Bastien Nocera wrote:
> That's a problem for OUR users because when they use Fedora, they want to
> be able to make a tarball of their software for their friend on Ubuntu to
> test. Here, you're making Fedora a bad choice for developers that want to
> target more than just Fedora.
This already doe
On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
> > They might compile something and send it to someone that happens to
> > use a different distro ...
>
> … which 99% of the time will not work anyway no matter what we do because
> glibc has only one-way compatibility and our
drago01 wrote:
> They might compile something and send it to someone that happens to
> use a different distro ...
… which 99% of the time will not work anyway no matter what we do because
glibc has only one-way compatibility and our glibc is newer than almost any
other distro's. So trying to sup
Hey, everyone — this thread seems to be going off the rails. Discussion
about the importance and merits of distro uniqueness is of course fine,
but please keep it technical rather than personal.
--
Matthew Miller
Fedora Project Leader
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://
On 2015-10-13, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> We already did the "distributions aren't compatible" thing in the 90's.
>
Great. Then there is no (new) problem.
> If Ubuntu and Fedora binaries aren't compatible, which one do you think
> is going to get used by developers that need to generate programs run
- Original Message -
> On 2015-10-13, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >> Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >> > 2 distributions add slightly different versions of the same
> >> > functionality
> >> > -> incompatible
> >>
> >> I said that carrying more feature patches makes it "more likely" that
> >> pack
On 2015-10-13, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> > 2 distributions add slightly different versions of the same functionality
>> > -> incompatible
>>
>> I said that carrying more feature patches makes it "more likely" that
>> packages from other distros will work, not "100% certain
- Original Message -
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > 2 distributions add slightly different versions of the same functionality
> > -> incompatible
>
> I said that carrying more feature patches makes it "more likely" that
> packages from other distros will work, not "100% certain" (which is
>
On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 6:47 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>> 2 distributions add slightly different versions of the same functionality
>> -> incompatible
>
> I said that carrying more feature patches makes it "more likely" that
> packages from other distros will work, not "100%
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> 2 distributions add slightly different versions of the same functionality
> -> incompatible
I said that carrying more feature patches makes it "more likely" that
packages from other distros will work, not "100% certain" (which is
obviously not possible when there are inco
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Precisely RPM Fusion is recently example which does not work ... Where
> are Rawhide builds? Where are the F23 builds ...
They are in the middle of an infrastructure transition and decided to not do
any more branches on the old infrastructure, which is really an RPM Fusion
p
- Original Message -
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > Because adding downstream features to a system library really is the way
> > to keep ABI (not). We wouldn't even be able to use Ubuntu binaries in
> > Fedora.
>
> As long as we only ADD features, using foreign binaries on Fedora should
> w
Dne 12.10.2015 v 17:20 Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> and we ignore the rest of the world who could build something useful on
>> the top of the Fedora.
> They just need to rebuild their stuff as well. It works fine for RPM Fusion.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
Precisely RPM Fusion is
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> and we ignore the rest of the world who could build something useful on
> the top of the Fedora.
They just need to rebuild their stuff as well. It works fine for RPM Fusion.
Kevin Kofler
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject
Adam Jackson wrote:
> You can compute this statically. You know the DT_NEEDED tree for every
> dynamic object.
… only if dlopen is not used (which, as I am going to explain below, is not
anywhere near as harmless as you think).
> For applications that don't call dlopen (themselves or in their
>
Bastien Nocera wrote:
> Because adding downstream features to a system library really is the way
> to keep ABI (not). We wouldn't even be able to use Ubuntu binaries in
> Fedora.
As long as we only ADD features, using foreign binaries on Fedora should
work fine. The opposite might not, but that's
On Sat, 2015-10-10 at 01:51 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> * Scanning binary packages for conflicting symbols does not work either
> because they are only a problem if the conflicting libraries get dragged
> into the same executable at runtime.
You can compute this statically. You know the DT_
Dne 10.10.2015 v 02:50 Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
> Chris Adams wrote:
>> Is that short-sighted? IMHO yes. Can Fedora fix that? Doubtful.
>> There are three choices:
>>
>> - Fedora attempts to patch in a stable(-enough) ABI, build shared
>> libraries, and unbundle all consumers of said libraries.
- Original Message -
> Adam Jackson wrote:
> > Bundling is _not_ intrinsically poor practice. Firefox is a good
> > example of this,
>
> Firefox is exactly an example of how NOT to do things, and I'm fed up of it
> getting a blanket exception to our packaging guidelines. And now the "fi
Dne 9.10.2015 v 17:46 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:05:00 +0200
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
>> This does not scale unfortunately ... and it is common excuse to not
>> support it properly. IOW, I want to have package foo-1.0 installed
>> side by side with foo-2.0 and I don't want to hav
Just replying to this one point:
On 10/11/2015 02:29 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> 3. There is a common credo (which I do not adher to) in Fedora that upstream
>should be followed blindly ("upstream, upstream, upstream").
My interpretation of this is completely different than yours. :)
To me it
Haïkel wrote:
> In short: packagers are not to be trusted, that's the bottom line of
> your argumentation.
Not at all! It is funny that you are accusing me of distrusting packagers
when I have been arguing for years that packagers ARE to be trusted and thus
the restrictions on updates need to go
Neal Gompa wrote:
> Then it sounds like it would make more sense to have a mechanism to
> automatically add the user-visible version number rather than the soname.
> Though, I don't quite understand what the purpose for sonames are in the
> first place, if they aren't really designed for supportin
On 10/09/2015 11:30 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
Though, I don't quite understand what the purpose for sonames
are in the first place, if they aren't really designed for supporting
parallel installable stuff...
They signal a break in ABI. Applications must be recompiled to link to
the new version be
2015-10-10 1:31 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kofler :
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> When the packager has reasoned belief that debundling is actively bad
>> in some way for this package, I think we should trust the packager. I
>> know not everyone on this thread agrees, but in general, Fedora
>> *always* places a
On 09/10/15 21:13, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> I completely, wholeheartedly agree with you here. However, the
> unfortunate fact of life is that we can lead a horse to water but
> cannot make them drink. Our previous policy was essentially holding
> the horse's head under the water until it drained
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:32 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Neal Gompa wrote:
> > At this point in time, Fedora is the only major distribution I know of
> > that doesn't use versioned shared library package names. Both SUSE and
> > Mageia do, and of course the Debian/Ubuntu family does. I've spoken to
Neal Gompa wrote:
> At this point in time, Fedora is the only major distribution I know of
> that doesn't use versioned shared library package names. Both SUSE and
> Mageia do, and of course the Debian/Ubuntu family does. I've spoken to
> folks working in both SUSE and Mageia (especially Mageia as
Adam Jackson wrote:
> Bundling is _not_ intrinsically poor practice. Firefox is a good
> example of this,
Firefox is exactly an example of how NOT to do things, and I'm fed up of it
getting a blanket exception to our packaging guidelines. And now the "fix"
is to simply remove the guideline for
Chris Adams wrote:
> Is that short-sighted? IMHO yes. Can Fedora fix that? Doubtful.
> There are three choices:
>
> - Fedora attempts to patch in a stable(-enough) ABI, build shared
> libraries, and unbundle all consumers of said libraries. This is a
> large (and growing) amount of work, a
Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> IMHO all we need is to support multiple version of same library
> to be installable -- that's mine point why usability of Fedora
> is miles behind other distros.
Then you open the doors to symbol conflicts (see my reply to Adam Jackson
elsewhere in this thread).
And t
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <
zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 11:38:30AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> > On 10/09/2015 10:27 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:46:11AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > >> On Fri
Adam Jackson wrote:
> I'd call that the app not working, yes. Symbol conflicts are literally
> trivial to find, I'm really not sure why you bring the point up.
Because it is the worst possible consequence of bundled libraries (or abuse
of compatibility libraries – there too, more effort needs to
Matthew Miller wrote:
> When the packager has reasoned belief that debundling is actively bad
> in some way for this package, I think we should trust the packager. I
> know not everyone on this thread agrees, but in general, Fedora
> *always* places a high level of trust in our packagers to make th
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 11:38:30AM -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 10:27 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:46:11AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:05:00 +0200
> >> Vít Ondruch wrote:
> >>
> >>> This does not scale unfortunately
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 08:04:39PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This doesn't have to be. It is possible to write libraries, even very
> complex ones, with endless backwards compatibility. It's what libvirt
> does. And the kernel (almost always).
>
> In fact I'd say breaking your ABI contr
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/09/2015 03:04 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:36:37PM +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>> But in the real-world - version changes, it gets incompatible,
>> requires some new way how to use it and so on
>
> This doesn'
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones said:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:36:37PM +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> > But in the real-world - version changes, it gets incompatible,
> > requires some new way how to use it and so on
>
> This doesn't have to be. It is possible to write libraries, ev
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 04:36:37PM +0200, Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> But in the real-world - version changes, it gets incompatible,
> requires some new way how to use it and so on
This doesn't have to be. It is possible to write libraries, even very
complex ones, with endless backwards compatibi
On 10/09/2015 10:27 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:46:11AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:05:00 +0200
>> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>
>>> This does not scale unfortunately ... and it is common excuse to not
>>> support it properly. IOW, I want to h
On 10/09/2015 08:16 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> Reality is complicated, we would do well to recognize that.
>
> - ajax
>
Thank you very much for the excellent posts.
--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA, Boulder/CoRA Office FAX: 303-415-9702
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 11:00:30AM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > +1 And I was serious about it, rather sticking to guidelines as if
> > they were dogma, I prefer positive actions to fight poor
> > practices.
> I'm thoroughly behind this. I think an unbundling SIG is a far better
> solution to
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 09:46:11AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:05:00 +0200
> Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> > This does not scale unfortunately ... and it is common excuse to not
> > support it properly. IOW, I want to have package foo-1.0 installed
> > side by side with foo-2.0 and
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 14:55 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> Interesting taking the consumer perspective.
>
> So where does FESCo intend to draw the line now that it has chosen to
> head down this path.
I mean, I can't speak for fesco as a whole, but speaking for myself: I
reject the quest
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:22:34 +0200
Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> If all it would take would be e.g. : dnf install-compat
>
> Otherwise you basically require that every user of Fedora is
> supposedly quite skilled rpm package-maintainer ??
> (Which would roughly cut the user-base only to those who ac
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 17:05:00 +0200
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> This does not scale unfortunately ... and it is common excuse to not
> support it properly. IOW, I want to have package foo-1.0 installed
> side by side with foo-2.0 and I don't want to have foo1-1.0 side by
> side with foo-2.0. And this appl
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 10:16:31AM -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> So from an OS maintenance perspective we have to recognize that
> bundling code occasionally does have merit, and that it is incumbent on
> us to manage it well. And from a Fedora perspective, we have to
> acknowledge that a prohibi
Dne 9.10.2015 v 16:41 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:36:37 +0200
Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
IMHO all we need is to support multiple version of same library
to be installable -- that's mine point why usability of Fedora
is miles behind other distros.
...snip...
We do.
If you nee
Dne 9.10.2015 v 16:41 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:36:37 +0200
> Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
>
>> IMHO all we need is to support multiple version of same library
>> to be installable -- that's mine point why usability of Fedora
>> is miles behind other distros.
> ...snip...
>
> We
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:02 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 10/09/2015 03:51 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:50:27PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>>
>>> This opens the door to all kinds of duplication, waste of disk space,
waste
of RAM, symbol conflicts and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/09/2015 10:42 AM, Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-10-09 16:20 GMT+02:00 Neal Gompa :
>>
>> A SIG dedicated to going through our packages and "systemizing"
>> them (e.g. unbundling them) would probably be a really good idea,
>> especially with the new rules
On 10/09/2015 02:16 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:50 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>I agree - the new wording does appear to give in to poor programming
>practices.
Bundling is_not_ intrinsically poor practice. Firefox is a good
example of this, there have been severa
2015-10-09 16:20 GMT+02:00 Neal Gompa :
>
> A SIG dedicated to going through our packages and "systemizing" them (e.g.
> unbundling them) would probably be a really good idea, especially with the
> new rules. A group of packagers experienced in this could be solicited to
> help with trickier packag
On Fri, 9 Oct 2015 16:36:37 +0200
Zdenek Kabelac wrote:
> IMHO all we need is to support multiple version of same library
> to be installable -- that's mine point why usability of Fedora
> is miles behind other distros.
...snip...
We do.
If you need a different version of a library, you ca
Dne 9.10.2015 v 16:16 Adam Jackson napsal(a):
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:50 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I agree - the new wording does appear to give in to poor programming
practices.
Bundling is _not_ intrinsically poor practice. Firefox is a good
example of this, there have been several
On 2015-10-09 10:02 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 10/09/2015 03:51 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:50:27PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
This opens the door to all kinds of duplication, waste of disk
space, waste
of RAM, symbol conflicts and unfixed security issues!
I a
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 5:45 AM, Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-10-09 1:17 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kofler :
> > Haïkel wrote:
> >> Not that I'm 100% happy with the way it happened but this has been a
> >> very long-lived topic. To some, it'll be a hasty decision, to others,
> >> it's already a late one.
> >
> > The
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 13:50 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> I agree - the new wording does appear to give in to poor programming
> practices.
Bundling is _not_ intrinsically poor practice. Firefox is a good
example of this, there have been several cases where using the system
instance of cair
On 10/09/2015 03:51 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:50:27PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
This opens the door to all kinds of duplication, waste of disk space, waste
of RAM, symbol conflicts and unfixed security issues!
I agree - the new wording does appear to give in to
On Fri, Oct 09, 2015 at 01:50:27PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > This opens the door to all kinds of duplication, waste of disk space, waste
> > of RAM, symbol conflicts and unfixed security issues!
> I agree - the new wording does appear to give in to poor programming
> practices.
Do you
On Fri, 2015-10-09 at 01:22 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Adam Jackson wrote:
> > From the consumer's perspective it makes zero difference whether a
> > particular library is bundled or not, as long as the app works.
>
> Only until they run into their first symbol conflict due to conflicting
> bun
On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:06:31AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection
> > (sgallagh, 18:11:40)
> > * LINK: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/276064/44243383/ is sgallaghs
> > proposal without the critpa
On 10/09/2015 12:08 AM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Wednesday, 07 October 2015 at 21:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
Meeting summary
---
[...]
* #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection
(sgallagh, 18:11:40)
* LINK: http://paste.fedoraprojec
2015-10-09 1:17 GMT+02:00 Kevin Kofler :
> Haïkel wrote:
>> Not that I'm 100% happy with the way it happened but this has been a
>> very long-lived topic. To some, it'll be a hasty decision, to others,
>> it's already a late one.
>
> There's a REASON it had always been shot down so far!
>
>> Please
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> Hey, you sound pretty upset. The analogy on offer is quite extreme,
> presumably in proportion to how bothered you are, and unfortunately
> suggests a negative view of the those who proposed/supported the
> change. Let's try a different analogy: Fedora is the house, the o
Haïkel wrote:
> This was discussed, I remember that this very point being raised by rishi.
> We agreed (but not voted) that packages with dead upstream should
> unbundle.
But it is only policy if it is written down in the letter of the policy.
> => I don't think anyone is against strict unbundlin
On 10/08/2015 03:32 PM, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Friday, 09 October 2015 at 00:14, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 10/08/2015 08:48 AM, Haïkel wrote:
[snip]
Please keep in mind, that Fesco is aware this is not a perfect
solution, and we''ll gladly review any proposals to improve this
Adam Jackson wrote:
> From the consumer's perspective it makes zero difference whether a
> particular library is bundled or not, as long as the app works.
Only until they run into their first symbol conflict due to conflicting
bundled libraries.
And even if there are no symbol conflicts, they WI
Haïkel wrote:
> Not that I'm 100% happy with the way it happened but this has been a
> very long-lived topic. To some, it'll be a hasty decision, to others,
> it's already a late one.
There's a REASON it had always been shot down so far!
> Please keep in mind, that Fesco is aware this is not a pe
Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Nothing can stop you fighting against bundling, checking packages,
> reporting bundling, working with upstream on unbundling etc. You could
> at least try to take a positive view, not the most negative you can.
If the maintainer refuses to unbundle against upstream's wishes, u
2015-10-09 0:08 GMT+02:00 Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski
:
> On Wednesday, 07 October 2015 at 21:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> Meeting summary
>> ---
> [...]
>> * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection
>> (sgallagh, 18:11:40)
>> * LINK: http://paste.fed
On Friday, 09 October 2015 at 00:14, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 10/08/2015 08:48 AM, Haïkel wrote:
> [snip]
> >Please keep in mind, that Fesco is aware this is not a perfect
> >solution, and we''ll gladly review any proposals to improve this
> >policy. But we can keep discussing this for years, or
On 10/08/2015 08:48 AM, Haïkel wrote:
[snip]
Please keep in mind, that Fesco is aware this is not a perfect
solution, and we''ll gladly review any proposals to improve this
policy. But we can keep discussing this for years, or try to solve
this issue incrementally. We chose the latter.
[snip]
R
On Wednesday, 07 October 2015 at 21:17, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Meeting summary
> ---
[...]
> * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection
> (sgallagh, 18:11:40)
> * LINK: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/276064/44243383/ is sgallaghs
> proposal without
On Thu, 2015-10-08 at 10:55 +0200, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> Yes, it seems the quantity over quality view won. :(
This is a false dichotomy. The ultimate metric of quality is whether
the distribution contains a working copy of the software you want to
run. Bundling is a maintenance concern for _peopl
2015-10-08 10:55 GMT+02:00 Tomas Mraz :
> On Čt, 2015-10-08 at 00:06 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> > * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection
>> > (sgallagh, 18:11:40)
>> > * LINK: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/276064/44243383/ is sgallag
On Čt, 2015-10-08 at 00:06 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection
> > (sgallagh, 18:11:40)
> > * LINK: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/276064/44243383/ is sgallaghs
> > proposal without the critpath disti
Dne 8.10.2015 v 00:06 Kevin Kofler napsal(a):
> Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>> * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection
>> (sgallagh, 18:11:40)
>> * LINK: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/276064/44243383/ is sgallaghs
>> proposal without the critpath distinction (nir
Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> * #1483 Decision on bundling policy in the Fedora Package Collection
> (sgallagh, 18:11:40)
> * LINK: http://paste.fedoraproject.org/276064/44243383/ is sgallaghs
> proposal without the critpath distinction (nirik, 18:43:49)
> * AGREED: Adjust the packaging pol
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
===
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2015-10-07)
===
Meeting started by sgallagh at 18:00:47 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2015-10-07/fesco.2
80 matches
Mail list logo
