ralf
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: tor dependency insanity.

[Enrico Scholz]

James Antill  writes:

>  You are joking, right? I mean apart from the fact that there is a
> _huge_ difference between requiring "mount" and "libX*" ...

please do not blame me for redhat-lsb packaging...


> the _kernel_ requires the package initscripts is installed.

initscripts are not required for kernel at runtime:

| $ rpm -e --test initscripts 2>&1 | grep kernel
| $

Netherless, this seems to be a packaging bug; initscripts are a
Requires(pre/post) for kernel but none of these scriptlets use them.
Perhaps grubby/mkinitrd/dracut needs them, but not the kernel.



Enrico
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 2 Mar 2010 22:57:56 -0500, Toshio wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > > here is the kicker.  The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.  So these
> > > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.  So... why is this update
> > > going out?  What possible benefit does the user get from this?  Does
> > > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
> > >
> > 
> > the suggestion I had made at fudcon went something like this:
> > 
> > 1. all packages being put in as updates would need to be marked as per 
> > the type of update. the default is 'trivial'. Options might include: new 
> > pkg, trivial, feature, bugfix, security
> > 
> > 2. We would issue security updates whenever they happened. Issue bugfix 
> > updates once every 2 weeks. Everything else once a month.

Arbitrary delays? Do you plan to enforce delayed pushing by measuring the
age of an update request? Or would it be that if the next push were to
happen on March 14th, update requests from March 13th would be pushed
already after one day?

Without a good explanation, the plan sounds really bad to me. If I learn
about a crasher bug in a package (perhaps in upstream's message board by a
user who mentions Fedora), I would need to wait two weeks for the bug-fix
updates to be published. And meanwhile I could do nothing to reach all
other users that might be affected by the problem, but who just are not
familiar with how to report it appropriately. 

Currently, it isn't pretty already either. Bodhi spams bugzilla about
update requests as soon as they are entered into the system, but prior to
pushing them into a repo. The bug reporters scratch their heads as the
updates are not available anywhere other than in koji. Bodhi spams bz
once more when they get pushed, but it takes additional time (measured
in days) for the updates to be mirrored.

> FWIW, +1 to this general outline.
> 
> -Toshio

-1 multiplied with the number of lines I've written above.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: tor dependency insanity.

[Enrico Scholz]

Kevin Kofler  writes:

>> Upstart does not have a good way yet to disable/enable service so you
>> have to edit /etc/init/tor.conf resp. /etc/event.d/tor manually.
>
> Which is one of the reasons why you aren't supposed to use native
> Upstarts scripts yet!

it's a somehow strange situation... there were mass bug reports requiring
LSB headers in initscripts, Fedora uses its proprietary, non LSB compliant
initsystem for most of its services and provides upstart.

I do not see any reason not to provide -upstart initscripts alternatively;
beside their simplicity, the parallel startup and the removal of the racy
pidfile mechanism, they allow to respawn services.

What's wrong with giving users the choice to do a simple 'yum install
tor' + all the graphical management stuff, or 'yum install tor-core
tor-upstart'[1] + other configuration management methods (e.g. cfengine)?



Enrico

Footnotes: 
[1]  requires -upstart packages without the bad 'Requires: tor' (e.g.
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tor-0.2.1.24-1100.fc12
 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/tor-0.2.1.24-1200.fc12)

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Mer 3 mars 2010 05:49, Kevin Kofler a écrit :
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> did a poor job in stating our goals for the operating system, and just
>> hoped that our maintainers would see things the way we saw them.
>
> Why should they see them that way rather than the right way? ;-)

Please stop claiming the "right way". Every Fedora packager does not share
your opinion on rolling stable releases, despite all your repeated claims.

If KDE wants to be on an equal footing with GNOME (another of your repeated
complains) it needs to learn synchronizing with distro releases like GNOME
(and kernel, and xorg did). You're distorting the Fedora model to accommodate
KDE roadmaps. Granted, KDE is not something I'd want badly supported in
Fedora, but this is reaching ridiculous levels.

-- 
Nicolas Mailhot


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: tor dependency insanity.

[Enrico Scholz]

"Chen Lei"  writes:

> BTW, /var/lib/tor-data seems not used at all, maybe this directory
> should not be included in tor-core?

thx; was a leftover from GeoIP stuff which was removed due to anonymity
reasons.  It will be fixed in the next packages.


Enrico
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Thomas Janssen]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters  wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
>> > here is the kicker.  The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.  So these
>> > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.  So... why is this update
>> > going out?  What possible benefit does the user get from this?  Does
>> > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
>
> My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
> soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.

Rawhide for the masses to stay uptodate? Dont support F-11 well
because it will die "soon"? Same in your opinion for F-12 (leave the
churn in rawhide)?

Why isn't it up to the maintainer to provide latest versions even for
"die soon" versions of Fedora if he want to do it?

If someone think he doesn't need an particular update, dont update it.
I never had a gun pointing to my head telling me i HAVE to update
everything.

BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.

Why kill the advantage of Fedora?

People seem to forget that not everybody can/want run rawhide.

-- 
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Thomas Janssen]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Till Maas  wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
>> > here is the kicker.  The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11.  So these
>> > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11.  So... why is this update
>> > going out?  What possible benefit does the user get from this?  Does
>> > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
>> >
>>
>> the suggestion I had made at fudcon went something like this:
>>
>> 1. all packages being put in as updates would need to be marked as per
>> the type of update. the default is 'trivial'. Options might include: new
>> pkg, trivial, feature, bugfix, security
>>
>> 2. We would issue security updates whenever they happened. Issue bugfix
>> updates once every 2 weeks. Everything else once a month.
>
> How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> only updates repo enabled by default.

That sounds good.

-- 
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Till Maas]

On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 01:46:20PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:

> > What kind of tests need to be done always manually? The only ones I can
> > think are tests for the appearance of applications or tests that require
> > specific hardware. But in the general case, I do not think that for
> > every package manual testing will always be required, except while
> > creating new automatic tests. E.g. if you have a library package with
> > good unit test and behaviour test coverage and tests for RPM
> > metadata, what do you want to test manually?
> 
> I have a series of basic functionality tests that I run before each yum 
> release to make sure that there is nothing unforeseen in an update.
> 
> I don't think such a set of tests is ridiculous, but I do admit it is 
> complicated.

I assume that you have a checklist of tests and run them manually. Is it
not possible to run the tests automatically because of there nature? Or
is it only because the framework is missing? The advantage of automated
tests would be, that together with rpm VCS support (scripts), you could
even run after each commit to even faster spot bugs:

1) commit upstream
2) build new rpm
3) apply AutoQA to the rpm

Regards
Till


pgpmqAMLwuH6n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Till Maas]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 12:33:40AM -0500, James Antill wrote:

>  You keep saying that 7 days is "enough" but I haven't seen you provide
> _any_ evidence to support it. Noting that it will often take 3-4 days
> before a package in testing can be seen by all users. So maybe you are

So there is an easy way to get around 25% (two week stay in testing) to
50% (one week stay in testing) more time to test packages without
negative impact: make them faster available to the users.

Regards
Till


pgp7EJcFZLn9K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Rakesh Pandit]

On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
[..]
> BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
> Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
>
[..]

Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) and you will get latest
and greatest anyway. Updating old releases to latest and greatest
(features and new versions) has a cost, unless update is essential, or
a serious bugfix or security fix.

-- 
Rakesh Pandit
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rakesh
freedom, friends, features, first
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Jaroslav Reznik]

On Wednesday 03 March 2010 13:07:16 Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> [..]
> 
> > BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
> > Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
> 
> [..]
> 
> Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) and you will get latest
> and greatest anyway. Updating old releases to latest and greatest
> (features and new versions) has a cost, unless update is essential, or
> a serious bugfix or security fix.

It's bad to force users to update so often - it's not usually without problems 
and it's really big change. Read my proposal (in this thread branch, reply to 
akurtakov), I think it's nice compromise how to have stable and still current 
releases without pain, overhead for maintainers etc...

Jaroslav
-- 
Jaroslav Řezník 
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 731 455 332
Red Hat, Inc.   http://cz.redhat.com/
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Björn Persson]

Nathanael D. Noblet wrote:
> On 03/02/2010 06:06 PM, Björn Persson wrote:
> > Jesse Keating wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 01:34 +0100, Björn Persson wrote:
> >>> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>  Even bugfix releases of KDE require a session restart to fully work.
> >>> 
> >>> I consider that a serious design flaw in KDE and a strong argument
> >>> against releasing any KDE updates to stable releases other than fixes
> >>> for serious bugs. The only practical way to keep up with the Fedora
> >>> update firehose is to update every day and let the update run in the
> >>> background while I'm working. If I put it off until I'm about to turn
> >>> the computer off, then the updates will accumulate and updating will
> >>> take a long time when I finally do it. I might not have the time to sit
> >>> around and wait for the update to finish so that I can turn the
> >>> computer off, so I'll put it off again, and when the next opportunity
> >>> comes the list of updates will have grown even more. That's a vicious
> >>> circle I don't want to get into.
> >> 
> >> We do need a "apply all updates and shut down" option.
> > 
> > That doesn't help much if I'm going to pack the laptop up in a bag and
> > take it with me. I'll still have to sit there and twiddle my thumbs
> > while it updates.
> 
> I wonder if something like the windows download updates and inform me
> when you've downloaded them crossed with the pre-upgrade type system
> could solve your use case.

You mean the system would download updates while I'm working but I would have 
to wait while it installs them? That's of course a little better than waiting 
while it downloads them too, but in my experience the installation phase 
usually takes longer than the download phase (even without deltaRPMs), so it 
would only be a small improvement.

Perhaps stuff like KDE and Mozilla could be tagged with a "breaks on update" 
flag in the spec file? Then only the "apply all updates and shut down" option 
would update those packages, but non-breaking packages could still be updated 
on-the-fly (as long as they don't depend on a breaking update). That should 
reduce the thumb-twiddling to a minimum while preventing unpleasant surprises, 
and also provide an incentive for packagers to try to make their packages 
capable of updating on-the-fly.

Björn Persson


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:52:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in 
>> cleaning up the mess, not making it worse b/c fesco HAS to be about the 
>> long term growth and sustainability of fedora.
>
>I'm starting to think this thread needs a hall monitor. Unfortunately
>half of them seem to be in it, swinging away.

Why?  Other than one instance, which was my own, there hasn't been anything in
this thread that I would consider hall monitor worthy.

Is it insanely long?  Yes.  Are some things getting repeated?  Yes.  However
there are still new points being brought up and discussed.  while I wish this
thread would just die so I could stop reading it I'm not about to stifle a
discussion that is making small amounts of progress just because it's taking
forever to get there.

>Quis monitoret ipsos monitores? :)

Nobody.  Fun, eh?

josh
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 03/03/2010 01:07 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> [..]
>> BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
>> Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
>>
> [..]
>
> Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) and you will get latest
> and greatest anyway.
I read your statement as you are wanting to treat Fedora as a rawhide 
snapshots. The sad truth is, it's exactly as what I have perceived 
recent Fedora releases haved evolved into.

> Updating old releases to latest and greatest
> (features and new versions) has a cost,
Correct. The key to manage this "cost" is many people sharing their time 
and efforts. People who can't provide their share of this "cost" should 
abstain from maintaining packages in Fedora.

> unless update is essential, or
> a serious bugfix or security fix.
There are many other things but "serious bugfixes" and "security fixes".
The world isn't "black'n'white", only.

Ralf
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Thomas Janssen]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Rakesh Pandit  wrote:
> On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> [..]
>> BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
>> Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
>>
> [..]
>
> Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) and you will get latest
> and greatest anyway. Updating old releases to latest and greatest
> (features and new versions) has a cost, unless update is essential, or
> a serious bugfix or security fix.

What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want them as
well for people who want it in F-11, i give it to them. Why should i
force someone to upgrade every 6 month? Or even worse to rawhide as
mentioned in this thread? I had skipped F-11 myself entirely because
it was (FOR ME) too broken (personal opinions i dont want to discuss,
because i dont have to discuss it, it's my right to think that a
release is bad and skip it). I respect people who wants to do that as
well.

Or is that the next right someone wants to remove, to skip a Version?

If you dont want to do it, fine. Up to you. Nobody forces you to do
so. But dont force me into some RHEL update behavior.
If you want that, just use it.

-- 
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

rpms/perl-RRD-Simple/devel RRD-Simple-1.44-pod.patch, NONE, 1.1 perl-RRD-Simple.spec, 1.12, 1.13

[Paul Howarth]

Author: pghmcfc

Update of /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-RRD-Simple/devel
In directory cvs1.fedora.phx.redhat.com:/tmp/cvs-serv27937

Modified Files:
perl-RRD-Simple.spec 
Added Files:
RRD-Simple-1.44-pod.patch 
Log Message:
* Wed Mar  3 2010 Paul Howarth  - 1.44-5
- Change buildreq perl(Test::Deep) to a build conflict until upstream fixes
  failing t/32exported_function_interface.t (#464964, CPAN RT#46193)
- Fix broken POD (CPAN RT#50868)


RRD-Simple-1.44-pod.patch:
 Simple.pm |5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- NEW FILE RRD-Simple-1.44-pod.patch ---
Fix for https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=50868

--- RRD-Simple-1.44/lib/RRD/Simple.pm   2008-01-24 18:25:50.0 +
+++ RRD-Simple-1.44/lib/RRD/Simple.pm   2010-03-03 12:22:21.204308186 +
@@ -2153,9 +2153,8 @@
 L
 
 If you like this software, why not show your appreciation by sending the
-author something nice from her
-Lhttp://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/1VZXC59ESWYK0?sort=priority>? 
-( http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/registry/1VZXC59ESWYK0?sort=priority )
+author something nice from her Amazon wishlist
+(L)?
 
 =head1 COPYRIGHT
 


Index: perl-RRD-Simple.spec
===
RCS file: /cvs/pkgs/rpms/perl-RRD-Simple/devel/perl-RRD-Simple.spec,v
retrieving revision 1.12
retrieving revision 1.13
diff -u -p -r1.12 -r1.13
--- perl-RRD-Simple.spec7 Dec 2009 05:50:01 -   1.12
+++ perl-RRD-Simple.spec3 Mar 2010 12:33:17 -   1.13
@@ -1,17 +1,18 @@
 Name: perl-RRD-Simple
 Version:  1.44
-Release:  4%{?dist}
+Release:  5%{?dist}
 Summary:  Simple interface to create and store data in RRD files
 
 Group:Development/Libraries
 License:  ASL 2.0
 URL:  http://search.cpan.org/dist/RRD-Simple
 Source0:  
http://search.cpan.org/CPAN/authors/id/N/NI/NICOLAW/RRD-Simple-%{version}.tar.gz
+Patch0:   RRD-Simple-1.44-pod.patch
 
 BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
 
 BuildArch:  noarch  
-BuildRequires:  perl(Module::Build), perl(Test::Deep)
+BuildRequires:  perl(Module::Build)
 BuildRequires:  perl(RRDs)
 BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More)
 
@@ -19,6 +20,9 @@ BuildRequires:  perl(Test::More)
 BuildRequires:  perl(Test::Pod::Coverage)
 BuildRequires:  perl(Test::Pod)
 
+# https://rt.cpan.org/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=46193
+BuildConflicts:perl(Test::Deep)
+
 Requires:  perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_%(eval "`%{__perl} -V:version`"; echo $version))
 
 %description
@@ -34,6 +38,9 @@ if you do not need to, nor want to, both
 %prep
 %setup -q -n RRD-Simple-%{version}
 
+# fix broken POD (CPAN RT#50868)
+%patch0 -p1
+
 # note we first filter out the bits in _docdir...
 cat << \EOF > %{name}-prov
 #!/bin/sh
@@ -84,6 +91,11 @@ rm -rf %{buildroot}
 
 
 %changelog
+* Wed Mar  3 2010 Paul Howarth  - 1.44-5
+- Change buildreq perl(Test::Deep) to a build conflict until upstream fixes
+  failing t/32exported_function_interface.t (#464964, CPAN RT#46193)
+- Fix broken POD (CPAN RT#50868)
+
 * Mon Dec  7 2009 Stepan Kasal  - 1.44-4
 - rebuild against perl 5.10.1
 

--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[List Troll]

On 03/03/2010 08:38 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > So maybe you are under the impression that all the users who would test
> > your package are anxiously waiting for your packages to be available?
> For those packages where regressions actually matter to people, they
> definitely are. People keep asking us: when will KDE x.y.z finally be
> available? They ask it even before upstream officially announces the
> release!

Thanks for the concern, Kevin. When will KDE 4.4.2 be available? I've
skipped all updates on my mother's computer since you pushed 4.4.0 to
updates-"stable".  With 4.4.2 I might finally consider applying
updates again.

P.S. If you didn't notice the sarcasm, then I'm not supporting major
updates in the so-called "stable" branches. Such updates are probably
fun for people who want to have shiny toys to play with, but some
people want to get work done. Using Fedora.

List Troll
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Thomas Moschny]

2010/3/3 Josh Boyer :
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:52:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>>
>>> We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in
>>> cleaning up the mess, not making it worse b/c fesco HAS to be about the
>>> long term growth and sustainability of fedora.
>>
>>I'm starting to think this thread needs a hall monitor. Unfortunately
>>half of them seem to be in it, swinging away.
>
> Why?  Other than one instance, which was my own, there hasn't been anything in
> this thread that I would consider hall monitor worthy.

Wording starts to get near to unacceptable imho. People not sharing
the view that there are to many updates to so-called stable releases
(a 'fire-hose' of a 'horrendous' and 'insane' amount of updates) are
denoted not being normal.

- Thomas
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:54:57AM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 17:53:40 -0800, Jesse wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 02:37 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> > Jesse Keating wrote:
>> > > That's a fair point, but there are significantly fewer people around to
>> > > fix critical issues should they arise on a weekend, and after working 5
>> > > weekdays, some of us like taking the weekend off.
>> > 
>> > Well, I'm around on the weekends and the lack of update pushes for the 
>> > whole 
>> > weekend has irked me more than once. My intention is not to force you or 
>> > Josh Boyer to work on weekends, but maybe we can find a new volunteer to 
>> > do 
>> > weekend pushes (and only weekend pushes, so they wouldn't be doing Fedora 
>> > work the full week)? And ideally, update pushes should eventually be 
>> > automatic, just like the Rawhide composes.
>> > 
>> > Kevin Kofler
>> > 
>> 
>> Except there aren't enough key people available on the weekend to clean
>> up the crap if something goes wrong.
>
>What sort of "crap"? And what precautions could be added to avoid
>producing such crap that requires someone to clean it up (manually)?

1) Packages need to be signed.  To do this, you need access to the signing keys.
This is a rather large hurdle to get over, but we're trying to make sure that
sigul lowers it a bit.  It's not quite ready for more use yet, as we're
currently hitting issues with it crashing under load.  This will be looked at
soon.

The end goal is probably to have koji sign the RPMs right after build and just
use a single "build" gpg-key to sign everything.  However I'm not sure how
close we are to that.

2) Bodhi failures.  These come in a variety of flavors.  The most common is that
it goes to mash an updates-testing repo and koji has "nicely" pruned the signed
copies of the RPMs and mash can't download them.  Fixing requires koji admin
access, again not something given out lightly.

We are taking some precautions on this by essentially re-writing the signed
copies for anything left in the various f1x-updates-testing tags on a daily
basis.  That works well enough for us to actually get about a push-per day done,
but it certainly has races.

Other failures of the more bizarre nature happen as well, such as koji tag moves
failing, or bodhi getting turned off in the middle of a push, or people editing
updates mid-push and bodhi freaking out about that.  These are more rare, but
do happen and often require lots of head scratching and admin-level access to
fix.  At times, a new bodhi needs to be rolled out to fix it and only one person
can do that right now.

josh
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Mathieu Bridon]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen  wrote:
> What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want them as
> well for people who want it in F-11, i give it to them. Why should i
> force someone to upgrade every 6 month? Or even worse to rawhide as
> mentioned in this thread? I had skipped F-11 myself entirely because
> it was (FOR ME) too broken (personal opinions i dont want to discuss,
> because i dont have to discuss it, it's my right to think that a
> release is bad and skip it). I respect people who wants to do that as
> well.

And what would have happened if those packages that made F11 "too
broken" had found their way in Fedora 10 as stable updates?

- Joe User: "Foobar is too buggy in F11, and it's a critical part of
my usage of my computer, so I'm staying on F10"
- Foobar maintainer: "I'm updating Foobar in F10 so that F10 users can
benefit from the same new features as those on F11"

To me, not updating F(x-1) to the same level as Fx is actually the
best way to let people their "right to skip a Version". If you update
F(x-1) to the same level as Fx, then those users will (almost) not
have skipped anything.


--
Mathieu Bridon
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Thomas Janssen]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bridon
 wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen  
> wrote:
>> What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want them as
>> well for people who want it in F-11, i give it to them. Why should i
>> force someone to upgrade every 6 month? Or even worse to rawhide as
>> mentioned in this thread? I had skipped F-11 myself entirely because
>> it was (FOR ME) too broken (personal opinions i dont want to discuss,
>> because i dont have to discuss it, it's my right to think that a
>> release is bad and skip it). I respect people who wants to do that as
>> well.
>
> And what would have happened if those packages that made F11 "too
> broken" had found their way in Fedora 10 as stable updates?
>
> - Joe User: "Foobar is too buggy in F11, and it's a critical part of
> my usage of my computer, so I'm staying on F10"
> - Foobar maintainer: "I'm updating Foobar in F10 so that F10 users can
> benefit from the same new features as those on F11"
>
> To me, not updating F(x-1) to the same level as Fx is actually the
> best way to let people their "right to skip a Version". If you update
> F(x-1) to the same level as Fx, then those users will (almost) not
> have skipped anything.

As i said before. Nobody holds a gun on my head and tells me "you have
to update that packages". If you dont want it, read the man yum and
exclude what you dont want. That's what i did in F-10.

Best thing mentioned on this list since that mega thread was to use
another repo "updates-stable" and make that enabled by default.

Educate then people with popups what the other repos bring in before
they get it enabled. So everyone can have what he want as well.

-- 
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Mathieu Bridon]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:51, Thomas Janssen  wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bridon
>  wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen  
>> wrote:
>>> What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want them as
>>> well for people who want it in F-11, i give it to them. Why should i
>>> force someone to upgrade every 6 month? Or even worse to rawhide as
>>> mentioned in this thread? I had skipped F-11 myself entirely because
>>> it was (FOR ME) too broken (personal opinions i dont want to discuss,
>>> because i dont have to discuss it, it's my right to think that a
>>> release is bad and skip it). I respect people who wants to do that as
>>> well.
>>
>> And what would have happened if those packages that made F11 "too
>> broken" had found their way in Fedora 10 as stable updates?
>>
>> - Joe User: "Foobar is too buggy in F11, and it's a critical part of
>> my usage of my computer, so I'm staying on F10"
>> - Foobar maintainer: "I'm updating Foobar in F10 so that F10 users can
>> benefit from the same new features as those on F11"
>>
>> To me, not updating F(x-1) to the same level as Fx is actually the
>> best way to let people their "right to skip a Version". If you update
>> F(x-1) to the same level as Fx, then those users will (almost) not
>> have skipped anything.
>
> As i said before. Nobody holds a gun on my head and tells me "you have
> to update that packages". If you dont want it, read the man yum and
> exclude what you dont want. That's what i did in F-10.

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:51, Thomas Janssen  wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bridon
>  wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen  
>> wrote:
>>> What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want them as
>>> well for people who want it in F-11, i give it to them. Why should i
>>> force someone to upgrade every 6 month? Or even worse to rawhide as
>>> mentioned in this thread? I had skipped F-11 myself entirely because
>>> it was (FOR ME) too broken (personal opinions i dont want to discuss,
>>> because i dont have to discuss it, it's my right to think that a
>>> release is bad and skip it). I respect people who wants to do that as
>>> well.
>>
>> And what would have happened if those packages that made F11 "too
>> broken" had found their way in Fedora 10 as stable updates?
>>
>> - Joe User: "Foobar is too buggy in F11, and it's a critical part of
>> my usage of my computer, so I'm staying on F10"
>> - Foobar maintainer: "I'm updating Foobar in F10 so that F10 users can
>> benefit from the same new features as those on F11"
>>
>> To me, not updating F(x-1) to the same level as Fx is actually the
>> best way to let people their "right to skip a Version". If you update
>> F(x-1) to the same level as Fx, then those users will (almost) not
>> have skipped anything.
>
> As i said before. Nobody holds a gun on my head and tells me "you have
> to update that packages". If you dont want it, read the man yum and
> exclude what you dont want. That's what i did in F-10.

Not everyone is capable of even remotely understand what those
mysterious words are saying. What they know however is that "updating
is supposed to fix problems and make my computer works better".

Yes, in an ideal world, everyone has access to a friendly sysadmin
taking care of their computers. We're not in an ideal world, so we
should make it possible for anyone to use our software, or else it's
no good that it's possible for anyone to modify our software.

> Best thing mentioned on this list since that mega thread was to use
> another repo "updates-stable" and make that enabled by default.
>
> Educate then people with popups what the other repos bring in before
> they get it enabled. So everyone can have what he want as well.

There's already the need for checking a box so that the Rawhide and
updates-testing repos are even visible. Yet, lot's of people did
enable it, thinking it would provide them more software. That's why
the Rawhide repo was separated in its own subpackage so it would not
be installed by default. Why would this be any different with what you
propose?


--
Mathieu Bridon
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Rakesh Pandit]

On 3 March 2010 18:03, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Rakesh Pandit wrote:
>> On 3 March 2010 16:23, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> [..]
>>> BUT, Fedora was my choice BECAUSE i get/got the latest and greatest.
>>> Even without running rawhide/factory/cooker.
>>>
>> [..]
>>
>> Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) and you will get latest
>> and greatest anyway. Updating old releases to latest and greatest
>> (features and new versions) has a cost, unless update is essential, or
>> a serious bugfix or security fix.
>
> What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want them as
> well for people who want it in F-11, i give it to them. Why should i
> force someone to upgrade every 6 month? Or even worse to rawhide as
> mentioned in this thread? I had skipped F-11 myself entirely because
> it was (FOR ME) too broken (personal opinions i dont want to discuss,
> because i dont have to discuss it, it's my right to think that a
> release is bad and skip it). I respect people who wants to do that as
> well.
>

You are simply contradicting yourself here from what you replied to Jon's mail.

First, I did not said force your users to upgrade. What I meant was if
users really want what is greatest and latest now, better move to
latest release. With cost I meant new features bring along more
maintenance for old stable releases and un-stabilize them.

> Or is that the next right someone wants to remove, to skip a Version?
>
> If you dont want to do it, fine. Up to you. Nobody forces you to do
> so. But dont force me into some RHEL update behavior.
> If you want that, just use it.
>


-- 
Rakesh Pandit
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rakesh
freedom, friends, features, first
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Seth Vidal]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Thomas Moschny wrote:


2010/3/3 Josh Boyer :

On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:52:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:


We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in
cleaning up the mess, not making it worse b/c fesco HAS to be about the
long term growth and sustainability of fedora.


I'm starting to think this thread needs a hall monitor. Unfortunately
half of them seem to be in it, swinging away.


Why?  Other than one instance, which was my own, there hasn't been anything in
this thread that I would consider hall monitor worthy.


Wording starts to get near to unacceptable imho. People not sharing
the view that there are to many updates to so-called stable releases
(a 'fire-hose' of a 'horrendous' and 'insane' amount of updates) are
denoted not being normal.


I think we've always referred to the stream of updates as 'the fire-hose'. 
It's an expression from a movie called UHF. A character in the movie says 
"You win the prize you get to drink from mr. firehose!" Then proceeds to 
spray a firehose at a child who is excited to drink from the firehose.


in the context it is really funny.

-sv
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Seth Vidal]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> Seth Vidal wrote:
>> And stages non-critical/important updates so our QA team can test and
>> check them over more thoroughly and align testing goals and days to help
>> foster and create a more active and involved testing infrastructure.
>
> Congratulations for that sentence full of technical jargon designed to hide
> its true meaning.

If you can't understand it, perhaps you should reconsider your role on a 
technical committee like fesco.


> * Who decides what updates are or are not "critical" or "important"? The
> criteria you brought up earlier in this thread (only security as critical)
> are way too restrictive, what about a fix for a regression?

Me and the rest of fesco. Oh and I didn't say only security as critical. 
That's why I mentioned them separately.

> * Why would the QA team be better off having to test everything at the same
> time for the same deadline than the current flow of testing updates?

B/c we can call a moratorium a week before and have regular, scheduled 
test days.

> * Why would we want to "align" our "testing goals and days"? It makes more
> sense to spread them so people can test one thing at a time!

Not for purposes of staging test events.

> * So would this really "create a more active and involved testing
> infrastructure"? IMHO it'd just create more painful deadlines, as if the
> releases weren't enough of a painpoint already.

Alternatively it makes things better for those folks who like to test 
their software before releasing it.


> * And most importantly, even if we were to accept that it could lead to
> better QA (which I doubt), would it really be worth making users wait a FULL
> MONTH for their updates and forcing them to pull a HUGE update in one single
> transaction rather than spread over time? IMHO, HELL NO!

It will mean regularity and predictability. It will let users and admins 
alike know when they can expect new things. Doing it once a month means 
that they only need to cope with 13 of these per fedora release.

Predictability means you can plan for effectively.



>
> Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
> working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change anything at
> all!

We will be doing it or something very much like it. Good luck with your 
fight.

-sv


-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Seth Vidal]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
>>> working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change anything at
>>> all!
>>>
>>
>> This I believe to be the crux of the problem.  When multiple updates go
>> out that break large or important segments of our user base, many of us
>> see a problem.  You however seem to think it's "just fine".  Many of us
>> would rather put out a better operating system, and to do that, we need
>> change.  Your "just fine" isn't good enough.
>
> Are there even any  metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
> bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
> with updates or new bugs introduced with updates. If updates are slowed
> down, this will get even worse. Especially because the proposal is to
> use time instead of test coverage as the criterion to push an update to
> stable.

Actually the proposal is time AND test coverage.

-sv

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Seth Vidal]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

>
> So far, I haven't seen any indication of such a team being in existance
> (c.f. dnssec-conf, kernel) nor am I aware of any means for testing such
> perl-modules (perl-modules typically are equipped with a testsuite).
>
> The real testing is performed by Fedora users, them providing feedback
> and maintainers letting user feedback flow back into packages ASAP.

That's exactly the provlem. The qa team hasn't had the time to do so and 
the explosive set of updates makes it difficult to keep a handle on.

Slowing them down and collecting them is to help that exactly.

> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.

Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be 
different?


> Or differently: The key to QA would not be bug-fixing, but to prevent
> bugs from entering Fedora - This is where Fedora has deficits.

That's exactly the point, Ralf, We need to let the QA team work on 
problems in updates-testing and weed out the bogons and crap that find 
their way in. It also means more time for autoqa to work it's magic.

-sv

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

rawhide report: 20100303 changes

[Rawhide Report]

Compose started at Wed Mar  3 08:15:10 UTC 2010

Broken deps for i386
--
blahtexml-0.6-5.fc12.i686 requires libxerces-c.so.28
easystroke-0.5.2-1.fc13.i686 requires libboost_serialization-mt.so.5
emotion-0.1.0.042-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_job.so.0
emotion-0.1.0.042-5.fc12.i686 requires libevas.so.0
emotion-0.1.0.042-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore.so.0
emotion-0.1.0.042-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_fb.so.0
emotion-0.1.0.042-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_x.so.0
emotion-0.1.0.042-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_evas.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_txt.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_job.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libevas.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_fb.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_imf_evas.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libefreet.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_file.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libefreet_mime.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_imf.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_con.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_ipc.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libedbus.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libehal.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_x.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libedje.so.0
enlightenment-0.16.999.050-5.fc12.i686 requires libecore_evas.so.0
epsilon-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore_ipc.so.0
epsilon-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libevas.so.0
epsilon-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore.so.0
epsilon-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore_fb.so.0
epsilon-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore_file.so.0
epsilon-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore_con.so.0
epsilon-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore_x.so.0
epsilon-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libedje.so.0
epsilon-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore_evas.so.0
epsilon-xine-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore_ipc.so.0
epsilon-xine-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libevas.so.0
epsilon-xine-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore.so.0
epsilon-xine-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore_fb.so.0
epsilon-xine-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore_file.so.0
epsilon-xine-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore_con.so.0
epsilon-xine-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore_x.so.0
epsilon-xine-0.3.0.012-9.fc12.i686 requires libecore_evas.so.0
ewl-0.5.2.042-12.fc12.i686 requires libecore_txt.so.0
ewl-0.5.2.042-12.fc12.i686 requires libevas.so.0
ewl-0.5.2.042-12.fc12.i686 requires libecore.so.0
ewl-0.5.2.042-12.fc12.i686 requires libefreet.so.0
ewl-0.5.2.042-12.fc12.i686 requires libecore_file.so.0
ewl-0.5.2.042-12.fc12.i686 requires libefreet_mime.so.0
ewl-0.5.2.042-12.fc12.i686 requires libedje.so.0
ewl-devel-0.5.2.042-12.fc12.i686 requires libecore_txt.so.0
ewl-devel-0.5.2.042-12.fc12.i686 requires libevas.so.0
ewl-devel-0.5.2.042-12.fc12.i686 requires libecore.so.0
ewl-devel-0.5.2.042-12.fc12.i686 requires libecore_file.so.0
ewl-devel-0.5.2.042-12.fc12.i686 requires libedje.so.0
ewl-devel-0.5.2.042-12.fc12.i686 requires libecore_evas.so.0
gnome-python2-totem-2.29.1-4.fc13.i686 requires libtotem-plparser.so.12
jakarta-commons-modeler-2.0.1-4.fc14.noarch requires 
osgi(javax.management)
jakarta-commons-modeler-2.0.1-4.fc14.noarch requires 
osgi(javax.xml.transform)
jakarta-commons-modeler-2.0.1-4.fc14.noarch requires 
osgi(org.apache.tools.ant)
jakarta-commons-modeler-2.0.1-4.fc14.noarch requires 
osgi(javax.management.modelmbean)
jakarta-commons-modeler-2.0.1-4.fc14.noarch requires osgi(javax.naming)
jakarta-commons-modeler-2.0.1-4.fc14.noarch requires 
osgi(org.apache.commons.digester)
jakarta-commons-modeler-2.0.1-4.fc14.noarch requires osgi(org.xml.sax)
jakarta-commons-modeler-2.0.1-4.fc14.noarch requires osgi(org.w3c.dom)
jakarta-commons-modeler-2.0.1-4.fc14.noarch requires 
osgi(javax.xml.transform.stream)
jakarta-commons-modeler-2.0.1-4.fc14.noarch requires 
osgi(org.apache.commons.logging)
jakarta-commons-modeler-2.0.1-4.fc14.noarch requires 
osgi(javax.xml.parsers)
jakarta-commons-modeler-2.0.1-4.fc14.noarch requires 
osgi(javax.xml.transform.dom)
jakarta-commons-modeler-2.0.1-4

Re: Worthless updates

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen  said:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters  wrote:
> > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
> > I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
> > soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
> 
> Rawhide for the masses to stay uptodate? Dont support F-11 well
> because it will die "soon"?

So to you fixing major bugs and security problems == not supported?  I
don't think so.

> Why isn't it up to the maintainer to provide latest versions even for
> "die soon" versions of Fedora if he want to do it?

Because a distribution is about more than being a collection of
packages!

Some packagers are turning Fedora into a rolling-update package
collection instead of a coherent distribution.  Remeber the days of a
fairly small package set in RHL, when people dumped whatever they found
on rpmfind.net on their system?  They'd then ask a question on a list
about RHL version foo, and you just about had to get an "rpm -qai" to
figure out what was going on.

Right now, if somebody asks a question about F12 Firefox, you have a
reasonable expectation that it is 3.5.x.  If they ask about F12 KDE, who
knows.

A distribution should have a coherent set of rules about what makes up
the distribution.  Fedora has lots of rules and guidelines, but really
nothing about what packagers should do about updates.  Without that,
Fedora is turning into chaos.

What we have right now is the wild west; what we need is update
sheriffs.

On my mirror, updates/12 is approaching the size of releases/12/Fedora
(which includes CD and DVD ISOs!), and that is in under 4 months.  That
is an insane amount of churn.  Users do complain about it, when they
install from a release DVD a few months after release and then spend
hours downloading updates.

> If someone think he doesn't need an particular update, dont update it.
> I never had a gun pointing to my head telling me i HAVE to update
> everything.

Because users can't be expected to know what needs updating and what
does not.

If Fedora is going to be a rolling update package collection (despite
what Kevin tries to claim about some mythical "semi-rolling", that's
what we are getting in some quarters), then stop the releases every 6
months.  There's no point; put a little more effort into the respins
instead and release those every 4-6 months as point releases.  Have an
annual roll-up release and then keep rolling.

If instead Fedora is going to try to be a stable, coherent distribution,
then only bug (including security) fix and probably hardware support
(e.g. kernel, xorg) updates (and any necessary dependencies) should be
pushed.  Minor version updates are okay, but major version updates (and
ABI breakage) are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

[Bug 569568] Please rev perl-RRD-Simple to latest release

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=569568

--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System  2010-03-03 
09:31:59 EST ---
perl-RRD-Simple-1.44-5.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-RRD-Simple-1.44-5.fc13

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

[Bug 464964] FTBFS perl-RRD-Simple-1.43-3.fc9

[bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464964

--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System  
2010-03-03 09:31:54 EST ---
perl-RRD-Simple-1.44-5.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/perl-RRD-Simple-1.44-5.fc13

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are on the CC list for the bug.
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Jaroslav Reznik]

On Wednesday 03 March 2010 15:16:05 Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen  said:
> > On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters  
wrote:
> > > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
> > > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it
> > > is, I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it
> > > will die soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
> > 
> > Rawhide for the masses to stay uptodate? Dont support F-11 well
> > because it will die "soon"?
> 
> So to you fixing major bugs and security problems == not supported?  I
> don't think so.
> 
> > Why isn't it up to the maintainer to provide latest versions even for
> > "die soon" versions of Fedora if he want to do it?
> 
> Because a distribution is about more than being a collection of
> packages!
> 
> Some packagers are turning Fedora into a rolling-update package
> collection instead of a coherent distribution.  Remeber the days of a
> fairly small package set in RHL, when people dumped whatever they found
> on rpmfind.net on their system?  They'd then ask a question on a list
> about RHL version foo, and you just about had to get an "rpm -qai" to
> figure out what was going on.
> 
> Right now, if somebody asks a question about F12 Firefox, you have a
> reasonable expectation that it is 3.5.x.  If they ask about F12 KDE, who
> knows.

It's very easy - latest KDE stable release.

> A distribution should have a coherent set of rules about what makes up
> the distribution.  Fedora has lots of rules and guidelines, but really
> nothing about what packagers should do about updates.  Without that,
> Fedora is turning into chaos.
> 
> What we have right now is the wild west; what we need is update
> sheriffs.
> 
> On my mirror, updates/12 is approaching the size of releases/12/Fedora
> (which includes CD and DVD ISOs!), and that is in under 4 months.  That
> is an insane amount of churn.  Users do complain about it, when they
> install from a release DVD a few months after release and then spend
> hours downloading updates.
> 
> > If someone think he doesn't need an particular update, dont update it.
> > I never had a gun pointing to my head telling me i HAVE to update
> > everything.
> 
> Because users can't be expected to know what needs updating and what
> does not.
> 
> If Fedora is going to be a rolling update package collection (despite
> what Kevin tries to claim about some mythical "semi-rolling", that's
> what we are getting in some quarters), then stop the releases every 6
> months.  There's no point; put a little more effort into the respins
> instead and release those every 4-6 months as point releases.  Have an
> annual roll-up release and then keep rolling.
> 
> If instead Fedora is going to try to be a stable, coherent distribution,
> then only bug (including security) fix and probably hardware support
> (e.g. kernel, xorg) updates (and any necessary dependencies) should be
> pushed.  Minor version updates are okay, but major version updates (and
> ABI breakage) are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

But that's the problem - this world is not ideal, especially open source 
world. The upstream development does not freeze with Fedora release - believe 
me - it's not fun to for example backport security bugfixes for web browser 
(WebKit and KHTML in my case). 
Same - what's mirror version update? Every single open source app has different 
policy (they usually don't have policy). Even big project like Qt & KDE are 
breaking their policies sometimes - for example ABI breakage - mayor release 
should not break ABI and we saw few minor releases to do it... Can we hang 
upstream? And again - what's mayor, what's minor? For example current KDE 
y.x.z - y is mayor, x is minor, z is bugfix... In some projects even z bugfix 
could be minor, for other project... So any rules like this are insane! What's 
the sane resolution? Only one rule - to ensure that update meets high level of 
quality. 

Jaroslav
-- 
Jaroslav Řezník 
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 731 455 332
Red Hat, Inc.   http://cz.redhat.com/
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Thomas Janssen]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Mathieu Bridon
 wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:51, Thomas Janssen  
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bridon
>>  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen  
>>> wrote:
 What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want them as
 well for people who want it in F-11, i give it to them. Why should i
 force someone to upgrade every 6 month? Or even worse to rawhide as
 mentioned in this thread? I had skipped F-11 myself entirely because
 it was (FOR ME) too broken (personal opinions i dont want to discuss,
 because i dont have to discuss it, it's my right to think that a
 release is bad and skip it). I respect people who wants to do that as
 well.
>>>
>>> And what would have happened if those packages that made F11 "too
>>> broken" had found their way in Fedora 10 as stable updates?
>>>
>>> - Joe User: "Foobar is too buggy in F11, and it's a critical part of
>>> my usage of my computer, so I'm staying on F10"
>>> - Foobar maintainer: "I'm updating Foobar in F10 so that F10 users can
>>> benefit from the same new features as those on F11"
>>>
>>> To me, not updating F(x-1) to the same level as Fx is actually the
>>> best way to let people their "right to skip a Version". If you update
>>> F(x-1) to the same level as Fx, then those users will (almost) not
>>> have skipped anything.
>>
>> As i said before. Nobody holds a gun on my head and tells me "you have
>> to update that packages". If you dont want it, read the man yum and
>> exclude what you dont want. That's what i did in F-10.
>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:51, Thomas Janssen  
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Mathieu Bridon
>>  wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 13:33, Thomas Janssen  
>>> wrote:
 What cost? I'm the maintainer of those packages. If i want them as
 well for people who want it in F-11, i give it to them. Why should i
 force someone to upgrade every 6 month? Or even worse to rawhide as
 mentioned in this thread? I had skipped F-11 myself entirely because
 it was (FOR ME) too broken (personal opinions i dont want to discuss,
 because i dont have to discuss it, it's my right to think that a
 release is bad and skip it). I respect people who wants to do that as
 well.
>>>
>>> And what would have happened if those packages that made F11 "too
>>> broken" had found their way in Fedora 10 as stable updates?
>>>
>>> - Joe User: "Foobar is too buggy in F11, and it's a critical part of
>>> my usage of my computer, so I'm staying on F10"
>>> - Foobar maintainer: "I'm updating Foobar in F10 so that F10 users can
>>> benefit from the same new features as those on F11"
>>>
>>> To me, not updating F(x-1) to the same level as Fx is actually the
>>> best way to let people their "right to skip a Version". If you update
>>> F(x-1) to the same level as Fx, then those users will (almost) not
>>> have skipped anything.
>>
>> As i said before. Nobody holds a gun on my head and tells me "you have
>> to update that packages". If you dont want it, read the man yum and
>> exclude what you dont want. That's what i did in F-10.
>
> Not everyone is capable of even remotely understand what those
> mysterious words are saying. What they know however is that "updating
> is supposed to fix problems and make my computer works better".
>
> Yes, in an ideal world, everyone has access to a friendly sysadmin
> taking care of their computers. We're not in an ideal world, so we
> should make it possible for anyone to use our software, or else it's
> no good that it's possible for anyone to modify our software.

Latest versions updated into still-alive/supported-fedora-versions
doesn't mean the box gets unusable or open new problems automatically.
If upstream releases new versions, they are either bugfixes or more
features or both (ok, sometimes they remove features). That's nothing
bad, the opposite is the truth. Of course is there as well the
possibility of new bugs. But hey, software has always bugs, it just
takes some time and a lot of people to find them.
If that scares someone away, maybe they should consider stop using a computer.

>> Best thing mentioned on this list since that mega thread was to use
>> another repo "updates-stable" and make that enabled by default.
>>
>> Educate then people with popups what the other repos bring in before
>> they get it enabled. So everyone can have what he want as well.
>
> There's already the need for checking a box so that the Rawhide and
> updates-testing repos are even visible. Yet, lot's of people did
> enable it, thinking it would provide them more software. That's why
> the Rawhide repo was separated in its own subpackage so it would not
> be installed by default. Why would this be any different with what you
> propose?

The difference would be, that my proposal started right. I said
*educate* people with a popup what that repo (the regular updates repo
with everything else than in upd

Re: Worthless updates

[Emmanuel Seyman]

* Jaroslav Reznik [03/03/2010 15:41] :
>
> It's very easy - latest KDE stable release.

Not if they've never updated their install, in which case they've got
the version of KDE that shipped on release date.

If they updated their distribution until some point in the past,
they've got any version of KDE between the former and whatever's in
updates right now.

Emmanuel

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Thomas Janssen]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Chris Adams  wrote:
> Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen  said:
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Jon Masters  wrote:
>> > My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
>> > issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
>> > I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
>> > soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
>>
>> Rawhide for the masses to stay uptodate? Dont support F-11 well
>> because it will die "soon"?
>
> So to you fixing major bugs and security problems == not supported?  I
> don't think so.

It's not what i call "support it well". I can have security fixes with
every stupid distro in the wild. What's so special there?

>> Why isn't it up to the maintainer to provide latest versions even for
>> "die soon" versions of Fedora if he want to do it?
>
> Because a distribution is about more than being a collection of
> packages!

And?

> Some packagers are turning Fedora into a rolling-update package
> collection instead of a coherent distribution.  Remeber the days of a
> fairly small package set in RHL, when people dumped whatever they found
> on rpmfind.net on their system?  They'd then ask a question on a list
> about RHL version foo, and you just about had to get an "rpm -qai" to
> figure out what was going on.
>
> Right now, if somebody asks a question about F12 Firefox, you have a
> reasonable expectation that it is 3.5.x.  If they ask about F12 KDE, who
> knows.
>
> A distribution should have a coherent set of rules about what makes up
> the distribution.  Fedora has lots of rules and guidelines, but really
> nothing about what packagers should do about updates.  Without that,
> Fedora is turning into chaos.
>
> What we have right now is the wild west; what we need is update
> sheriffs.

If you want RHEL, use it.

> On my mirror, updates/12 is approaching the size of releases/12/Fedora
> (which includes CD and DVD ISOs!), and that is in under 4 months.  That
> is an insane amount of churn.  Users do complain about it, when they
> install from a release DVD a few months after release and then spend
> hours downloading updates.

And they *have* to update everything because?

>> If someone think he doesn't need an particular update, dont update it.
>> I never had a gun pointing to my head telling me i HAVE to update
>> everything.
>
> Because users can't be expected to know what needs updating and what
> does not.
>
> If Fedora is going to be a rolling update package collection (despite
> what Kevin tries to claim about some mythical "semi-rolling", that's
> what we are getting in some quarters), then stop the releases every 6
> months.  There's no point; put a little more effort into the respins
> instead and release those every 4-6 months as point releases.  Have an
> annual roll-up release and then keep rolling.
>
> If instead Fedora is going to try to be a stable, coherent distribution,
> then only bug (including security) fix and probably hardware support
> (e.g. kernel, xorg) updates (and any necessary dependencies) should be
> pushed.  Minor version updates are okay, but major version updates (and
> ABI breakage) are to be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

Please read the answer i posted to Mathieu Bridon. Saves me to write
everything twice, thank you.

-- 
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Thomas Janssen]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Emmanuel Seyman
 wrote:
> * Jaroslav Reznik [03/03/2010 15:41] :
>>
>> It's very easy - latest KDE stable release.
>
> Not if they've never updated their install, in which case they've got
> the version of KDE that shipped on release date.
>
> If they updated their distribution until some point in the past,
> they've got any version of KDE between the former and whatever's in
> updates right now.

It's not very hard for us to find out what they run:

Helper: please run in a terminal "kde4-config --version"

User:
Qt: 4.6.2
KDE Development Platform: 4.4.00 (KDE 4.4.0)
kde4-config: 1.0

Not to hard to find out.

-- 
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen  said:
> If you want RHEL, use it.

People keep saying this, as if the opposite of "updates every day" is
"release every 3 years".  Those are two extremes, and there is a lot of
space in between.

> > On my mirror, updates/12 is approaching the size of releases/12/Fedora
> > (which includes CD and DVD ISOs!), and that is in under 4 months.  That
> > is an insane amount of churn.  Users do complain about it, when they
> > install from a release DVD a few months after release and then spend
> > hours downloading updates.
> 
> And they *have* to update everything because?

Because they are users, not developers, and they don't have any way to
know what they should or shouldn't update.  There are security and major
bug fixes as well as hardware support updates in there that most users
need, but they don't have the time nor inclination (and that shouldn't
be required) to try to sort out what they need and what is optional.

-- 
Chris Adams 
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Thomas Janssen]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Chris Adams  wrote:
> Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen  said:
>> If you want RHEL, use it.
>
> People keep saying this, as if the opposite of "updates every day" is
> "release every 3 years".  Those are two extremes, and there is a lot of
> space in between.

Sure there's lots of space in between.

>> > On my mirror, updates/12 is approaching the size of releases/12/Fedora
>> > (which includes CD and DVD ISOs!), and that is in under 4 months.  That
>> > is an insane amount of churn.  Users do complain about it, when they
>> > install from a release DVD a few months after release and then spend
>> > hours downloading updates.
>>
>> And they *have* to update everything because?
>
> Because they are users, not developers, and they don't have any way to
> know what they should or shouldn't update.  There are security and major
> bug fixes as well as hardware support updates in there that most users
> need, but they don't have the time nor inclination (and that shouldn't
> be required) to try to sort out what they need and what is optional.

It's not like the security fixes aren't marked as security fixes.
That's why i said (in a different mail) educate them. If they aren't
smart enough to find that out on their own, educate them. It's not
like a developer is born, he's educated as well.
We have already at least one Distro for the dumbs out there. Dont turn
Fedora into one just because you think you might get one or two users
more. You might loose more of your userbase as you win with it. But
that's of course just my opinion.

But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
decided what will happen will have to live with it.

Well, there you see how dumb i am. That i speak up for something that
will not happen anyways.

-- 
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Jaroslav Reznik]

On Wednesday 03 March 2010 15:55:18 Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Thomas Janssen  said:
> > If you want RHEL, use it.
> 
> People keep saying this, as if the opposite of "updates every day" is
> "release every 3 years".  Those are two extremes, and there is a lot of
> space in between.

So why we can't use it as our advantage and fill this gap? 

> > > On my mirror, updates/12 is approaching the size of releases/12/Fedora
> > > (which includes CD and DVD ISOs!), and that is in under 4 months.
> > > Â That is an insane amount of churn. Â Users do complain about it,
> > > when they install from a release DVD a few months after release and
> > > then spend hours downloading updates.
> > 
> > And they *have* to update everything because?
> 
> Because they are users, not developers, and they don't have any way to
> know what they should or shouldn't update.  There are security and major
> bug fixes as well as hardware support updates in there that most users
> need, but they don't have the time nor inclination (and that shouldn't
> be required) to try to sort out what they need and what is optional.

-- 
Jaroslav Řezník 
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 731 455 332
Red Hat, Inc.   http://cz.redhat.com/
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Fedora 13 has been branched!!

[Paul W. Frields]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:47:23AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/03/2010 05:54 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/03/2010 05:17 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 03:34 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>  Where is the mock update?
> 
>  It's been nearly 2 weeks since you've promissed to do so, but this
>  hasn't happened.
> 
>  There still are no mock configurations providing setups for fedora-13
>  (/etc/mock/fedora-13-{i386,x86_64}.cfg)
> >>>
> >>> mock-1.0.5 was pushed into updates-testing a number of days ago that
> >>> includes the new 13 configs.  They'll get moved over to the various
> >>> stables shortly.
> >>
> >> Too late, you failed to provide them in time.
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Yet another perfect example of an update which should have been pushed
> > directly to stable.
> No, this package should have been in place ("in updates") at the same 
> time, the F-13 branch had been activated in Fedora's CVS.
> 
> This wasn't the case, and thus likely caused:
> 
> * maintainers wanting to "make mockbuild" F-13 package in CVS to hit 
> build failures (I did so) or to test-build against the wrong repository 
> (building against rawhide instead of F-13).
> 
> * maintainers having to waste their time on reimplementing local
> versions of /etc/mock/fedora-13-<*>.cfgs (I did so).
> 
> * third parties (e.g. rpmfusion) building packages against the wrong 
> repos, because they didn't notice they need to branch and away from rawhide.
> 
> 
> It's a mistake, ... mistakes happen, ...
> 
> The only things making me angry about this, is this particular mistake 
> (mock *.cfg not being in place in time) not having happened for the 
> first time and when taking into account the responsible person's 
> attitude and position in Fedora.

I looked up the rel-eng SOP for mass branching and added this item to
it, which I'm betting took no more time than writing unnecessarily
hostile email.  Be part of the solution.

https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_Branching_SOP&diff=157055&oldid=152747

-- 
Paul W. Frieldshttp://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
  http://redhat.com/   -  -  -  -   http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
  Where open source multiplies: http://opensource.com
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[James Antill]

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:52 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> James Antill wrote:
> >  This isn't a hard problem, 3.0 should then be marked as a security
> > update.
> 
> But the case we're discussing is that 3.0 was pushed long before it was 
> known that it happens to fix a security vulnerability. We're not going to 
> arbitrarily push another update and call it "security" when it doesn't fix 
> any security issue that's not already fixed.

 I would assume you could just change the updateinfo for the the current
update to mark it as "security", this is a tiny amount of extra work on
the packager side ... but without it all the work to create the security
types on updates is worthless.

> This is just another failure point of yum-security.

 This would be the _only_ failure point, if in fact it is policy (and
isn't going to be fixed). Of course it's such a huge issue I'll have to
make the --security option a noop in Fedora if true, no arguments there
the option would be worthless.

-- 
James Antill - ja...@fedoraproject.org
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.27
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[James Antill]

On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 23:57 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:

> I wasn't suggesting that's what happens in Fedora at present, just that
> - given a single update stream in which it's perfectly fine for
> 'security' updates to build on 'feature' updates - it's impossible to
> cherry pick only security updates.

 This is Fedora. Security updates can come with new features, that's
life. You can have zero updates for a package, and then do a rebase to
fix a security problem and also Require: the latest versions of
everything else in updates for all I care.
 The security problem is _fixed_ though, so your system is secure, and
that's all that --security guarantees (and it has made "minimal"
updates, it's just that "minimal" is bigger than with say RHEL/CentOS).

-- 
James Antill - ja...@fedoraproject.org
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.27
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Kevin Kofler]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> If KDE wants to be on an equal footing with GNOME (another of your
> repeated complains) it needs to learn synchronizing with distro releases
> like GNOME (and kernel, and xorg did).

I don't see this as being practical at all. Not all distros even release at 
the same time as Fedora and Ubuntu in the first place.

> You're distorting the Fedora model to accommodate KDE roadmaps.

No, this goes far beyond KDE. KDE roadmaps are just one strong argument for 
doing things this way. Many more packages benefit or would benefit from 
version upgrades during a release.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: tor dependency insanity.

[Kevin Kofler]

Enrico Scholz wrote:
> please do not blame me for redhat-lsb packaging...

You're not being blamed for the redhat-lsb packaging but for requiring 
redhat-lsb in the first place. That package is not supposed to be required 
by Fedora packages.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:08 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> So why we can't use it as our advantage and fill this gap? 

We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
months) and updates for those releases that focus on bugfix and
security.  That is a unique role that is not filled by any current Linux
OS.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Kevin Kofler]

Seth Vidal wrote:
> If you can't understand it, perhaps you should reconsider your role on a
> technical committee like fesco.

I understood your sentence, that doesn't make it any less jargon.
 
>> * And most importantly, even if we were to accept that it could lead to
>> better QA (which I doubt), would it really be worth making users wait a
>> FULL MONTH for their updates and forcing them to pull a HUGE update in
>> one single transaction rather than spread over time? IMHO, HELL NO!
> 
> It will mean regularity and predictability. It will let users and admins
> alike know when they can expect new things. Doing it once a month means
> that they only need to cope with 13 of these per fedora release.

13 huge updates are a lot more pain for people with slow connections than 
many small ones. It'd also make Fedora effectively useless for those people 
like me who use it because of the frequent updates. It makes this look like 
M$ Patch Tuesdays instead of a fast-moving GNU/Linux distribution.

The solution to get more effective testing is to speed up pushes to testing 
(and the technical issues with that are already being discussed), not to 
slow down pushes to stable. Time is critical. Waiting a full month is only 
going to cause problems and not solve anything at all.

> Predictability means you can plan for effectively.

No. It means a user can't plan when to update anymore, you're forcing your 
schedule on the user! With the current system, the user can update on 
his/her OWN schedule, daily, weekly, monthly or whatever, and at whatever 
moment he/she wishes. With your M$-style system, they'd have to deal with 
monthly big dumps and no other choice.

>> Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are
>> working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change anything
>> at all!
> 
> We will be doing it or something very much like it. Good luck with your
> fight.

I don't see how you can be this definite. There was far from a consensus 
that a time-based solution is the right thing to do even among those who 
opposed direct stable pushes, I was clearly not the only one opposed to 
that!

It's quite sad that you fail to realize how badly your proposal is flawed 
and what disastrous consequences its implementation would have. We'd be 
breaking Fedora for a huge portion of its current userbase!

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 09:45 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:05:23PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 08:02 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Why? Because you say so? We aren't doing that stuff now and things are 
> > > working just fine, thank you very much! We don't HAVE to change anything 
> > > at 
> > > all!
> > > 
> > 
> > This I believe to be the crux of the problem.  When multiple updates go
> > out that break large or important segments of our user base, many of us
> > see a problem.  You however seem to think it's "just fine".  Many of us
> > would rather put out a better operating system, and to do that, we need
> > change.  Your "just fine" isn't good enough.
> 
> Are there even any  metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
> bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
> with updates or new bugs introduced with updates. If updates are slowed
> down, this will get even worse. Especially because the proposal is to
> use time instead of test coverage as the criterion to push an update to
> stable.
> 

There are so many "proposals" out there that it's hard to know which
ones we're arguing about.  In fact, none have been presented to FESCo
yet as far as I'm aware.

For me personally the type of update I'd like to see slowed down is the
pure enhancement update or new package updates, ones that do nothing but
swallow up the latest upstream build or scm snapshot to add new
features.  I'm more than happy to see bugfix and security updates go
through, and I don't really buy into time based delays, or time based
only delays.  Karma has a role to play here, even though it is a simple
+1/-1, it is data not otherwise obtained.  If your update gets enough
positive karma 2 hours after it hits updates-testing, by all means push
it to stable.

As far as metrics of bad updates, I don't have any off hand.  We've had
to issue public apologies for screwing up our release in updates more
than once, which is more than once too many times.  We are operating
without a safety net, and we've had some accidents.  I'd like to see a
safety net be put in place, even if to begin with it is a manual safety
net, until such time as AutoQA can take over more and more of the tasks.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Kevin Kofler]

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
> 
> Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
> 
> At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
> attention.

+1

I really don't see why we should treat "previous stable" as a second-class 
citizen. It's supported, so it should get the same kind of updates as the 
current stable release (which includes feature updates).

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Jaroslav Reznik]

On Wednesday 03 March 2010 16:43:37 Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:08 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > So why we can't use it as our advantage and fill this gap?
> 
> We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
> months) and updates for those releases that focus on bugfix and
> security.  That is a unique role that is not filled by any current Linux
> OS.

But then there's no need for two released and supported versions together (Fn, 
Fn-1). But if we use both - we can have even more power in filling this gap - 
Fn as current and Fn-1 as untouchable stable. Even consider rawhide as Fn+1 
for really brave men ;-) I already posted it in more details. 

But from all comments it looks like people want something rock stable, well 
tested and for this - 6 month cycle is not very well suited. There's no time 
for development and then for proper testing - so lot of unfinished and not very 
well tested stuff goes into Fedora and it starts again - lot of updates, 
breaking stuff... In circle. 

Just my 1 Czech crown (we don't have any more equivalent to cents ;-) 
-- 
Jaroslav Řezník 
Software Engineer - Base Operating Systems Brno

Office: +420 532 294 275
Mobile: +420 731 455 332
Red Hat, Inc.   http://cz.redhat.com/
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 03/03/2010 02:47 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>>
>> So far, I haven't seen any indication of such a team being in existance
>> (c.f. dnssec-conf, kernel) nor am I aware of any means for testing such
>> perl-modules (perl-modules typically are equipped with a testsuite).
>>
>> The real testing is performed by Fedora users, them providing feedback
>> and maintainers letting user feedback flow back into packages ASAP.
>
> That's exactly the provlem. The qa team hasn't had the time to do so and
> the explosive set of updates makes it difficult to keep a handle on.
>
> Slowing them down and collecting them is to help that exactly.
You violently don't want understand anything what I have been trying to say?

I say:

Your testing group will *never* be able to test much more than a very 
tiny subset of use cases -- Let them test their limited testing 
scenarios, but keep them out of the rest of testing.

=> Instead of slowing down things by deploying a testing group, speed up 
things by fixing bug ASAP and ban "FIX UPSTREAM" (Like you are usually 
doing).

It might be news to you, but experience tells this kind of strategy 
converges towards "stability", in mid-terms.

Your strategy leads to over-all less testing, more bureaucracy and low 
quality.

 >> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
 >Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
 >different?

What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further 
members of FPB and FESCO) to be gradually running down Fedora, e.g. by 
advocating ever more regulations, installing more and more committees, 
and by trying to suppress the community.

Ralf
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Seth Vidal]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:


> >> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
> >Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
> >different?
>
> What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further
> members of FPB and FESCO) to be gradually running down Fedora, e.g. by
> advocating ever more regulations, installing more and more committees,
> and by trying to suppress the community.

Fantastic.
You have a nice day.

-sv

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[James Antill]

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:38 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> James Antill wrote:
>
> >>  I
> >> want many updates, but I don't want to be the guinea pig for updates
> >> which just hit testing,
> > 
> >  And nobody else wants to be the guinea pig for _you_.
> 
> People who use updates-testing under the current system are signing up to 
> doing testing. Under your proposal, they'd be forced to sign up to get any 
> current updates.

 Get current updates => so they can be tested!

> >>  and I also don't want to have to selectively update
> >> because it's a mess.
> > 
> >  Why's that? Maybe because of the sheer volume of updates ... because of
> > packagers like...
> 
> No, because updates may depend on previous updates to work properly. We 
> can't possibly test or support all possible combinations of updates.

 We can't _now_ ... because of packagers like you who want to release
lots of updates with no or almost no testing!
 If we had less updates, that changed less things and required more
testing before pushing them to users ... this would be entirely
possible.

> >>  Do you want users of stable to suffer through KDE
> >> bugs or be forced to use testing?
> > 
> >  Again with the "suffering users" because they don't get 6GB of updates
> > a month? I think not, and I'm not alone.
> 
> They're suffering because their bugs are not getting fixed.

 No, there's suffering because you are breaking their computers with
your updates (which has been pointed out to you many times in this
thread).

> >  mine allows people who want to get lots of packages to do so
> 
> Only by using updates-testing => you're effectively forcing those people to 
> use updates-testing.

 No, I for one will not be just enabling updates-testing if my proposal
is passed. Again, I imagine that the major of users will not do this ...
and will be happier to have a smaller number of tested updates.
 You are _forcing_ people to use updates-testing because there is
nothing else ... things can't be tested by the time they hit "updates",
so updates is de. facto. "updates-testing".

> >  and those who have a working system to not be forced to test your package
> >  of the week.
> 
> They're not testing it, they're receiving it already tested.

 Except that it breaks ... but of course that's their problem, not
yours ... right?

 I think I'm starting to see a pattern here:

. Kevin doesn't use DVD updates, so anything that needlessly breaks DVD
updates is fine because DVD updates are worthless.

. Kevin doesn't use selective updates, so packagers doing less work and
not testing for selective updates is fine because selective updates are
worthless.

. Kevin doesn't use --security, so packagers ignoring security issues is
fine because --security is worthless.

. Kevin doesn't mind restarting KDE after updates, so any users
complaining their desktop doesn't work after an update can be ignored.

. Kevin likes lots of updates, and having them forced onto others so
they get tested for him, so anything that provides more updates is good
and anything that slows them down for testing is bad.


...if only someone had let me know that Fedora had become your personal
distro.

-- 
James Antill - ja...@fedoraproject.org
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.27
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re:Re: tor dependency insanity.

[Chen Lei]

Also tsocks now are in the repo of fedora, so maybe you can include the tor 
stuffs related to tsocks.
Another question is why you use tor-lsb instead of normal initscript ,  a 
tor-sysvinit subpackage may be more suitable for fedora.



在2010-03-03?18:27:47，"Enrico?Scholz"??写道：
>"Chen?Lei"??writes:
>
>>?BTW,?/var/lib/tor-data?seems?not?used?at?all,?maybe?this?directory
>>?should?not?be?included?in?tor-core?
>
>thx;?was?a?leftover?from?GeoIP?stuff?which?was?removed?due?to?anonymity
>reasons.??It?will?be?fixed?in?the?next?packages.
>
>
>Enrico
>--?
>devel?mailing?list
>devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Till Maas]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:

> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:

> > Are there even any  metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
> > bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
> > with updates or new bugs introduced with updates. If updates are slowed
> > down, this will get even worse. Especially because the proposal is to
> > use time instead of test coverage as the criterion to push an update to
> > stable.
> 
> Actually the proposal is time AND test coverage.

I mind have misunderstood it, but afaics it only says that it will be
tested, because it spent time in updates-testing, but this is not even
true nowadays, even if packages stay long in updates-testing.

Regards
Till


pgpKiC2Gc7PvW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Kevin Kofler]

Thomas Janssen wrote:
> The problem is that the end-user has no idea what rawhide means. Why
> not let them know. I said already a few times, give people new to
> fedora (fresh installation) something like openSUSE has. A tour trough
> Fedora, and educate them there. It pops up automatically if you
> install fresh and login the first time. Make it with a checkbox to not
> popup everytime you login.

FYI, the Marketing team is working on a Fedora Tour, talk to rrix for 
details.

(And BTW, thanks for your replies in this thread. People really need to 
realize that I'm not the only one who likes Fedora BECAUSE of the version 
upgrades!)

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Peter Lemenkov]

2010/3/3 Seth Vidal :
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>
>> >> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
>> >Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
>> >different?
>>
>> What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further
>> members of FPB and FESCO) to be gradually running down Fedora, e.g. by
>> advocating ever more regulations, installing more and more committees,
>> and by trying to suppress the community.

> Fantastic.
> You have a nice day.

And what about tickets, closed with "FIXED UPSTREAM" w/o actually
applying fix to a package?


-- 
With best regards, Peter Lemenkov.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Seth Vidal]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:42:57AM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Till Maas wrote:
>
>>> Are there even any  metrics about how many bad updates happened? For me
>>> bug that can be fixed issuing an update are a lot more than regressions
>>> with updates or new bugs introduced with updates. If updates are slowed
>>> down, this will get even worse. Especially because the proposal is to
>>> use time instead of test coverage as the criterion to push an update to
>>> stable.
>>
>> Actually the proposal is time AND test coverage.
>
> I mind have misunderstood it, but afaics it only says that it will be
> tested, because it spent time in updates-testing, but this is not even
> true nowadays, even if packages stay long in updates-testing.

Having more time opens us up to more testing days and in the near future 
autoqa to help us bounce obviously bad things.

-sv

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Peter Jones]

On 03/02/2010 08:42 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Peter Jones wrote:
> 
>> On 03/02/2010 06:15 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
> X11 is particularly dangerous for this kind of changes, given how low
> it is in the software stack and how some code necessarily looks like
> (hardware drivers in particular are always scary stuff). The average
> leaf package is much less propice to breakage induced by minimal
> changes.

 This is just plain bull. High level packages also have one line fixes
 that are simple, elegant, and wrong.
>>>
>>> They are much less likely though.
>>
>> Please provide data to support this bullshit assertion.
> 
> Changing the bytes which get sent to some piece of hardware you have no or 
> only inaccurate documentation on is much more likely to cause breakage than 
> some of the simple changes which are done at application level, like 
> removing a hardcoded call to setCheckSpellingEnabled(true) to make it 
> default to the system default instead.

That isn't data. It isn't even a particularly good anecdote.

-- 
Peter

Space, is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely
mindbogglingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the
road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
-- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Till Maas]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:02:51AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:38 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> > No, because updates may depend on previous updates to work properly. We 
> > can't possibly test or support all possible combinations of updates.
> 
>  We can't _now_ ... because of packagers like you who want to release
> lots of updates with no or almost no testing!

Afaics, nobody objected to test updates more. But afaics they only
support so far is %check in SPEC builds, which is not much support after
all. But with AutoQA this will become better.

>  If we had less updates, that changed less things and required more
> testing before pushing them to users ... this would be entirely
> possible.

Less updates mean more changes per update or you have more buggy
packages, because updates usually fix bugs.

Regards
Till


pgpMsakSmFxAW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Kevin Kofler]

Rakesh Pandit wrote:
> Well, update to latest release (every 6 month) and you will get latest
> and greatest anyway.

With a wait of up to 6 months. That's way too long. That leaves Rawhide, 
which isn't suitable for production use. So no option left.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Seth Vidal]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:

> 2010/3/3 Seth Vidal :
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>
>>
> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
 Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
 different?
>>>
>>> What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further
>>> members of FPB and FESCO) to be gradually running down Fedora, e.g. by
>>> advocating ever more regulations, installing more and more committees,
>>> and by trying to suppress the community.
>
>> Fantastic.
>> You have a nice day.
>
> And what about tickets, closed with "FIXED UPSTREAM" w/o actually
> applying fix to a package?
>

Those items will be released in the next release of yum or in the next 
fedora release. If the bug is serious or a security issue I will often 
backport a patch.

-sv

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Emmanuel Seyman]

* Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 16:00] :
>
> Helper: please run in a terminal "kde4-config --version"

If you're going to ask users to use the CLI, you're better off asking
them the output of "rpm -q kdelibs", the answer will be more precise.

> Not to hard to find out.

And in contradiction to what Jaroslav stated (users are always running
the latest stable release version of KDE).

Emmanuel

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Kevin Kofler]

Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> Not if they've never updated their install, in which case they've got
> the version of KDE that shipped on release date.

So the first thing you tell users is to run "yum update" and see if that 
fixes their problem. It doesn't make sense to try debugging issues with old 
stuff.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Garrett Holmstrom]

On 3/3/2010 2:27, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Let F11 rott because it's EOL soon?
>
> Pardon, but you can't be serious about this.
>
> At least I am trying to provide all released Fedoras with same amount of
> attention.

Right now Fedora releases are either "Supported" or "Unsupported." [1] 
If we want to break "Supported" into "Production 1/2/3" [2] we should 
codify it.  Fedora's support policies don't currently treat supported 
N-1 and N-2 releases as second-class citizens, so if we don't plan on 
supporting all "Supported" releases equally we should stop creating the 
illusion that we are.

[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/LifeCycle#Maintenance_Schedule
[2] http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/errata/
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Thomas Janssen]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Jesse Keating  wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 16:08 +0100, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>> So why we can't use it as our advantage and fill this gap?
>
> We could very well fill that gap with rapid release cycles (every 6
> months) and updates for those releases that focus on bugfix and
> security.  That is a unique role that is not filled by any current Linux
> OS.

Erm, dont take it personally please, but, have you ever used a
different distro? One example is openSUSE (yes, i use it on some boxen
here) does exactly that. What's with Debian stable? And i bet even
ubuntu is like that.

So where is that unique role? Except you mean the exact 6 month
release cycle. But who cares about that.

-- 
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Mathieu Bridon]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 17:05, Kevin Kofler  wrote:
> (And BTW, thanks for your replies in this thread. People really need to
> realize that I'm not the only one who likes Fedora BECAUSE of the version
> upgrades!)

We realize it, at least I do fwiw. I see lot's of people saying how
they like Fedora because of that, everyday on the IRC help channels.

But I also see lot's of users complaining about it. Who wins?

In the end, I think the question is not about giving users what users
want (be it frequent updates or stalled releases), but giving users
what we see as a better deal for them. Most people want Windows,
should we give that to them? Or should we instead try to offer them
our vision of a better operating system?

I was thinking what we were doing in Fedora was the latter. ;)


--
Mathieu Bridon
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Thomas Janssen]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:12 PM, Emmanuel Seyman
 wrote:
> * Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 16:00] :
>>
>> Helper: please run in a terminal "kde4-config --version"
>
> If you're going to ask users to use the CLI, you're better off asking
> them the output of "rpm -q kdelibs", the answer will be more precise.

Really? And that shows me the QT version now? I must miss something.

>> Not to hard to find out.
>
> And in contradiction to what Jaroslav stated (users are always running
> the latest stable release version of KDE).

Most of them/us do ;)

-- 
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Kevin Kofler]

Thomas Janssen wrote:
> But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
> since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
> decided what will happen will have to live with it.
> 
> Well, there you see how dumb i am. That i speak up for something that
> will not happen anyways.

Don't give up the fight yet!

I also see that things are not looking good, but we need to fight this to 
the bitter end, or we'll forever feel guilty about having done nothing to 
try to prevent Fedora from getting ruined.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Seth Vidal]

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Kevin Kofler wrote:

> Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
>> since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
>> decided what will happen will have to live with it.
>>
>> Well, there you see how dumb i am. That i speak up for something that
>> will not happen anyways.
>
> Don't give up the fight yet!
>
> I also see that things are not looking good, but we need to fight this to
> the bitter end, or we'll forever feel guilty about having done nothing to
> try to prevent Fedora from getting ruined.

At this rate I can assure you the end will be bitter.

-sv

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Kevin Kofler]

Chris Adams wrote:
> Some packagers are turning Fedora into a rolling-update package
> collection instead of a coherent distribution.

[snip]

> If Fedora is going to be a rolling update package collection (despite
> what Kevin tries to claim about some mythical "semi-rolling", that's
> what we are getting in some quarters)

Nonsense.

Fedora stable releases are NOT a rolling release. Rawhide is one. Compare 
the package versions in stable and Rawhide and see the differences for 
yourself.

Some examples from KDE SIG because that's what I'm most familiar with: 
KOffice 2 and KDevelop 4 are intentionally NOT being pushed as updates to 
Fedora 12 due to their disruptive nature. (They're very different from 
KOffice 1 resp. KDevelop 3.) Rawhide on the other hand has them (and in fact 
it already carried KOffice 2 twice in previous cycles when we were planning 
to ship it in the respective next release, but then decided to revert to 
KOffice 1) and Fedora 13 will have them. We also haven't pushed the KDE 4 
K3b as an update to Fedora 12, Rawhide already has it and Fedora 13 will 
carry it (though in that case I cannot categorically exclude that an update 
to Fedora 12 will be pushed at a later time, it all depends on whether there 
are regressions, we aren't going to push a new version if it comes with 
feature regressions or known new bugs).

> then stop the releases every 6 months.  There's no point; put a little
> more effort into the respins instead and release those every 4-6 months as
> point releases.  Have an annual roll-up release and then keep rolling.

Therefore, that suggestion would not work as well as the status quo.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Nathanael D. Noblet]

On 03/03/2010 05:24 AM, Björn Persson wrote:
> You mean the system would download updates while I'm working but I would have
> to wait while it installs them? That's of course a little better than waiting
> while it downloads them too, but in my experience the installation phase
> usually takes longer than the download phase (even without deltaRPMs), so it
> would only be a small improvement.

True. The current F13 packagekit looks to see if you are running any 
programs that would stop working during an update. I don't know what it 
does if it finds one, I assume firefox is among them. In any case I 
think it would allow you to update everything in the background as you 
work and then the last bits could be done when you are.

This is all just from the few minutes I've spent on F13 over the last 
week. So what I said above could be completely wrong, but I did see PK 
doing a 'check for running programs' message.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 9:18 AM, Kevin Kofler  wrote:
> Thomas Janssen wrote:
>> But that thread and the other monster thread are just wasted time
>> since it's already decided what will happen. And those people who
>> decided what will happen will have to live with it.
>>
>> Well, there you see how dumb i am. That i speak up for something that
>> will not happen anyways.
>
> Don't give up the fight yet!
>
> I also see that things are not looking good, but we need to fight this to
> the bitter end, or we'll forever feel guilty about having done nothing to
> try to prevent Fedora from getting ruined.
>

Kevin.. this 'fight' could have been dealt with a lot of ways, but you
decided to come in break some heads from the beginning. The more you
keep pushing people's emotional buttons and trying to make anyone who
disagrees with you into the villain the more the conversation heads
towards a bitter end. So far various people (Doug Ledford, etc) have
come up with some good ideas on how the two different groups could
compromise.. but you have made sure that no one wants to think just
choose sides.

Please slow down, do some thinking, and then reply..


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp. Or what's a heaven for?
-- Robert Browning
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Kevin Kofler]

Till Maas wrote:
> How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> only updates repo enabled by default.

That's essentially what Adam Williamson and Doug Ledford (both inspired by 
Mandriva) already proposed.

Out of the proposals for more conservative updates, it's the one I consider 
least unacceptable, though I'd argue it's still worse than the status quo 
because it doubles the amount of package streams to maintain, and 
maintaining the conservative stream could become quite painful if done 
right. (Backporting security fixes is a PITA, and you can't just upgrade to, 
say, KDE 4.4.1 if you've been shipping 4.2.2 (the version in F11 GA) all 
this time. (Note that I'm not aware of any security issue being addressed by 
KDE 4.4.1 specifically, it was just an example!)) But at least it'd still 
provide an option to those of us who like the updates, at least if it 
actually works (i.e. if it doesn't lead to maintainers only caring about the 
conservative stream).

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Patrice Dumas]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:37:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> actually works (i.e. if it doesn't lead to maintainers only caring about the 
> conservative stream).

Packagers would then have the choice, I think this can only be a good
thing. Right now they have the choice, but the user cannot know what
the packager choosed. If somebody wants more stable updates or more 
uptodate package than what the maintainer want, this could be a scenario 
where co-maintaining is a good option with different co-maintainers caring 
more about one or the other stream.

--
Pat
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[James Antill]

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:09 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 11:02:51AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> >  If we had less updates, that changed less things and required more
> > testing before pushing them to users ... this would be entirely
> > possible.
> 
> Less updates mean more changes per update or you have more buggy
> packages, because updates usually fix bugs.

 As I would assume any programmer knows: Not all bugs are created equal.
Trading "no regressions" for "some minor bugs still remain" is a trade
lots of users are happy to make (see: every customer of every piece of
commercial software, ever).

-- 
James Antill - ja...@fedoraproject.org
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/releases
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/whatsnew/3.2.27
http://yum.baseurl.org/wiki/YumMultipleMachineCaching
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Garrett Holmstrom]

On 3/3/2010 2:51, Till Maas wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> only updates repo enabled by default.

Splitting the updates repos into "updates-testing," 
"updates-probably-stable," "updates-stable," "updates-really-stable," or 
whatever doesn't solve the problem.  Not only would the choice of what 
is on by default remain the only distinction of significance, but it 
would also subdivide Fedora releases in a way that prevents bugs that 
are fixed with version upgrades from reaching most users.

If we want to go down that road we might as well write a yum plugin that 
installs updates only if they meet a user-set karma threshold.  At least 
then we wouldn't have repo proliferation.
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Jesse Keating]

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 17:16 +0100, Thomas Janssen wrote:
> Erm, dont take it personally please, but, have you ever used a
> different distro? One example is openSUSE (yes, i use it on some boxen
> here) does exactly that. What's with Debian stable? And i bet even
> ubuntu is like that.

Neither OpenSUSE nor Ubuntu are as quick to pick up new technologies and
run with them into a stable release.  Quite often they pick things
up /after/ Fedora has done a release with them and worked through all
the hard problems.  They are also slower to release, and don't provide
nearly as much opportunity to participate in the development of the
operating system as Fedora does.

> So where is that unique role? Except you mean the exact 6 month
> release cycle. But who cares about that.
> 

See above.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Emmanuel Seyman]

* Thomas Janssen [03/03/2010 17:41] :
>
> Really? And that shows me the QT version now? I must miss something.

"If they ask about F12 KDE, who knows."

Emmanuel

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

File Tie-IxHash-1.22.tar.gz uploaded to lookaside cache by pghmcfc

[Paul Howarth]

A file has been added to the lookaside cache for perl-Tie-IxHash:

aae2e62df7e016fd3e8fdaaea71b0b41  Tie-IxHash-1.22.tar.gz
--
Fedora Extras Perl SIG
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Perl
perl-devel mailing list
perl-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/perl-devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Adam Williamson]

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 07:28 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 11:52:49PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 22:37 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> >> We've made a mess and as a member of fesco I'd expect you to be helping in 
> >> cleaning up the mess, not making it worse b/c fesco HAS to be about the 
> >> long term growth and sustainability of fedora.
> >
> >I'm starting to think this thread needs a hall monitor. Unfortunately
> >half of them seem to be in it, swinging away.
> 
> Why?  Other than one instance, which was my own, there hasn't been anything in
> this thread that I would consider hall monitor worthy.

Well, a) it's becoming an entrenched cycle of the same points over and
over, but more importantly b) both sides seem to have started imputing
sinister motives to the other, which doesn't help anyone. As far as I
can see both sides genuinely think what they're proposing is right for
Fedora, but when people start saying things like "I'd expect you to be
helping in cleaning up the mess, not making it worse" or "
The implication being that I'm not normal? I find that insulting" or
telling others in almost so many words that they shouldn't be involved
with Fedora - "If you feel that there is a niche here for what you're
trying to build, then it shouldn't be hard for you to find like minded
people to stake out your own piece of the linux user pie.  I wish you
luck with that" - it's getting perilously close to a personal argument.

> >Quis monitoret ipsos monitores? :)
> 
> Nobody.  Fun, eh?

I'm sure nothing could possibly go wrong...
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 03/03/2010 04:51 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:

> For me personally the type of update I'd like to see slowed down is the
> pure enhancement update or new package updates, ones that do nothing but
> swallow up the latest upstream build or scm snapshot to add new
> features.

#1 on your personal list should be "not breaking package deps".

#2 should be removing prematurely deployed, dysfunctional packages from 
the DVD. Confronting users with incidents like ABRT's introduction into 
FC12 or in the early stages of SELinux and PulseAudio is not helpful.

Ralf
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Michael Schroeder]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 08:57:53AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Neither OpenSUSE nor Ubuntu are as quick to pick up new technologies and
> run with them into a stable release.  Quite often they pick things
> up /after/ Fedora has done a release with them and worked through all
> the hard problems.  They are also slower to release, and don't provide
> nearly as much opportunity to participate in the development of the
> operating system as Fedora does.

That might be true for Ubuntu, but it's very wrong for openSUSE.
Please don't make claims about things you don't know.

Thanks,
  Michael.

-- 
Michael Schroeder   m...@suse.de
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF Markus Rex, HRB 16746 AG Nuernberg
main(_){while(_=~getchar())putchar(~_-1/(~(_|32)/13*2-11)*13);}
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Refining the update queues/process [Was: Worthless updates]

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 03/03/2010 05:10 PM, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Peter Lemenkov wrote:
>
>> 2010/3/3 Seth Vidal:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> Feel free to think so, however can not disagree more.
> Ralf, we've never agreed on much of anything. Why should this be
> different?

 What do you expect? I consider you (and a couple of other further
 members of FPB and FESCO) to be gradually running down Fedora, e.g. by
 advocating ever more regulations, installing more and more committees,
 and by trying to suppress the community.
>>
>>> Fantastic.
>>> You have a nice day.
>>
>> And what about tickets, closed with "FIXED UPSTREAM" w/o actually
>> applying fix to a package?
>>
>
> Those items will be released in the next release of yum or in the next
> fedora release. If the bug is serious or a security issue I will often
> backport a patch.

QED: You don't fix your bugs, but prefer confronting users with them and 
force them to dig out your "fixes" to work-around the issues they are 
facing.

You can't seriously expect me to show any respect for you and the 
committees you are member of.



-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: FESCo wants to ban direct stable pushes in Bodhi (urgent call for feedback)

[Kevin Kofler]

James Antill wrote:
>  I would assume you could just change the updateinfo for the the current
> update to mark it as "security", this is a tiny amount of extra work on
> the packager side ... but without it all the work to create the security
> types on updates is worthless.

We can't change Bodhi metadata after the fact at this time. Bodhi admins 
might be able to do it, but maintainers definitely aren't.

Kevin Kofler

-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Till Maas]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 10:50:22AM -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On 3/3/2010 2:51, Till Maas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 02, 2010 at 09:07:29PM -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> > How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> > another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> > only updates repo enabled by default.
> 
> Splitting the updates repos into "updates-testing," 
> "updates-probably-stable," "updates-stable," "updates-really-stable," or 
> whatever doesn't solve the problem.  Not only would the choice of what 
> is on by default remain the only distinction of significance, but it 
> would also subdivide Fedora releases in a way that prevents bugs that 
> are fixed with version upgrades from reaching most users.

Bug avoiding regressions at all costs is what some are willing to take.
With the repo split there can be at least better co-operation as e.g.
splitting the distribution. At least for me as a FOSS believer getting
upstream bugfixes fast (especially if I submitted them upstream) into
the distro is a key feature.

> If we want to go down that road we might as well write a yum plugin that 
> installs updates only if they meet a user-set karma threshold.  At least 
> then we wouldn't have repo proliferation.

This would work for me, too, and was suggested in some other mail. But
this would also need repo adjustments to keep the old packags with
enough karma.

Regards
Till


pgpopGDxFQuXb.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: Worthless updates

[Till Maas]

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 05:37:14PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Till Maas wrote:
> > How about we keep updates and updates-testing more like they are and add
> > another repo like updates-stable that follows your policy and is the
> > only updates repo enabled by default.
> 
> That's essentially what Adam Williamson and Doug Ledford (both inspired by 
> Mandriva) already proposed.

\o/ this seems to be the road to a consensus then. ;-)

> Out of the proposals for more conservative updates, it's the one I consider 
> least unacceptable, though I'd argue it's still worse than the status quo 
> because it doubles the amount of package streams to maintain, and 
> maintaining the conservative stream could become quite painful if done 
> right. (Backporting security fixes is a PITA, and you can't just upgrade to, 
> say, KDE 4.4.1 if you've been shipping 4.2.2 (the version in F11 GA) all 
> this time. (Note that I'm not aware of any security issue being addressed by 

As far as I understood, there is no need to backport security fixes. One
could just copy the package with the security fix with all needed
dependencies to the stable repo imho.

Regards
Till


pgpiLmofd6yod.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [Fedora-r-devel-list] R packages update

[José Matos]

On Tuesday 02 March 2010 11:58:06 Pierre-Yves wrote:
> We could imagine a monthly reminder if you are interested.

A once a month reminder is perfect. :-)

> Best regards,
> 
> Pierre

-- 
José Abílio
___
r-devel mailing list
r-de...@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/r-devel