Re: security bug (Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!)
Hi, I sent a request to docs ml but I did not receive any response. I also do not see any related stuff in documentation http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats To whom should I go with this? (I'd do it myself if I only knew English well and I would be Fedora dev :)) W dniu 22 kwietnia 2011 19:00 użytkownik Jared K. Smith napisał: > 2011/4/22 Michał Piotrowski : >> I believe that users should be warned about problem described here >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693253 >> >> It seems to me that it would be appropriate to write about it in >> "Known Issues" in release notes. > > Thanks for the note. > > The suggestion that we add this to the "Known Issues" section of the > release notes sounds very reasonable to me. Have you asked the Docs > team to add it. > > As the thread on the systemd-devel list (linked from the bug report > you opened) suggests, there are *many* ways that local users can cause > a local DoS by consuming resources. And yes, I agree that quota > support for tmpfs is probably a good long-term solution, but I think > we can all reasonably agree that quota support isn't going to be > written and tested in time for Fedora 15, and that it's not worth > postponing the release of Fedora 15 to wait for quota support. > Documenting it is the next best course of action, I think. > > -- > Jared Smith > Fedora Project Leader > -- Best regards, Michal http://eventhorizon.pl/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On 04/29/2011 11:05 AM, mike cloaked wrote: > On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:14 AM, John Keller wrote: > >> Right now the only options, to my knowledge, are to use the netinst >> (hybrid image) or use some special tool/process to convert the DVD ISO >> into a bootable USB key. The former can be flaky (as you mention) and >> the latter is cumbersome (and has the drawback of essentially testing >> something different than the actual DVD image). >> >> Would hybrid DVD ISOs be feasible going forward? > > I use livecd-iso-to-disk (regularly and frequently), to make a > bootable USB key for the DVD isos to do installs - it just works - > > I am puzzled as to why there is perceived to be a need to have > additional tools or additional hybrid isos? I certainly wasn't asking for additional tools, in fact I think livecd-iso-to-disk already qualifies as one. :-) I was asking for two reasons: One, convenience; two, portability. Yes, the tools used on Fedora "just work" if you already run a Fedora system. But if you use a different distro, the same tools are usually unavailable or don't work with the installed libraries. It's hard to get more universal than a simple "dd". A third reason came to me while writing the email you quote, but don't seem to address: When using anything but "dd", you're essentially testing something different than the ISO (since, as I understand it, tools like livecd-iso-to-disk create their own initrd). If a hybrid were created, we'd be testing the image as-is, without having to burn a disc. - John -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On 04/29/2011 05:43 AM, Mathieu Bridon wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 02:29 -0700, Ryan Rix wrote: >> On Tue 26 April 2011 21:58:08 Mathieu Bridon wrote: >>> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: it is better to have the package (even if it's poorly maintained) than to not have it at all! >>> >>> I think that's where some of us disagree with you. >>> >>> Having lots of parts of poor quality doesn't raise the global quality of >>> Fedora. Having only a few parts, each of excellent quality, does. >> >> Yeah, it's great until users start leaving for distros which actually have >> packages of stuff they use. > > The alternative being that users leave for distros which actually > properly maintain packages of stuff they use. :) > > Could we put them into a low-no-maintenance repo then - so they are available but caveat emptor? However the primay benefit of a repo, is that (a) its simple to install (b) it will update easily via yum. For things that are not being maintained upstream, (b) does not apply so its only (a). For things that are not maintained by fedora team but are active upstream, having them in a fedora repo seems silly. gene/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 02:29 -0700, Ryan Rix wrote: > On Tue 26 April 2011 21:58:08 Mathieu Bridon wrote: > > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > > it is better to have the package (even if it's poorly > > > maintained) than to not have it at all! > > > > I think that's where some of us disagree with you. > > > > Having lots of parts of poor quality doesn't raise the global quality of > > Fedora. Having only a few parts, each of excellent quality, does. > > Yeah, it's great until users start leaving for distros which actually have > packages of stuff they use. The alternative being that users leave for distros which actually properly maintain packages of stuff they use. :) -- Mathieu -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Tue 26 April 2011 21:58:08 Mathieu Bridon wrote: > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > it is better to have the package (even if it's poorly > > maintained) than to not have it at all! > > I think that's where some of us disagree with you. > > Having lots of parts of poor quality doesn't raise the global quality of > Fedora. Having only a few parts, each of excellent quality, does. Yeah, it's great until users start leaving for distros which actually have packages of stuff they use. r -- Ryan Rix == http://hackersramblings.wordpress.com | http://rix.si/ == == http://rix.si/page/contact/ if you need a word == 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: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 8:14 AM, John Keller wrote: > Right now the only options, to my knowledge, are to use the netinst > (hybrid image) or use some special tool/process to convert the DVD ISO > into a bootable USB key. The former can be flaky (as you mention) and > the latter is cumbersome (and has the drawback of essentially testing > something different than the actual DVD image). > > Would hybrid DVD ISOs be feasible going forward? I use livecd-iso-to-disk (regularly and frequently), to make a bootable USB key for the DVD isos to do installs - it just works - I am puzzled as to why there is perceived to be a need to have additional tools or additional hybrid isos? -- mike c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On 04/26/2011 06:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 07:55 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> I decided to reinstall using netinstall.iso. > > Just a general note here: during pre-release time netinstall is always > more likely to have trouble than media install. We test installation of > the pre-release media (Alpha, Beta) quite heavily. Network install, even > with updates-testing disabled, will use whatever packages have made it > to stable; making it to stable isn't contingent on anyone doing > installation testing, so it's perfectly normal for issues to creep in > (these are the ones we wind up shaking out around the TC stage when we > get to a pre-release point). So just in general, you're more likely to > hit problems doing a network install than a media install, at > pre-release time. Hi, Adam. This was why in another thread on the test list that I'd asked about the possibility of making the images hybrid. That would allow them to be "dd"'ed to a USB key instead of burning a DVD with each new prerelease. Right now the only options, to my knowledge, are to use the netinst (hybrid image) or use some special tool/process to convert the DVD ISO into a bootable USB key. The former can be flaky (as you mention) and the latter is cumbersome (and has the drawback of essentially testing something different than the actual DVD image). Would hybrid DVD ISOs be feasible going forward? - John -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 19:11:16 +0200, KK wrote: > > Will you resurrect the packages when their package maintainer retires > > them after F-15 gold despite of you having fixed them to build? > > Retiring the packages is evil in the first place, and IMHO we're making it > way too easy. Packages should only get retired if they are replaced by > something different with equivalent or superior functionality or if they > really cannot be made to work at all (e.g. because they depend on an online > service that went away). The mere lack of an active maintainer shouldn't be > a reason to retire a package. It's the opposite. The lack of an active maintainer is harmful. In particular, if the maintainer used to work on multiple packages. That moves one step closer to the infamous dumping ground for poorly maintained packages. The "nobody is responsible for this package - anybody is free to mess with packages - and it could be that a package just doesn't get any love at all because nobody even _tries_ to give it some love". Who will decide on when to upgrade? Who will monitor upstream development (for the case that the pkg maintainer is not an upstream dev)? Who will work together with upstream on fixes where upstream development is beneficial? > > Do you take over packages where it is discovered that they are > > unmaintained in Fedora for a long time? > > Depends on the package. But see above, I don't think being unmaintained > should be a reason for dropping the package, as long as it works. What about packages that don't work? (where a rebuild or build-fix doesn't make the software work) What about existing problem reports? Who will handle them? Who will forward them upstream? Who will see if upstream has pending fixes in their source repo? If you have interest in a package beyond just fixing something in Rawhide, you should sign up as a [co-]maintainer of that pkg for the dist releases. > An effective way to distribute the load is to form a SIG of provenpackagers > stepping in to fix broken dependencies, FTBFS issues etc. This has been > proposed a few times, I'd still be willing to sign up! The point is to > DISTRIBUTE the load instead of relying on a single point of failure (the > maintainer of the package). Here I also experience the opposite. An increasing number of package maintainers just don't have any spare cycles to even consider spending time on other people's packages. Except when there are dependencies that need to be dealt with (and e.g. require porting something to a changed API). Also pay attention to what people give as reason when they declare a package an orphan. No time, no interest anymore, not using the pkg anymore. And *you* want to jump in everytime that happens and play with the growing pile of packages whenever you like to? > Well, yes. I cannot sign up to maintain 1000 packages (this just doesn't > scale), but I can step in and make them build again when they're broken. How many? 100? 1000? ;-) > (I've done it several times in the past.) And as I said elsewhere in this > thread, it's better to have a package available as is than to not have it at > all! Unconvincing. You want the "quantity vs. quality" game? It's still better to _try_ to offer stuff that works and _try_ to add some value to it (bug-fixes, updates, testing, cherry-picking of releases perhaps, ...). Even without any guarantees, it's the attempt that counts. > That's exactly why I shouldn't be the only one doing this work! I haven't > been able to do broken dep fixing for a while and it shows. With a statement like that, you've just driven a nail into the coffin. One or two overworked members of the "Dumping-ground Maintenance Squad", and the whole plan of jumping in where possible, becomes unfeasible. First you try to replace missing maintainers, then it becomes necessary to replace a lack of SIG members. ... And eventually the SIG learns that the number of non-working packages (with a growing bug count) increases despite the steady grunt-work to rebuild stuff. > By the way, I'm not the only one who used to fix broken dependencies every > so often. Alex Lancaster often fixed a lot of them, as did some other > people. But instead of encouraging such fixing and having an organized SIG > formed for it, we get told not to do it. Do you really think this is in the > best interest of our users? Yes, for the various reasons given before. The commitment to rebuild arbitrary packages doesn't say anything about what would be done to _try_ to maintain the packages as one piece of the Fedora Package Collection. > > Don't generalize. I refer to the scenario where weeks or months pass > > without a package "owner" doing basic package maintenance and without > > asking for help. There are various examples, and I've looked up one > > for you: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/460557 > > I think you, or any provenpackager really, should just fix those obvious > issues. I might even do it myself
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On 04/26/2011 01:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Retiring the packages is evil in the first place, and IMHO we're making it > way too easy. Packages should only get retired if they are replaced by > something different with equivalent or superior functionality or if they > really cannot be made to work at all (e.g. because they depend on an online > service that went away). The mere lack of an active maintainer shouldn't be > a reason to retire a package. I agree with your sentiment, but we have to avoid getting in a situation where unmaintained packages deteriorate to a point where they damage the reputation of the entire distribution. The older folk will remember with caution the old shareware repositories from the nineties: tons of software but overall poor quality and general waste of time. Unfortunately, there's an infinitely fine spectrum of breakage, between 'Fails to Compile From Source', through 'fails to run', to crashing on simple tasks, or on complex operations. I hope AutoQA can be used to detect breakage at higher levels than is currently the case. In any case we have to have some criteria on when we ban the broken package, but where do we draw the line? I would even suggest that retiring packages is, in a way, counter-productive. If there's a person interested in some functionality to a sufficient degree so that they went out, found and installed the relevant software, that person might be actually interested in getting involved in fixing such package---so there may be some utility in keeping _slightly_ broken packages, even though too much and too broken stuff would be bad. Perhaps it would make sense to flag packages that have known maintenance issues (whether known bugs or just lack of maintenance staff): say, pop a message box upon running directing people to existing bugzilla entries and/or maintainer signup page :) My point here is that if we can signal that the distribution knows and cares about breakage, and there's a way forward towards fixing it, the deficiencies don't look as bad. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 07:55 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Initially (1st try), I tried a "customized package set". I was warned > about a long series of missing deps. The install however proceeded and > ended with anaconda raising before-mentioned error. > > Then, (2nd try) I tried a "default package set" w/ *testing deactivate. > I was warned about gnome-session missing dependency and ended up with > "Oh no! This would be when you hit the issue I linked you to on test mailing list. There was an issue with Bodhi where somehow when an update which included three packages (gnome-shell, gnome-panel and gnome-menus) was pushed to stable, only the gnome-shell update actually made it; the combination of the new gnome-shell and the old gnome-menus produced the fail whale. This has been fixed since. For future reference, the fail whale shows up when a process managed by gnome-session crashes more than once soon after startup (i.e. when something's failing in a loop). -- 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: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Fri, 2011-04-22 at 07:55 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > I decided to reinstall using netinstall.iso. Just a general note here: during pre-release time netinstall is always more likely to have trouble than media install. We test installation of the pre-release media (Alpha, Beta) quite heavily. Network install, even with updates-testing disabled, will use whatever packages have made it to stable; making it to stable isn't contingent on anyone doing installation testing, so it's perfectly normal for issues to creep in (these are the ones we wind up shaking out around the TC stage when we get to a pre-release point). So just in general, you're more likely to hit problems doing a network install than a media install, at pre-release time. -- 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: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
Michael Schwendt wrote: > Will you resurrect the packages when their package maintainer retires > them after F-15 gold despite of you having fixed them to build? Retiring the packages is evil in the first place, and IMHO we're making it way too easy. Packages should only get retired if they are replaced by something different with equivalent or superior functionality or if they really cannot be made to work at all (e.g. because they depend on an online service that went away). The mere lack of an active maintainer shouldn't be a reason to retire a package. > Do you take over packages where it is discovered that they are > unmaintained in Fedora for a long time? Depends on the package. But see above, I don't think being unmaintained should be a reason for dropping the package, as long as it works. > Will you respond to incoming problem reports that would be assigned > to orphan-owner only? No (unless I'm picking the package up), that's the whole point. Making packages work on an as-is basis doesn't require signing up to handle any and all issues reported against them. >> We should work together as a community > > We do, we do! Still we want to have at least one dedicated person take > care of a package including bug reports. We want to distribute the load > and scale, not create a growing pile we cannot handle. I've used the > provenpackagers powers before, too, but still I'd like to _work together_ > with other people, and as a requirement I'd like to see that the other > people as busy with other packagers or at least are still around instead > of having left the Fedora Project silently. An effective way to distribute the load is to form a SIG of provenpackagers stepping in to fix broken dependencies, FTBFS issues etc. This has been proposed a few times, I'd still be willing to sign up! The point is to DISTRIBUTE the load instead of relying on a single point of failure (the maintainer of the package). > Nobody, not nobody else. The problem is when "nobody" seems to be > responsible, not even the guys who are on the list of a package's > maintainers. > > I think what you call responsibility is something different. If you have a > spare hour, you'd like to jump in and touch arbitrary packages in > arbitrary ways. Not limited to Rawhide. You don't take responsibility for > the package in bugzilla. Not for existing tickets and not for future ones > either. And you don't care to find out why "nobody" has applied a fix > faster than you. Well, yes. I cannot sign up to maintain 1000 packages (this just doesn't scale), but I can step in and make them build again when they're broken. (I've done it several times in the past.) And as I said elsewhere in this thread, it's better to have a package available as is than to not have it at all! > It's not even likely that you will be available next time the same package > needs another fix or rebuild, if its maintainer is still absent. That's exactly why I shouldn't be the only one doing this work! I haven't been able to do broken dep fixing for a while and it shows. The situation in F15 is also particularly bad! Usually, at this stage of the release cycle, there was just a dozen packages or so that needed fixing and I could just fix them all in a couple days. This time, it's a big mess. We really need a SIG taking care of broken dependencies globally, and we also need to encourage the people who broke the dependencies (e.g. by bumping the soname of some library) to take care of fixing the fallout. Our freeze strategy is also not helping fixing this, e.g. all the fixes had to go through Bodhi even between Alpha and Beta; in the past, the tree was self-populating until the Beta (or Preview, as it used to be called) freeze. This causes extra work when trying to fix the breakage. > If there is nobody left to maintain a package, you cannot work together > with anyone. It would be a one-man show. How many packages do you really > feel responsible for? Does that include packages you don't even use? The idea is that it shouldn't be just me doing this, there should be a SIG for this. By the way, I'm not the only one who used to fix broken dependencies every so often. Alex Lancaster often fixed a lot of them, as did some other people. But instead of encouraging such fixing and having an organized SIG formed for it, we get told not to do it. Do you really think this is in the best interest of our users? > Don't generalize. I refer to the scenario where weeks or months pass > without a package "owner" doing basic package maintenance and without > asking for help. There are various examples, and I've looked up one > for you: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/460557 I think you, or any provenpackager really, should just fix those obvious issues. I might even do it myself, even though I don't use this package at all. >> I think it is of value to Fedora to ship as much (useful and properly >> licensed) software as possible. > > _Wo
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 16:21 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Mathieu Bridon wrote: > > I think that's where some of us disagree with you. > > > > Having lots of parts of poor quality doesn't raise the global quality of > > Fedora. Having only a few parts, each of excellent quality, does. > > If you really NEED a certain piece of software (for a job, for a hobby or > for whatever reason), would you rather: > * have it available, though possibly not with an active maintainer? > * not have it available at all? If I really needed a certain piece of software and no one else was actively maintaining it, I would become an active maintainer. If I can't maintain something myself and no one else is doing it, I will try as hard as possible to depend on something else. Active maintenance is, to me, at least as important as the actual quality of the software (an actively maintained software that is deficient now will improve over time). -- Mathieu -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:26:40 +0200, KK wrote: > > Arbitrary provenpackagers spending time on rebuilding semi-orphaned > > packages (or even incorrectly retired packages) isn't helpful. > > Actually, IMHO it is. Will you resurrect the packages when their package maintainer retires them after F-15 gold despite of you having fixed them to build? Do you take over packages where it is discovered that they are unmaintained in Fedora for a long time? Your answer won't be an unconditional "yes" to either question. Will you respond to incoming problem reports that would be assigned to orphan-owner only? > We should work together as a community We do, we do! Still we want to have at least one dedicated person take care of a package including bug reports. We want to distribute the load and scale, not create a growing pile we cannot handle. I've used the provenpackagers powers before, too, but still I'd like to _work together_ with other people, and as a requirement I'd like to see that the other people as busy with other packagers or at least are still around instead of having left the Fedora Project silently. > and get rid of > this idea that packages are owned by one person (or a short list of people) > and nobody else is responsible for them. Nobody, not nobody else. The problem is when "nobody" seems to be responsible, not even the guys who are on the list of a package's maintainers. I think what you call responsibility is something different. If you have a spare hour, you'd like to jump in and touch arbitrary packages in arbitrary ways. Not limited to Rawhide. You don't take responsibility for the package in bugzilla. Not for existing tickets and not for future ones either. And you don't care to find out why "nobody" has applied a fix faster than you. It's not even likely that you will be available next time the same package needs another fix or rebuild, if its maintainer is still absent. > If something is broken in Fedora, > we should work together to fix it. If there is nobody left to maintain a package, you cannot work together with anyone. It would be a one-man show. How many packages do you really feel responsible for? Does that include packages you don't even use? > Rebuilds to fix broken dependencies > (possibly with patches to fix FTBFS issues) are an easy way to help making > Fedora as a whole better. Don't generalize. I refer to the scenario where weeks or months pass without a package "owner" doing basic package maintenance and without asking for help. There are various examples, and I've looked up one for you: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/460557 > I think it is of value to Fedora to ship as much (useful and properly > licensed) software as possible. _Working_ software. With the Fedora Packager handling incoming problem reports, because the problems may be specific to Fedora. > That software is clearly useful to somebody > or it wouldn't have been packaged in the first place. "Somebody" could be just the package submitter. And if that person isn't active anymore (sometimes without prior announcement), who else is left? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
Mathieu Bridon wrote: > I think that's where some of us disagree with you. > > Having lots of parts of poor quality doesn't raise the global quality of > Fedora. Having only a few parts, each of excellent quality, does. If you really NEED a certain piece of software (for a job, for a hobby or for whatever reason), would you rather: * have it available, though possibly not with an active maintainer? * not have it available at all? (If, on the other hand, you don't actually need the software, why do you care whether it is actively maintained or not?) Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 15:43 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > it is better to have the package (even if it's poorly > maintained) than to not have it at all! I think that's where some of us disagree with you. Having lots of parts of poor quality doesn't raise the global quality of Fedora. Having only a few parts, each of excellent quality, does. -- Mathieu -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
Kevin Fenzi wrote: > How do you (as provenpackager) know whats broken? Do you look over bug > reports for packages you fix? Do you talk with upstream and check for > bugs there or new releases? Do you use the package day to day and fix > or report issues you run into? > > Or do you just fix it so it builds and works for you? Actually, I just fix it so it builds, period. ;-) > If you do do those things, why not become a maintainer of the package > in Fedora? If you don't, can you see why this is not a substitute for > someone more involved in the package? It's not a substitute, but in the absence of that "someone more involved in the package", it is better to have the package (even if it's poorly maintained) than to not have it at all! Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 15:26:40 +0200 Kevin Kofler wrote: > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Arbitrary provenpackagers spending time on rebuilding semi-orphaned > > packages (or even incorrectly retired packages) isn't helpful. > > Actually, IMHO it is. We should work together as a community and get > rid of this idea that packages are owned by one person (or a short > list of people) and nobody else is responsible for them. If something > is broken in Fedora, we should work together to fix it. Rebuilds to > fix broken dependencies (possibly with patches to fix FTBFS issues) > are an easy way to help making Fedora as a whole better. How do you (as provenpackager) know whats broken? Do you look over bug reports for packages you fix? Do you talk with upstream and check for bugs there or new releases? Do you use the package day to day and fix or report issues you run into? Or do you just fix it so it builds and works for you? If you do do those things, why not become a maintainer of the package in Fedora? If you don't, can you see why this is not a substitute for someone more involved in the package? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
Michael Schwendt wrote: > Arbitrary provenpackagers spending time on rebuilding semi-orphaned > packages (or even incorrectly retired packages) isn't helpful. Actually, IMHO it is. We should work together as a community and get rid of this idea that packages are owned by one person (or a short list of people) and nobody else is responsible for them. If something is broken in Fedora, we should work together to fix it. Rebuilds to fix broken dependencies (possibly with patches to fix FTBFS issues) are an easy way to help making Fedora as a whole better. I think it is of value to Fedora to ship as much (useful and properly licensed) software as possible. That software is clearly useful to somebody or it wouldn't have been packaged in the first place. Aggressively dropping packages when they could easily be fixed is not helpful. Count me as an inclusionist: A package which got through the trouble of getting added to Fedora should stay there, if remotely possible! Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:33:23 -0400, BN wrote: > > > We consider broken deps within the set of packages included in the > > > released images to block the release, but there are none of those in > > > Beta. Broken deps outside the package set that gets on images aren't > > > really as important. > > > > Sure, but it would be wise to come up with a deadline and remove the > > broken packages from the Everything repo _prior_ to the release of F-15. > > If they can't be installed, let's not ship them. Once fixed, they could > > return as updates. > > This has never been done in the past ; we'd need a new process for > this. You've used one before when pruning the orphans *and* their dependencies. You've created and announced a list of what packages would be removed and when the deadline would be. What would be important now is a sign-of-life from the package maintainers, since some pkgs are on the list for a long time. Arbitrary provenpackagers spending time on rebuilding semi-orphaned packages (or even incorrectly retired packages) isn't helpful. Especially not if later on the packagers decide to retire packages nevertheless. Such as (but not limited to) the various GNOME applets. Then there would be no Updates to fix uninstallable packages available in the Fedora "Everything" repo. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
Michael Schwendt (mschwe...@gmail.com) said: > > We consider broken deps within the set of packages included in the > > released images to block the release, but there are none of those in > > Beta. Broken deps outside the package set that gets on images aren't > > really as important. > > Sure, but it would be wise to come up with a deadline and remove the > broken packages from the Everything repo _prior_ to the release of F-15. > If they can't be installed, let's not ship them. Once fixed, they could > return as updates. This has never been done in the past ; we'd need a new process for this. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 12:35:43 -0700, AW wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 15:51 +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > > > Branched report with number of missing requires goes on fedora-devel and > > to maintainers of those packages, so they must be aware of it. The list > > is shorter than it was before beta but there's still lot of packages. Do > > we want to release it as it is? > > We consider broken deps within the set of packages included in the > released images to block the release, but there are none of those in > Beta. Broken deps outside the package set that gets on images aren't > really as important. Sure, but it would be wise to come up with a deadline and remove the broken packages from the Everything repo _prior_ to the release of F-15. If they can't be installed, let's not ship them. Once fixed, they could return as updates. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On 04/21/2011 09:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 15:51 +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: >> On 04/21/2011 03:29 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: >>> On 04/21/2011 05:36 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: I presume, I am supposed to love the broken deps, these anaconda dumps and this silly Win95-ish "Oh no!,..." screens of death? All three happened to me, when trying this Beta, yesterday ;) >>> >>> Filing bug reports is helpful and what one is supposed to do under such >>> circumstances. If you want to discuss issues, use the test list instead >>> >>> Rahul >> >> Branched report with number of missing requires goes on fedora-devel and >> to maintainers of those packages, so they must be aware of it. The list >> is shorter than it was before beta but there's still lot of packages. Do >> we want to release it as it is? > > We consider broken deps within the set of packages included in the > released images to block the release, but there are none of those in > Beta. Broken deps outside the package set that gets on images aren't > really as important. Longer version of what has happened: I had a more or less functional f15-Alpha test installation and ran "yum update". After rebooting, any attempt to log in through the GUI ended with a "Oh no!..." - ... should not have happened, but it's a test release, ... so not much reason to complain. I decided to reinstall using netinstall.iso. Initially (1st try), I tried a "customized package set". I was warned about a long series of missing deps. The install however proceeded and ended with anaconda raising before-mentioned error. Then, (2nd try) I tried a "default package set" w/ *testing deactivate. I was warned about gnome-session missing dependency and ended up with "Oh no! Then (3rd try) I tried a "default package set" w/ *testing activated. I was warned about gnome-session missing dependencies. This time, I was able to login. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On 04/21/2011 03:29 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 04/21/2011 05:36 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> >> I presume, I am supposed to love the broken deps, these anaconda dumps >> and this silly Win95-ish "Oh no!,..." screens of death? >> >> All three happened to me, when trying this Beta, yesterday ;) > > Filing bug reports is helpful and what one is supposed to do under such > circumstances. The anaconda bug was filed: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=678449 > If you want to discuss issues, use the test list instead The "Oh no! ..." absurdity doesn't provide sufficient information to be able to report it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 14:06 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 04/19/2011 04:50 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > The clock is ticking. The days are counting down. The release of > > Fedora 15, codenamed "Lovelock," is scheduled for release in late > > May. Fedora is the leading edge, free and open source operating > > system that continues to deliver innovative features to users > > worldwide, with a new release every six months. > > > > We are delighted to announce the availability of the Beta release > > of Fedora 15. > > > > "I beta one American dollar that you will love this release!" > > I presume, I am supposed to love the broken deps, these anaconda dumps > and this silly Win95-ish "Oh no!,..." screens of death? For the Oh No screen, see http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/2011-April/099056.html . I'd bet that's what you hit. -- 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: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Thu, 2011-04-21 at 15:51 +0200, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > On 04/21/2011 03:29 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > On 04/21/2011 05:36 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > >> > >> I presume, I am supposed to love the broken deps, these anaconda dumps > >> and this silly Win95-ish "Oh no!,..." screens of death? > >> > >> All three happened to me, when trying this Beta, yesterday ;) > > > > Filing bug reports is helpful and what one is supposed to do under such > > circumstances. If you want to discuss issues, use the test list instead > > > > Rahul > > Branched report with number of missing requires goes on fedora-devel and > to maintainers of those packages, so they must be aware of it. The list > is shorter than it was before beta but there's still lot of packages. Do > we want to release it as it is? We consider broken deps within the set of packages included in the released images to block the release, but there are none of those in Beta. Broken deps outside the package set that gets on images aren't really as important. -- 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: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On 04/21/2011 07:21 PM, Marcela Mašláňová wrote: > Branched report with number of missing requires goes on fedora-devel and > to maintainers of those packages, so they must be aware of it. The list > is shorter than it was before beta but there's still lot of packages. Do > we want to release it as it is? Ralf didn't merely mention broken deps. He also talked about some Anaconda issue and what I figure is a GNOME Shell issue. So yes bug reports are still warranted for those. Any help is welcome in fixing broken deps as well, of course. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On 04/21/2011 03:29 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > On 04/21/2011 05:36 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> >> I presume, I am supposed to love the broken deps, these anaconda dumps >> and this silly Win95-ish "Oh no!,..." screens of death? >> >> All three happened to me, when trying this Beta, yesterday ;) > > Filing bug reports is helpful and what one is supposed to do under such > circumstances. If you want to discuss issues, use the test list instead > > Rahul Branched report with number of missing requires goes on fedora-devel and to maintainers of those packages, so they must be aware of it. The list is shorter than it was before beta but there's still lot of packages. Do we want to release it as it is? -- Marcela Mašláňová BaseOS team Brno -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On 04/21/2011 11:04 AM, Jens Petersen wrote: >> Coders have lots of new development tools to try out, including: >> * Updates to popular languages. Python 3.2, Rails 3.0.3, and >> OCaml 3.12 are all included in Fedora 15. > If we are going to mention OCaml then to be fair > can we please also mention GHC 7.0.2, > which is major new version upgrade since F14? It is not a question of fairness. If you want any feature to be advertised use the feature list or help out by editing the release notes. There are thousands of changes and documentation team cannot keep up with what is important or not unless the people working on something tell us. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On 04/21/2011 05:36 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > I presume, I am supposed to love the broken deps, these anaconda dumps > and this silly Win95-ish "Oh no!,..." screens of death? > > All three happened to me, when trying this Beta, yesterday ;) Filing bug reports is helpful and what one is supposed to do under such circumstances. If you want to discuss issues, use the test list instead Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On 04/19/2011 04:50 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > The clock is ticking. The days are counting down. The release of > Fedora 15, codenamed "Lovelock," is scheduled for release in late > May. Fedora is the leading edge, free and open source operating > system that continues to deliver innovative features to users > worldwide, with a new release every six months. > > We are delighted to announce the availability of the Beta release > of Fedora 15. > > "I beta one American dollar that you will love this release!" I presume, I am supposed to love the broken deps, these anaconda dumps and this silly Win95-ish "Oh no!,..." screens of death? All three happened to me, when trying this Beta, yesterday ;) Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 03:42:02AM -0400, Jens Petersen wrote: > > > * Updates to popular languages. Python 3.2, Rails 3.0.3, and > > > OCaml 3.12 are all included in Fedora 15. > > > > If we are going to mention OCaml then to be fair > > can we please also mention GHC 7.0.2, > > which is major new version upgrade since F14? > > Ok that is probably me failing to follow the feature process... :-/ > > I may try to open a FESCo ticket asking if they might post-approve > the completed GHC70 feature. Also it might be better to mention > haskell-platform-2011.2. There was a GHC feature in the list at one point .. it seems to have disappeared. The other thing I had to do in order to get the OCaml feature actually added to the release notes was edit the documentation beats page and offer myself as a maintainer: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats However I see that you are already listed as the Haskell maintainer there so you should be good to go. Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting, bindings from many languages. http://libguestfs.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
> > * Updates to popular languages. Python 3.2, Rails 3.0.3, and > > OCaml 3.12 are all included in Fedora 15. > > If we are going to mention OCaml then to be fair > can we please also mention GHC 7.0.2, > which is major new version upgrade since F14? Ok that is probably me failing to follow the feature process... :-/ I may try to open a FESCo ticket asking if they might post-approve the completed GHC70 feature. Also it might be better to mention haskell-platform-2011.2. Jens -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
> Coders have lots of new development tools to try out, including: > * Updates to popular languages. Python 3.2, Rails 3.0.3, and > OCaml 3.12 are all included in Fedora 15. If we are going to mention OCaml then to be fair can we please also mention GHC 7.0.2, which is major new version upgrade since F14? Jens -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Announcing the release of Fedora 15 Beta!!
The clock is ticking. The days are counting down. The release of Fedora 15, codenamed "Lovelock," is scheduled for release in late May. Fedora is the leading edge, free and open source operating system that continues to deliver innovative features to users worldwide, with a new release every six months. We are delighted to announce the availability of the Beta release of Fedora 15. "I beta one American dollar that you will love this release!" Come see why we love Fedora so much. We are betting you will, too. Download it now: http://fedoraproject.org/get-prerelease?wkanF15b == What is the Beta Release? == The beta release is the last important milestone of Fedora 15. Only critical bug fixes will be pushed as updates leading to the general release of Fedora 15 in May. We invite you to join us in making Fedora 15 a solid release by downloading, testing, and providing your valuable feedback. Of course, this is a beta release, meaning that some problems may still be lurking. A list of the problems we already know about can be seen on the Common F15 bugs page, at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F15_bugs. If you find a bug that's not found on that page, be sure it gets fixed before release by reporting your discovery at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/ Thank you! == Features == Desktop enthusiasts and end users of all sorts can look forward to: * Gnome Shell and the Gnome 3 desktop. Gnome 3 is the next major version of the Gnome desktop. After many years of a largely unchanged Gnome 2.x experience, GNOME 3 brings a fresh look and feel with GNOME Shell. * LibreOffice Productivity Suite. LibreOffice is a fork of OpenOffice, with the support of the OpenOffice.org community. All of the applications you know and love are still there, including apps for spreadsheets, document creation, and presentations. * Desktop environments a-plenty. The Xfce and LXDE spins have been updated, and the Fedora Spins SIG has other offerings tailored to a wide variety of user needs. Sysadmins will love features such as: * Appliance building. BoxGrinder creates appliances (virtual machines) from simple plain text appliance definition files for various virtual platforms, and is great for building appliances for use in a Cloud environment. * Dynamic Firewall. The dynamic firewall mode aims to make it possible to change firewall settings without the need to restart the firewall and to make persistent connections possible. Coders have lots of new development tools to try out, including: * Updates to popular languages. Python 3.2, Rails 3.0.3, and OCaml 3.12 are all included in Fedora 15. * Project tooling. Maven 3 is a Java project management, project comprehension, and build system tool. * Compiling and debugging. GDB gets an update to 7.3, and GCC 4.6 is included. (Fedora 15 has also been rebuilt using GCC 4.6!) And that's only the beginning. A more complete list and details of all the new features in Fedora 15 is available here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/15/FeatureList We have nightly composes of alternate spins available here: http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/nightly-composes/ == Contributing == For more information on common and known bugs, tips on how to report bugs, and the official release schedule, please refer to the release notes at http://docs.fedoraproject.org. There are many ways to contribute beyond bug reporting. You can help translate software and content, test and give feedback on software updates, write and edit documentation, help with all sorts of promotional activities, and package free software for use by millions of Fedora users worldwide. To get started, visit http://join.fedoraproject.org today! signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. ___ devel-announce mailing list devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel-announce-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
