Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

[Petr Kubat]

From the community blog this decision seems more like a "what can we 
use to make CentOS Stream work" rather than an open community-made 
choice of what is best for Fedora.


On 3/30/20 11:17 AM, Leigh Griffin wrote:

Hi everyone,

Thank you for your patience while the CPE Team worked through an 
incredible number of requirements from multiple stakeholder sources. 
On Friday evening we announced on the Community Blog 
 our 
decision to adopt Gitlab as our Git Forge and to retain pagure.io 
 to ultimately hand over to the Community to 
maintain. It wasn't an easy decision by any stretch of the imagination 
and we hope that the compromise that we are striking will help to 
allow Pagure flourish and to give a choice of Forges for your usage. 
I'm happy to field any questions or comments about this decision.


Kind regards,
Leigh, on behalf of the CPE Team

--

Leigh Griffin

Engineering Manager

Red Hat Waterford 

Communications House

Cork Road, Waterford City

lgrif...@redhat.com 
M: +353877545162  IM: lgriffin

@redhatjobs  redhatjobs 
 @redhatjobs 





___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: CPE Git Forge Decision

[Petr Kubat]

On 3/31/20 8:59 PM, Clement Verna wrote:



On Tue, 31 Mar 2020 at 14:57, Neal Gompa > wrote:


On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 7:10 AM Clement Verna
mailto:cve...@fedoraproject.org>> wrote:
>
> I just want to give a bit of insight from someone who is working
day to day on Fedora's infrastructure, since I believe that might
help give a bit more empathy towards the Why of this decision.
>
> For me the Fedora's Infrastructure is in a very bad shape there
is a fair load of technical debt and trying to change or improve
anything results in a long list of reason why we can do it because
services X depends on service Y which depends on Z.  Since I
joined the CPE team (little bit more than 2 years ago) we have not
been able to make any kind of significant progress towards
fighting this technical debt. Every year we fill a white board
with what needs to be done :
>
> Python 3 apps migration,
> FAS replacement,
> fedmsg retirement,
> FMN replacement,
> Fedora-packages replacement,
> PDC replacement,
> Porting application to OIDC,
> Improve Releng automation,
> Improving Anitya and the-new-hotness,
> .
>
> Every single year the same items are coming back because we
spend most of our time firefighting services to keep users happy
and keep Fedora release schedule. This has a very demoralizing
effect on the people working in the team, it seems like we will
never be able to make any significant improvement, and our day to
day job is to close couple tickets and you keep watching the pile
of tickets growing. There is no feeling of accomplishment and a
general sentiment that whatever we do, it will suck.
>
> A little over a year ago we have expressed our need to drop
applications, this is something we have to do to be able to stay
sane and keep a sustainable life-work balance. From that effort to
handover applications (Elections, Nuancier, Fedocal, Badges) to
another group of people in the community, not much happened mainly
because of GDPR and the legal responsibility of owning such
applications, but as far as I know we don't do much maintenance
work on these applications any more since we now have a few
volunteers that are looking after them or helping with finding an
alternative solution.
>
> Now on the list of application we develop and run, I think
Pagure is logical candidate to try and find an alternative to it,
but before doing this it was important to make sure we captured
all the use case and feature needed from a git forge and see if
any of these justified spending cycles in development and
maintenance work. My understanding of the decision is that Pagure
does not provide any significant advantage over GitLab. I know
that for many, the fact that Pagure is developed by Fedora is an
advantage, but from my perspective as someone that as to deal with
all the other services in Fedora's Infra this is a major disadvantage.
>
> Overall I think it is important to keep in mind that there is a
lot of work happening behind the scene to provide the people in
the Fedora community a good experience contributing to Fedora. I
think we are doing a good job at it, but that takes us an enormous
effort and over the long term this is not sustainable, also
keeping in mind that we keep adding and want to keep adding new
things to Fedora.
>
> I hope that my perspective helps a little.
>

Clement,

I want to say thank you for all the hard work you do as a member of
the Fedora community and as a member of the CPE team. You've done
fantastic work for the community and it's always a pleasure to work
with you. And that goes for all the members of the CPE team. I totally
understand where you are coming from. And it *is* very demoralizing to
see the same things over and over again, looking as if you've made no
progress on these things. I've been there with my work at $DAYJOB
before, many times. And as you and others are aware, I've been poking
around throughout infrastructure projects to help with some of these
initiatives over the years, so I'm keenly aware of the size and scope
of many of these.

However, I think some of this is self-inflicted. I don't want to
entirely rehash my original email with my thoughts on this, so please
read that for more detail[1], but I think we *really* should consider
that the lack of community exposure to to the codebases themselves
(especially as an avenue for contributing to the Fedora Project!) is
an underlying problem here. This has created a persistent cycle of
"community member makes cool project to support Fedora" → "it gets
adopted silently and no one really talks about it or advertises it" →
"nobody knows about it and the communi

Re: Fedora 33 System-Wide Change proposal: Mark libdb as deprecated

[Petr Kubat]

On 4/2/20 8:34 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote:

On 4/1/20 8:37 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:

On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 10:30:37AM -0400, Ben Cotton wrote:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Libdb_deprecated

== Summary ==
This change should inform maintainers and developers about effort to
remove libdb in future.

== Owner ==
* Name: [[User:fjanus|Filip Januš]]
* Email: fja...@redhat.com


== Detailed Description ==
We would like to remove libdb from Fedora in future, because
BerkeleyDB 6.x has a more restrictive license than the previous
versions (AGPLv3 vs. LGPLv2) and due many projects can't use it.
Nowadays Fedora uses the old version (5.3.28) and we can't update to
newer. Due to many projects have libdb dependency, we propose few
steps to complete removal. First step would mark libdb as deprecated
package in Fedora 33. Next steps in Fedora 35 would provide converting
tool for existing databases and mark libdb as orphaned.


Is there a way to read old database files?

libguestfs uses libdb (actually utils like db_dump) in order to read
old RPM databases from old guests.  Since these old guests never go
away we'd like to continue to support them.  (And before anyone
mentions librpm, that just moves the problem around.)


Actually, at the end of last year RPM gained the ability to read BDB 
databases without libdb as an x-mas present from Michael Schroeder :)
That's the "bdb_ro" backend mentioned in rpm %changelog on the alpha 
snapshot update.


Rpm will autodetect the on-disk database but as long as real BDB is 
available, it'll use that. So for the time being, to test the 
readonly-backend you'll need to explicitly set the backend to bdb_ro with

--define "_db_backend bdb_ro".



BTW your list of dependencies didn't include libguestfs because the
dependency is indirect (via libdb-utils), so you probably missed other
packages as well.

Also I'm unclear why packaging BDB 6 is a problem.  What's wrong with
AGPLv3?  Still free software surely?


Plenty of material on the subject around the net, eg 
https://lwn.net/Articles/557820/


tldr: We could package it without any issues, as AGPLv3 is accepted by 
Fedora, but most current dependencies are not be able to use bdb6 it at 
all without license changes.


Petr




- Panu -



Rich.


___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/

List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RH Account of package maintainer disabled

[Petr Kubat]

Hi Till,

On 7/10/19 7:39 AM, Till Hofmann wrote:

Hi all,

I'm trying to contact the maintainer (Marek Skalický) of
mongo-cxx-driver, which has a pending update:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1723810

However, if I try to select "Need additional information", I get an error:
  You can't ask Marek Skalický  because that account
is disabled.

Should the package have been orphaned?


No, as the package still has active maintainers (see pagure).

What should have happened I guess is the transfer of ownership to the 
new maintainers (in CC)


Petr



Kind regards,
Till
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Orphaned firejail

[Petr Kubat]

Hi all,

I have orphaned firejail as I do not have the time to maintain it and I 
do not use it for anything myself.


Feel free to pick it up if you are interested.

Petr

___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue