Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 02/19/2014 01:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 14:38 +, Richard Hughes wrote: On 14 February 2014 21:43, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: If we are providing a next-generation UI for installing, to replace yum That's not what we're doing. To expand a bit: insofar as Software - the tool we're discussing here, and the tool to which the require applications to ship appdata requirement applies - replaces anything, it replaces gnome-packagekit. It is not replacing yum. The old gnome-packagekit was a 'graphical package installer', just like yumex and apper. The new gnome-software is (with a bit of a handwave) an 'application installer'. That's a difference, but it's not relevant to yum at all, and I doubt many people used gpk to install gcc. For those who really want a GUI package installer, the old gpk is still available in a not-installed-by-default package (though I assume Richard will eventually drop it), and yumex is always an option. Thanks for the context. The reason I keep on droning about it is well explained by the old military saying What is worse than a bad general? Two good generals.. I.e., it would be nice if there was one go-to application for GUI software installation that everyone uses and improves. As it is, we have four: yumex, gpk, apper and now Richard's, and every one has some unique nice and/or niche features (*). It's just a better user experience when there's one GUI installer with simple default choice and advanced options, rather than having to explain that if you're installing development tools, use this, else if you're installing graphics apps, use that, else if you're installing commandline tools use the other thing. Speaking for myself, I use yum all the time, but I do find GUIs useful, for instance when I remember that there's a useful structural chemistry app called A--something... angstrom? asteroid? haemoroid? ahh, Avogadro!!!. Just happened to me recently. It's much easier to find it in a GUI browser. I feel I said everything that I can say about this, so I will sit down and be quiet now. Greetings p (*) I never really used apper, and when I just brought it up, I liked its broad selection of filters (free/nonfree, native, developer/end user, commandline/graphical, etc). They turn out to be more useful than I expected them to be---for instance the non-free filter surprised me by when I looked at OpenCASCADE---I didn't realize it came from rpmfusion-nonfree (this is actually changing as we speak, its license was just changed and a large body of software including FreeCAD, and other sci/eng visualization stuff is moving to the mainline Fedora repo). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 12:01 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 02/19/2014 01:16 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 14:38 +, Richard Hughes wrote: On 14 February 2014 21:43, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: If we are providing a next-generation UI for installing, to replace yum That's not what we're doing. To expand a bit: insofar as Software - the tool we're discussing here, and the tool to which the require applications to ship appdata requirement applies - replaces anything, it replaces gnome-packagekit. It is not replacing yum. The old gnome-packagekit was a 'graphical package installer', just like yumex and apper. The new gnome-software is (with a bit of a handwave) an 'application installer'. That's a difference, but it's not relevant to yum at all, and I doubt many people used gpk to install gcc. For those who really want a GUI package installer, the old gpk is still available in a not-installed-by-default package (though I assume Richard will eventually drop it), and yumex is always an option. Thanks for the context. The reason I keep on droning about it is well explained by the old military saying What is worse than a bad general? Two good generals.. I.e., it would be nice if there was one go-to application for GUI software installation that everyone uses and improves. As it is, we have four: yumex, gpk, apper and now Richard's, and every one has some unique nice and/or niche features (*). It's just a better user experience when there's one GUI installer with simple default choice and advanced options, One app with simple default choice and advanced options effectively *is* two apps, uncomfortably shoehorned into one UI. You get all the disadvantages of complexity with none of the benefits of simplicity. This is why it's a model most apps have moved away from. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 20 February 2014 17:44, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: You get all the disadvantages of complexity with none of the benefits of simplicity. Jack of all trades, master of none. Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 02/20/2014 12:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: One app with simple default choice and advanced options effectively *is* two apps, uncomfortably shoehorned into one UI. You get all the disadvantages of complexity with none of the benefits of simplicity. This is why it's a model most apps have moved away from. OK, I lied---I will respond with one more post. You'd be right if it really was two apps, shoehorned---but I really think this case wants to be one software installation UI with several search selectors, just like apper, which actually has a 'graphical/non-graphical' search selector. Use the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%F0%9F%92%BB glyph at low-res as a screenshot/logo, to show our disdain for older apps, if we must. Surely you agree that it's possible to overdo such app specialization; my favorite example of such specious differentiation is dedicated droid/ios apps for every website (reddit/slashdot/whatever). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Sun, 2014-02-16 at 14:38 +, Richard Hughes wrote: On 14 February 2014 21:43, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: If we are providing a next-generation UI for installing, to replace yum That's not what we're doing. To expand a bit: insofar as Software - the tool we're discussing here, and the tool to which the require applications to ship appdata requirement applies - replaces anything, it replaces gnome-packagekit. It is not replacing yum. The old gnome-packagekit was a 'graphical package installer', just like yumex and apper. The new gnome-software is (with a bit of a handwave) an 'application installer'. That's a difference, but it's not relevant to yum at all, and I doubt many people used gpk to install gcc. For those who really want a GUI package installer, the old gpk is still available in a not-installed-by-default package (though I assume Richard will eventually drop it), and yumex is always an option. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 19 February 2014 18:16, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: For those who really want a GUI package installer, the old gpk is still available in a not-installed-by-default package (though I assume Richard will eventually drop it), and yumex is always an option. There are quite a few distros that have asked me to carry on with gnome-packagekit, although it will be in feature freeze bugfix mode basically from this point on. Richard. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
- Original Message - From: Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 10:43:16 PM Subject: Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center On 02/14/2014 01:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 13:02 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 28 January 2014 18:43, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GUIness'. As to the latter, I think it's a mistake to have a primary application installation tool that only deals with GUI apps, because it relegates text-based tools, such as 'units', to a second-class status of being hard to find and to install. That's not the tool we've designed and built. We've built a GUI application installer, not a package installer. While it's not the fault of the installer, I am concerned about that distinction. For better or worse, a lot of useful tools seem to be out of scope for a 'GUI application installer'. GCC, perl, git, octave, R, units, mysql/sqlite3, this kind of thing. Do you actually want to use a tool like Software to install gcc? I just can't see why you would. You know gcc is what you want. You don't need a shiny description and some screenshots and user reviews on a 1-5 star scale. 'yum install gcc' seems a massively better fit. Who would it benefit to have something like gcc in Software? I see what you mean, but how do you install it, and other examples I provided? It's not just gcc: it's gcc-gfortran, gcc-arm, mingw64-gcc, msp430-gcc, etc. Well with GCC we are assuming people will read docs and figure out the command line parameters needed to use gcc. So expecting people to read the docs on how to use yum or 'yum search' is not expecting to much in my opinion. That said we should list the Developer Assistant in the Software center (or even have it installed by default) and that should be the tool IMHO to install these and other developer tools. Christian -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 17 February 2014 08:45, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.com wrote: That said we should list the Developer Assistant in the Software center (or even have it installed by default) and that should be the tool IMHO to install these and other developer tools. It's already in the software center (and ships an AppData file :) although I agree we could perhaps feature it more prominently. Richard. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 17 February 2014 08:45, Christian Schaller cscha...@redhat.com wrote: Well with GCC we are assuming people will read docs and figure out the command line parameters needed to use gcc. So expecting people to read the docs on how to use yum or 'yum search' is not expecting to much in my opinion. That said we should list the Developer Assistant in the Software center (or even have it installed by default) and that should be the tool IMHO to install these and other developer tools. Really? I mean, it's one thing to say 'if you want to use command line tools you have to use a command line package manager' (which isn't really the case anyway), but is it actually the intention that non-GUI components get split up into separate domains with their own GUI managers. Just seems a little odd. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 14 February 2014 21:43, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: If we are providing a next-generation UI for installing, to replace yum That's not what we're doing. Richard. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 28 January 2014 18:43, Przemek Klosowskiprzemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GUIness'. As to the latter, I think it's a mistake to have a primary application installation tool that only deals with GUI apps, because it relegates text-based tools, such as 'units', to a second-class status of being hard to find and to install. That's not the tool we've designed and built. We've built a GUI application installer, not a package installer. [sorry fo the delayed answer---I got wrapped up and had this draft sitting open for two weeks] While it's not the fault of the installer, I am concerned about that distinction. For better or worse, a lot of useful tools seem to be out of scope for a 'GUI application installer'. GCC, perl, git, octave, R, units, mysql/sqlite3, this kind of thing. It doesn't even make sense to shoehorn them into GUI app world by embedding them in terminals, because their natural environment is command-line interaction. The emphasis on GUI is great, but it should enhance rather than deprecate the old-style interactive command model that arguably is the core idea in Unix. Your tool, while improving the GUI app experience, could also support non GUI software---or at least not completely ignore its existence. I do get it that there is a class of GUI users that need to see a window with buttons and help, and non-GUI apps simply baffle them with a blinking command prompt, at best. OTOH, I believe there should be a setting in the installer about that, do not show me commandline software. I believe that it should be off by default, but maybe I am wrong about that. Do you really think it's impossible? By the way, I even use some commandline-like apps on my Android. In fact, I dislike the fact that the 'GUI app' view of the world results in separate app for every function: an app for Slashdot, and a slightly different app for Reddit. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 13:02 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 28 January 2014 18:43, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GUIness'. As to the latter, I think it's a mistake to have a primary application installation tool that only deals with GUI apps, because it relegates text-based tools, such as 'units', to a second-class status of being hard to find and to install. That's not the tool we've designed and built. We've built a GUI application installer, not a package installer. [sorry fo the delayed answer---I got wrapped up and had this draft sitting open for two weeks] While it's not the fault of the installer, I am concerned about that distinction. For better or worse, a lot of useful tools seem to be out of scope for a 'GUI application installer'. GCC, perl, git, octave, R, units, mysql/sqlite3, this kind of thing. It doesn't even make sense to shoehorn them into GUI app world by embedding them in terminals, because their natural environment is command-line interaction. The emphasis on GUI is great, but it should enhance rather than deprecate the old-style interactive command model that arguably is the core idea in Unix. Your tool, while improving the GUI app experience, could also support non GUI software---or at least not completely ignore its existence. I do get it that there is a class of GUI users that need to see a window with buttons and help, and non-GUI apps simply baffle them with a blinking command prompt, at best. OTOH, I believe there should be a setting in the installer about that, do not show me commandline software. I believe that it should be off by default, but maybe I am wrong about that. Do you really think it's impossible? Do you actually want to use a tool like Software to install gcc? I just can't see why you would. You know gcc is what you want. You don't need a shiny description and some screenshots and user reviews on a 1-5 star scale. 'yum install gcc' seems a massively better fit. Who would it benefit to have something like gcc in Software? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 13:02 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 28 January 2014 18:43, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GUIness'. As to the latter, I think it's a mistake to have a primary application installation tool that only deals with GUI apps, because it relegates text-based tools, such as 'units', to a second-class status of being hard to find and to install. That's not the tool we've designed and built. We've built a GUI application installer, not a package installer. [sorry fo the delayed answer---I got wrapped up and had this draft sitting open for two weeks] While it's not the fault of the installer, I am concerned about that distinction. For better or worse, a lot of useful tools seem to be out of scope for a 'GUI application installer'. GCC, perl, git, octave, R, units, mysql/sqlite3, this kind of thing. It doesn't even make sense to shoehorn them into GUI app world by embedding them in terminals, because their natural environment is command-line interaction. The emphasis on GUI is great, but it should enhance rather than deprecate the old-style interactive command model that arguably is the core idea in Unix. Your tool, while improving the GUI app experience, could also support non GUI software---or at least not completely ignore its existence. I do get it that there is a class of GUI users that need to see a window with buttons and help, and non-GUI apps simply baffle them with a blinking command prompt, at best. OTOH, I believe there should be a setting in the installer about that, do not show me commandline software. I believe that it should be off by default, but maybe I am wrong about that. Do you really think it's impossible? Do you actually want to use a tool like Software to install gcc? I just can't see why you would. You know gcc is what you want. You don't need a shiny description and some screenshots and user reviews on a 1-5 star scale. 'yum install gcc' seems a massively better fit. Who would it benefit to have something like gcc in Software? I agree listing gcc or make or binutils in Software would be odd. While I don't wish to spin off on a tangent, it might be possible to have a meta app entry for things like DevTools that installs all of those at once though. This would likely line up well with Software Collections and such as well (at least in my tiny head). josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
2014-02-14 19:41 GMT+01:00 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com: Do you actually want to use a tool like Software to install gcc? I just can't see why you would. You know gcc is what you want. You don't need a shiny description and some screenshots and user reviews on a 1-5 star scale. 'yum install gcc' seems a massively better fit. Who would it benefit to have something like gcc in Software? -- If you are an old Fedora user you will know that the GCC C++ compiler package name is gcc-cpp. However if you are a new Fedora user how are you supposed to know that? Search on the internet? /Andreas Tunek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 02/14/2014 01:41 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2014-02-14 at 13:02 -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: On 01/28/2014 03:12 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 28 January 2014 18:43, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GUIness'. As to the latter, I think it's a mistake to have a primary application installation tool that only deals with GUI apps, because it relegates text-based tools, such as 'units', to a second-class status of being hard to find and to install. That's not the tool we've designed and built. We've built a GUI application installer, not a package installer. While it's not the fault of the installer, I am concerned about that distinction. For better or worse, a lot of useful tools seem to be out of scope for a 'GUI application installer'. GCC, perl, git, octave, R, units, mysql/sqlite3, this kind of thing. Do you actually want to use a tool like Software to install gcc? I just can't see why you would. You know gcc is what you want. You don't need a shiny description and some screenshots and user reviews on a 1-5 star scale. 'yum install gcc' seems a massively better fit. Who would it benefit to have something like gcc in Software? I see what you mean, but how do you install it, and other examples I provided? It's not just gcc: it's gcc-gfortran, gcc-arm, mingw64-gcc, msp430-gcc, etc. If we are providing a next-generation UI for installing, to replace yum, I think it is a step backwards to take away the full search coverage of yum. Let's follow gmail's example: no folders, no fixed hierarchy, just good search. It took me a while to get used to it but I like it now. Maybe I am getting old and grouchy but I think it's an example of the disturbing trend to have a separate tool for every little variation of every function. Just in the last two days I had to consider: - separate installers for different types of applications - having to use all of yum check, yum-complete-transaction, package-cleanup --cleandupes, and rpm --rebuilddb on my failed update - separate droid apps for reading reddit, slashdot, hackaday, etc. Computers are supposed to simplify life! ... Heh, I see my mistake now... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/25/2014 05:08 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: I can think of several programs that I use daily that are simple enough so that there's not much development happening to them. For example, the 'units' program, which I showed recently to some mechanical engineers who use Linux and they went 'OMG this is so cool, how come we didn't know about it even though we've been using Linux for ten years'. Right. If it's a GUI application, and is indeed awesome, I'd hope that the Fedora packager could write an AppData file, take some screenshots, include it as a source in the RPM and build a new version of the package. This way is a workaround for an abandoned-upstream but awesome/complete package. There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GUIness'. As to the latter, I think it's a mistake to have a primary application installation tool that only deals with GUI apps, because it relegates text-based tools, such as 'units', to a second-class status of being hard to find and to install. Similarly, at least some apps with inactive upstream are fine the way they are and do not deserve to be locked up in the attic. The real distinction lies somewhere else: everyone agrees that we should promote excellent and useful apps, while deprecating the deficient ones. Neither GUIness nor the speed of current development is an accurate measure of that; I believe that user feedback, a la Google App Store's user ranking, is the only reasonable way to classify the apps for promotion and visibility. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:43:09PM -0500, Przemek Klosowski wrote: There are two separate issues here: 'abandonment', and 'GUIness'. As to the latter, I think it's a mistake to have a primary application installation tool that only deals with GUI apps, because it relegates text-based tools, such as 'units', to a second-class status of being hard to find and to install. Similarly, at least some apps with inactive upstream are fine the way they are and do not deserve to be locked up in the attic. I'm not sure I'm convinced. If someone is on the command line, isn't it easiest to use a command-line tool to install those kinds of things? If you're really interested in this, though, maybe come up with a mockup for how command-line applications could be presented in the GUI installer in a way that wouldn't confuse users? -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
2014-01-28 Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org I'm not sure I'm convinced. If someone is on the command line, isn't it easiest to use a command-line tool to install those kinds of things? If you want to install a c++ compiler you would have to know the exact package name of that compiler. There is no way to search for something like compiler with yum (AFAIK). And people can be newbies in some areas but pros in others. /Andreas -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
2014-01-28 Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com That's not the tool we've designed and built. We've built a GUI application installer, not a package installer. That is awesome! Thank you! But in a lot of cases it is very nice to have a GUI package installer. /Andreas -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Andreas Tunek andreas.tu...@gmail.com wrote: 2014-01-28 Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org I'm not sure I'm convinced. If someone is on the command line, isn't it easiest to use a command-line tool to install those kinds of things? If you want to install a c++ compiler you would have to know the exact package name of that compiler. There is no way to search for something like compiler with yum (AFAIK). yum search compiler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:40:00PM -0800, Josh Stone wrote: If you want to install a c++ compiler you would have to know the exact package name of that compiler. There is no way to search for something like compiler with yum (AFAIK). yum search compiler ... which lists a lot of packages, but neither gcc-c++ nor clang. So yes, yum can search, but the metadata is limiting. So. yum search all compiler will also search package descriptions and URLs (in addition to the default of just package names and summaries). That includes both gcc-c++ and clang. I don't know if there are yum/dnf plugins to include tags from https://apps.fedoraproject.org/tagger/ (as previously established, the Gnome Software program *does*). But that would be an interesting thing to add. -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:48:50 -0500, you wrote: On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 01:40:00PM -0800, Josh Stone wrote: If you want to install a c++ compiler you would have to know the exact package name of that compiler. There is no way to search for something like compiler with yum (AFAIK). yum search compiler ... which lists a lot of packages, but neither gcc-c++ nor clang. So yes, yum can search, but the metadata is limiting. So. yum search all compiler will also search package descriptions and URLs (in addition to the default of just package names and summaries). That includes both gcc-c++ and clang. But what it returns can be less than helpful if you don't already have an idea of what you need. So for clang we get A C language family front-end for LLVM, which to many of us probably means C and C++ (but we may not think of Ojbective-C), but someone new to programming may not make the connection. But the good news is that plain old gcc is apparently all powerful, because according to the search gcc has Various Compilers (C, C++, Objective-C, Java, ...) so if I didn't know better I could just install the gcc rpm and compile my Java code... Or maybe they are looking for a Go compiler? None listed in those short descriptions - gcc-go merely says Go support, while golang doenn't get listed at all. A search for Go gives a huge list, not even sorted alphabetically, to sort through. On the other hand, why should you need to become an expert on the options of yum to find a compiler? Particularly when you have a gui program that seems to be a list of programs that are available. Even more fun is dnf, which appears to return the list in entirely random order. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
2014-01-26 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org: Le dimanche 26 janvier 2014 à 18:14 +0100, Heiko Adams a écrit : Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:01 -0500 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: Hi On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote: No this isn't an issue at all. No one is saying that non gui apps are useless or should be removed. The point is that gui installer installs gui apps. If you want to install a command line tool whats wrong with using the command line for that? If you don't know how to use the command line there is no point in installing it in the first place. I can use yum just fine but I don't find it convenient to go to the gui for gui apps and then remember to go use yum to install command line apps. Following this logic users have to use yum, dnf, yumex oder gnome-packagekit-installer to install i.e. additional GUI-Themes or mouse-cursors because they are no apps and for that reason not listed in gnome-software, right? If yes, that's IMHO absolute bullshit! It would make more sense to install them directly from the tool that set the mouse cursors, or the theme. Why switch to a different tool ( ie, a software installer ) to install something that is not a software ? So every application that could be extended would have to be rewritten? How would you solve stuff like extra gvfs-components? Have that support in nautilus? /Andreas Tunek -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Le lundi 27 janvier 2014 à 17:11 +0100, Andreas Tunek a écrit : 2014-01-26 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org: Le dimanche 26 janvier 2014 à 18:14 +0100, Heiko Adams a écrit : Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:01 -0500 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: Hi On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote: No this isn't an issue at all. No one is saying that non gui apps are useless or should be removed. The point is that gui installer installs gui apps. If you want to install a command line tool whats wrong with using the command line for that? If you don't know how to use the command line there is no point in installing it in the first place. I can use yum just fine but I don't find it convenient to go to the gui for gui apps and then remember to go use yum to install command line apps. Following this logic users have to use yum, dnf, yumex oder gnome-packagekit-installer to install i.e. additional GUI-Themes or mouse-cursors because they are no apps and for that reason not listed in gnome-software, right? If yes, that's IMHO absolute bullshit! It would make more sense to install them directly from the tool that set the mouse cursors, or the theme. Why switch to a different tool ( ie, a software installer ) to install something that is not a software ? So every application that could be extended would have to be rewritten? not rewritten, but extended. How would you solve stuff like extra gvfs-components? Have that support in nautilus? like we do for gstreamer or fonts. In the case of gvfs, this could manifests by people trying to connect to ftp, and then showing a popup this url is not supported, but we can install it. -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 13:05 +0100, drago01 wrote: Installing an application and then not finding it anywhere is confusing. So we limit it to visible apps i.e GUI apps. Before people get too angry about this: Software is being designed as a tool to do what's being discussed in this thread, i.e. install things that actually count as 'Software a user might want to install from a tool for installing software'. It doesn't have a monopoly on the Graphical Tool To Install Things space. The old gnome-packagekit installer still exists, and you could still work on that. yumex still exists, and you can work on that. All desktops and spins and so on can choose to include whatever graphic tool(s) for package installation they see fit. The fact that Software is being designed to do a particular job does not preclude anyone from working on or using alternative tools designed to do different jobs. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
2014-01-27 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org: Le lundi 27 janvier 2014 à 17:11 +0100, Andreas Tunek a écrit : 2014-01-26 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org: Le dimanche 26 janvier 2014 à 18:14 +0100, Heiko Adams a écrit : Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:01 -0500 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: Hi On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote: No this isn't an issue at all. No one is saying that non gui apps are useless or should be removed. The point is that gui installer installs gui apps. If you want to install a command line tool whats wrong with using the command line for that? If you don't know how to use the command line there is no point in installing it in the first place. I can use yum just fine but I don't find it convenient to go to the gui for gui apps and then remember to go use yum to install command line apps. Following this logic users have to use yum, dnf, yumex oder gnome-packagekit-installer to install i.e. additional GUI-Themes or mouse-cursors because they are no apps and for that reason not listed in gnome-software, right? If yes, that's IMHO absolute bullshit! It would make more sense to install them directly from the tool that set the mouse cursors, or the theme. Why switch to a different tool ( ie, a software installer ) to install something that is not a software ? So every application that could be extended would have to be rewritten? not rewritten, but extended. How would you solve stuff like extra gvfs-components? Have that support in nautilus? like we do for gstreamer or fonts. In the case of gvfs, this could manifests by people trying to connect to ftp, and then showing a popup this url is not supported, but we can install it. So someone has to rewrite nautilus (and a lot of other apps) then? /Andreas -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/23/2014 02:04 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 23 January 2014 12:37, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote: What constitutes an 'application' in this sense? Does 'gcc' count for instance? How about 'find'? No. In the AppStream and AppData definitions, a program is an application if it has a .desktop file that is visible in the menu. i.e. not NoDisplay=true and that has at least one valid category. How is the user then supposed to find gcc, find, or similar programs/rpm-packages if these does not show up in 'software center'? Or am I missing something obvious here? How does 'application' correlates to a rpm-package? Lars -- Lars E. Pettersson l...@homer.se http://www.sm6rpz.se/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Lars E. Pettersson l...@homer.se wrote: On 01/23/2014 02:04 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 23 January 2014 12:37, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote: What constitutes an 'application' in this sense? Does 'gcc' count for instance? How about 'find'? No. In the AppStream and AppData definitions, a program is an application if it has a .desktop file that is visible in the menu. i.e. not NoDisplay=true and that has at least one valid category. How is the user then supposed to find gcc, find, or similar programs/rpm-packages if these does not show up in 'software center'? Or am I missing something obvious here? gcc isn't an application in a sense of gui application so there is to ways to install it either the user installs an IDE which pulls it in as dep or he/she installs it using yum/dnf. How does 'application' correlates to a rpm-package? Application means GUI application that has a .desktop file. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/26/2014 11:08 AM, drago01 wrote: gcc isn't an application in a sense of gui application so there is to ways to install it either the user installs an IDE which pulls it in as dep or he/she installs it using yum/dnf. Would it not be better to have a 'software center' that includes ALL software available, be they GUI related or not? Probably based on rpm-packages, as that is what our system ultimately relies on. A GUI to handle ALL software available would be better, than one only installing GUI-related software, in my opinion. How does 'application' correlates to a rpm-package? Application means GUI application that has a .desktop file. That makes the 'software center' of lesser use, as the user will be confused when he/she does not find the program/rpm-package/application he/she wants to install. Lars -- Lars E. Pettersson l...@homer.se http://www.sm6rpz.se/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:14 +0100 schrieb Lars E. Pettersson: On 01/26/2014 11:08 AM, drago01 wrote: gcc isn't an application in a sense of gui application so there is to ways to install it either the user installs an IDE which pulls it in as dep or he/she installs it using yum/dnf. Would it not be better to have a 'software center' that includes ALL software available, be they GUI related or not? Probably based on rpm-packages, as that is what our system ultimately relies on. A GUI to handle ALL software available would be better, than one only installing GUI-related software, in my opinion. We already got such a software but its no more installed by default: gnome-packagekit-installer -- Regards, Heiko Adams signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/26/2014 12:18 PM, Heiko Adams wrote: Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:14 +0100 schrieb Lars E. Pettersson: ... Would it not be better to have a 'software center' that includes ALL software available, be they GUI related or not? Probably based on rpm-packages, as that is what our system ultimately relies on. A GUI to handle ALL software available would be better, than one only installing GUI-related software, in my opinion. We already got such a software but its no more installed by default: gnome-packagekit-installer Why is it not installed by default? Users will normally look for GUIs for installing software nowadays, so if gnome-packagekit-installer/gpk-application complements 'software center' by being a GUI based installer including non-gui packages for install, it should perhaps be installed by default Lars -- Lars E. Pettersson l...@homer.se http://www.sm6rpz.se/ -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 12:14 PM, Lars E. Pettersson l...@homer.se wrote: On 01/26/2014 11:08 AM, drago01 wrote: gcc isn't an application in a sense of gui application so there is to ways to install it either the user installs an IDE which pulls it in as dep or he/she installs it using yum/dnf. Would it not be better to have a 'software center' that includes ALL software available, be they GUI related or not? No. Installing a non gui app that is invisible to the user does not make much sense. The user that knows about the cmd line can just install it from there as well. Probably based on rpm-packages, No we had that already. A package is an implementation detail. All the users care about are the applications. as that is what our system ultimately relies on. A GUI to handle ALL software available would be better, than one only installing GUI-related software, in my opinion. We have some of them already and the user experience is sub par compared to other plattforms that don't do that. How does 'application' correlates to a rpm-package? Application means GUI application that has a .desktop file. That makes the 'software center' of lesser use, as the user will be confused when he/she does not find the program/rpm-package/application he/she wants to install. Installing an application and then not finding it anywhere is confusing. So we limit it to visible apps i.e GUI apps. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
* Lars E. Pettersson [26/01/2014 12:26] : Why is it not installed by default? The last time I used it, it had a number of bugs that made it unusable (bugs #883435 and bugs #949907 are the first that come to mind). Emmanuel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 12:14 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: On 01/26/2014 11:08 AM, drago01 wrote: gcc isn't an application in a sense of gui application so there is to ways to install it either the user installs an IDE which pulls it in as dep or he/she installs it using yum/dnf. Would it not be better to have a 'software center' that includes ALL software available, be they GUI related or not? Probably based on rpm-packages, as that is what our system ultimately relies on. A GUI to handle ALL software available would be better, than one only installing GUI-related software, in my opinion. How does 'application' correlates to a rpm-package? Application means GUI application that has a .desktop file. That makes the 'software center' of lesser use, as the user will be confused when he/she does not find the program/rpm-package/application he/she wants to install. Lars -- Lars E. Pettersson l...@homer.se http://www.sm6rpz.se/ Another issue, I think, deals with useful command line tools, such as python scripts, grep, or such utilities as are yet to be developed. Not all things are gui based, and not being gui based doesn't mean that users won't want or use them. Even most gui programs that do exist had lots of code developed before being transferred to a gui. Working from a command line, with a compiler and debugger is also a good introduction to the actual functioning of a computer and gets one closer to the bare iron, which permits the leveraging of basic knowledge. Of course, this is just my personal opinion. When I work on developing new stuff, the gui is often put off until I get basic code working. The gui essentially clothes the code to simplify the command interface, cut down on typos, and provide prompts for arguments etc. all to assist the user manage and benefit from whatever code is run. regards, Les H -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Les Howell hlhow...@pacbell.net wrote: On Sun, 2014-01-26 at 12:14 +0100, Lars E. Pettersson wrote: On 01/26/2014 11:08 AM, drago01 wrote: gcc isn't an application in a sense of gui application so there is to ways to install it either the user installs an IDE which pulls it in as dep or he/she installs it using yum/dnf. Would it not be better to have a 'software center' that includes ALL software available, be they GUI related or not? Probably based on rpm-packages, as that is what our system ultimately relies on. A GUI to handle ALL software available would be better, than one only installing GUI-related software, in my opinion. How does 'application' correlates to a rpm-package? Application means GUI application that has a .desktop file. That makes the 'software center' of lesser use, as the user will be confused when he/she does not find the program/rpm-package/application he/she wants to install. Lars -- Lars E. Pettersson l...@homer.se http://www.sm6rpz.se/ Another issue, I think, [...] No this isn't an issue at all. No one is saying that non gui apps are useless or should be removed. The point is that gui installer installs gui apps. If you want to install a command line tool whats wrong with using the command line for that? If you don't know how to use the command line there is no point in installing it in the first place. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Hi On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote: No this isn't an issue at all. No one is saying that non gui apps are useless or should be removed. The point is that gui installer installs gui apps. If you want to install a command line tool whats wrong with using the command line for that? If you don't know how to use the command line there is no point in installing it in the first place. I can use yum just fine but I don't find it convenient to go to the gui for gui apps and then remember to go use yum to install command line apps. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Am 26.01.2014 18:01, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote: No this isn't an issue at all. No one is saying that non gui apps are useless or should be removed. The point is that gui installer installs gui apps. If you want to install a command line tool whats wrong with using the command line for that? If you don't know how to use the command line there is no point in installing it in the first place. I can use yum just fine but I don't find it convenient to go to the gui for gui apps and then remember to go use yum to install command line apps additionally: if you teach new users to the software-center they will not really aprreciate it reading as example that rsync is a cool tool with command examples in whatever linux magazine and don't find in that was told them to install software that leads easily in oh fedora don't have that if you don't know how to use the commandline is a bad attitude how do you learn to use it from scratch? by find examples and commands somewhere in the internet or magazines ___ summary: a good software-center simply would have two tabs * graphical software (default) * command line tools the command line tools in doubt does not need more than the description of the RPM packages already present ___ do not forget how *you* learned to deal with your linux system do not build barriers that complete new users have the same chance signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:01 -0500 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: Hi On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote: No this isn't an issue at all. No one is saying that non gui apps are useless or should be removed. The point is that gui installer installs gui apps. If you want to install a command line tool whats wrong with using the command line for that? If you don't know how to use the command line there is no point in installing it in the first place. I can use yum just fine but I don't find it convenient to go to the gui for gui apps and then remember to go use yum to install command line apps. Following this logic users have to use yum, dnf, yumex oder gnome-packagekit-installer to install i.e. additional GUI-Themes or mouse-cursors because they are no apps and for that reason not listed in gnome-software, right? If yes, that's IMHO absolute bullshit! -- Regards, Heiko Adams signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Le dimanche 26 janvier 2014 à 18:14 +0100, Heiko Adams a écrit : Am Sonntag, den 26.01.2014, 12:01 -0500 schrieb Rahul Sundaram: Hi On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:57 AM, drago01 wrote: No this isn't an issue at all. No one is saying that non gui apps are useless or should be removed. The point is that gui installer installs gui apps. If you want to install a command line tool whats wrong with using the command line for that? If you don't know how to use the command line there is no point in installing it in the first place. I can use yum just fine but I don't find it convenient to go to the gui for gui apps and then remember to go use yum to install command line apps. Following this logic users have to use yum, dnf, yumex oder gnome-packagekit-installer to install i.e. additional GUI-Themes or mouse-cursors because they are no apps and for that reason not listed in gnome-software, right? If yes, that's IMHO absolute bullshit! It would make more sense to install them directly from the tool that set the mouse cursors, or the theme. Why switch to a different tool ( ie, a software installer ) to install something that is not a software ? -- Michael Scherer -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 24 January 2014 19:15, Przemek Klosowski przemek.klosow...@nist.gov wrote: The term 'hiding' conveys a wrong implication that abandonware is necessarily an embarrassment to be kept locked up in the attic. I think that's the right implication. I can think of several programs that I use daily that are simple enough so that there's not much development happening to them. For example, the 'units' program, which I showed recently to some mechanical engineers who use Linux and they went 'OMG this is so cool, how come we didn't know about it even though we've been using Linux for ten years'. Right. If it's a GUI application, and is indeed awesome, I'd hope that the Fedora packager could write an AppData file, take some screenshots, include it as a source in the RPM and build a new version of the package. This way is a workaround for an abandoned-upstream but awesome/complete package. Richard. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:00:29AM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:53:47PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:26:24 -0800 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: I think ideally any process around this should have at least two parts: a) an automated/scriptable part. In this part the script uses cold hard facts to look for possible packages that are unloved or package maintainers that are not active. There's tons of data we have now with fedmsg. Sadly, we don't have bugzilla in fedmsg, but we could scrape it directly. it generates a list that feeds to the next part. b) The generated list is examined by humans and action taken. Some things that are the list will be false positives. Try and adjust the script to not generate them. As a bonus, the script could also possibly try and figure out components that 'need help'...ie, lots of unanswered bugs or something. Even a simple list of packages ordered by the time from last non-mass-rebuild release multiplied by the number of currently open bugs would be quite useful. Packages with bug-years above 50 or so would be good candidates for inspection. I looked into the build history of our package collection recently, more specially trying to find the date of the last successful build of all our packages using datagrepper. I presented the output in: http://blog.pingoured.fr/index.php?post/2013/12/17/Fedora-build-history There is a rather small list that might be something to look into first: 66 packages have not been sucessfully re-built for 200 days or more Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/24/2014 05:50 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: But, never deem that 5k components is the best number, comparing to other Linux, we are far away behind. They can be used still at the moment, why do we burden ourselves by the insignificant numbers? Quantity vs quality 5k - 7k was the number we peeked in contribution and innovation. We should be able to calculate the number of components we as in distribution actually can manage. We just need to agree on average contribute time which could be 2.5 hours a day 5 days of the week or something and how long each component distribution task takes, and how many packagers we have and reduce ourselves to exactly that size or there about. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/24/2014 05:05 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Agreed. It is atleast a metric that can be tweaked as opposed to pretending that all packages with inactive upstreams is a deep resource drain on Fedora. It's not pretending anything if you question what I suggest you get input from the arm team they are the once that most recently went through all the packages right. Let's hear from them how well much time they spent fixing unmaintained or badly maintained packages for nothing. I would suggest that when we identify such packages, we take steps to try and get more maintainers for those packages first before trying to cull them off. For instance, sending a note to fedora announce list and here with the list of problematic packages. That way, everyone will have a fair chance to try and rescue the packages they care about. What you are proposing is what has been tried to be achieved for the past ten years and utterly failed hence we need a different approach. I say we remove those unmaintained components and if and when interest comes back to maintain those components then they will just have to pass through package review again. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Hi, On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:00:29AM +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:53:47PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:26:24 -0800 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: I think ideally any process around this should have at least two parts: a) an automated/scriptable part. In this part the script uses cold hard facts to look for possible packages that are unloved or package maintainers that are not active. There's tons of data we have now with fedmsg. Sadly, we don't have bugzilla in fedmsg, but we could scrape it directly. it generates a list that feeds to the next part. b) The generated list is examined by humans and action taken. Some things that are the list will be false positives. Try and adjust the script to not generate them. As a bonus, the script could also possibly try and figure out components that 'need help'...ie, lots of unanswered bugs or something. Even a simple list of packages ordered by the time from last non-mass-rebuild release multiplied by the number of currently open bugs would be quite useful. Packages with bug-years above 50 or so would be good candidates for inspection. Sounds reasonable to me. D. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Am 24.01.2014 09:18, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: On 01/24/2014 05:50 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: But, never deem that 5k components is the best number, comparing to other Linux, we are far away behind. They can be used still at the moment, why do we burden ourselves by the insignificant numbers? Quantity vs quality 5k - 7k was the number we peeked in contribution and innovation. We should be able to calculate the number of components we as in distribution actually can manage. We just need to agree on average contribute time which could be 2.5 hours a day 5 days of the week or something and how long each component distribution task takes, and how many packagers we have and reduce ourselves to exactly that size or there about. please come back to reality you can't seriously not count things that way because in that average you have self-made problems like drop-in-replacements of important components which are not ready and waste *a lot* of time, large packages which need *a lot* of time and small packages a trained monkey can build and maintain and what you also don't see is that one of the big time wasters most likely is maintained by completly different people than the packages where nothing more than download the tarball and rebuild it ever was needed (postfix as example needs *zero* maintainance and has nothing to do with the KDE maintainers) as i went in school i learned that such math will not work signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:18:16AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 01/24/2014 05:50 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: But, never deem that 5k components is the best number, comparing to other Linux, we are far away behind. They can be used still at the moment, why do we burden ourselves by the insignificant numbers? Quantity vs quality 5k - 7k was the number we peeked in contribution and innovation. Says who? We should be able to calculate the number of components we as in distribution actually can manage. We can't, because it is not possible. All packages are not equal, whatever you might think. We just need to agree on average contribute time which could be 2.5 hours a day 5 days of the week or something and how long each component distribution task takes, Oh, great... So I have two examples for you to ponder over, which might help you to determine that... An update to new release of, say, libcdr can be done and smoketested in 10-15 minutes. An update to new version of libreoffice takes days, possibly more than a week. and how many packagers we have and reduce ourselves to exactly that size or there about. Great way to make many packagers and users angry and move away. If your quest is to destroy Fedora, just say it aloud... Anyway, the main flaw in this scheme of yours is that you expect that packagers will split the remaining packages among themselves. THIS. IS. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. Ever. Fedora is not a dictature; you cannot order packagers around to start maintaining something, if they do not want to. So, can we finally abandon this crazy idea? D. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Am 24.01.2014 09:27, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: I say we remove those unmaintained components and if and when interest comes back to maintain those components then they will just have to pass through package review again. i say you remove *nothing* before you have asked for every single package you consider to remove because there are people only installed the really used ones and if you list one of the packages on my machines you can stop the whole idea who do you think you are that you believe you can remove others packages? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Kevin Fenzi wrote: I mean, I'm a maintainer for the Fedora apg package. Last upstream release was 2003. I very rarely touch it. Yet, from time to time I still use it here, I suspect, but do not know that others install and use it. It has no bugs currently opened against it. It's not failed a mass rebuild. The last time I touched it was to move it to use systemd unit files (it can optionally run a network service to return it's data). Is this a package that should be removed for being abandoned? I'm not familiar with APG but from your description it sounds like a perfect example of stable and reliable software – the best kind there is. So what if it's abandoned, if no one has found any bugs? Björn Persson signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 24 January 2014 10:32, Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se wrote: I'm not familiar with APG but from your description it sounds like a perfect example of stable and reliable software – the best kind there is. Right, so it belongs in Fedora; I don't think anyone is arguing against that. There is a metric ton of packages that are dead upstream with very few (if any users). I feel that a lot of these types of package are getting auto-cleansed from the distro when they fail the automated rebuilds a few releases in a row, or when the original fedora maintainer gets sick of the bug-mails and simply orphans it. My mail was about crappy GUI applications that users install and then the application crashes, they report a bug or feature request, wait, and nothing happens as the upstream is long dead and there are going to be no more releases. We can include those in the distribution for very little cost, but we shouldn't be advertising them in the software center among all the other awesome applications we have. Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/24/2014 10:39 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 24 January 2014 10:32, Björn Persson bj...@xn--rombobjrn-67a.se wrote: I'm not familiar with APG but from your description it sounds like a perfect example of stable and reliable software – the best kind there is. Right, so it belongs in Fedora; I don't think anyone is arguing against that. There is a metric ton of packages that are dead upstream with very few (if any users). I feel that a lot of these types of package are getting auto-cleansed from the distro when they fail the automated rebuilds a few releases in a row, or when the original fedora maintainer gets sick of the bug-mails and simply orphans it. My mail was about crappy GUI applications that users install and then the application crashes, they report a bug or feature request, wait, and nothing happens as the upstream is long dead and there are going to be no more releases. We can include those in the distribution for very little cost, but we shouldn't be advertising them in the software center among all the other awesome applications we have. If there exist and centralized software application center I as an end user would just go to my Gnome Application Center scroll or search through application list, double click or double tap the application that I would find interesting and install it which if I understand correctly would be installed into application container outline by Alexander and Lennart. If I lack proprietary driver of any kind to run chosen application I would think the application center would point that out to me as well and where to get that driver if it could not install it for me or be told that the application I have chosen would be incompatible with all of my device if it did not find it. So this may come as completely stupid question but what has centralized software application center for Gnome have to do with distribution since I as an end user would never install application in Gnome in any other way then to use Gnome Application Center thus I as an application developer would never develop my application to be used outside Gnome and polices around the application center like Android has [1][2] and quite frankly would be glad not having to deal with distribution package management systems like... DPKG APT - aptitude - dselect - Ubuntu Software Center RPM Package Manager YUM - APT-RPM - poldek - up2date - urpmi - ZYpp Classic Tar ball slapt-get - slackpkg - zendo - netpkg - swaret Bunch of others appbrowser - Conary - Equo - pkgutils - pacman - PETget - PISI - Portage - Smart Package Manager - Steam - Tazpkg - Upkg Which brings up another question if the intent is to aim for Gnome Application Center dont you need to control and release your own OS on a rebase-able release schedule since for example here in Iceland they have already replaced pc with tablets in several school so the next generation of end users is *used* to get a rebase-able update for their device. We cannot clean up the distribution which I consider the nr.1 priority we need to do just so it becomes agile enough for anykind of future proposal because the policy and the community will ,seems to be hey if it automated rebuilds we ship it! ( and this is just one distribution policy's then there is Debian,Arch,Suse etc.. ) So I get to the point I'm trying to see and understand what role do distribution play in that future for Gnome and why is Gnome contributors wasting so much time and energy in distribution politics and compatability as opposed to fully commit to the next step of the evolution and move beyond distribution in become a distribution of it's own? JBG 1. http://play.google.com/about/developer-content-policy.html 2. http://play.google.com/about/developer-distribution-agreement.html -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 24 January 2014 13:18, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johan...@gmail.com wrote: So I get to the point I'm trying to see and understand what role do distribution play in that future for Gnome and why is Gnome contributors wasting so much time and energy in distribution politics and compatability as opposed to fully commit to the next step of the evolution and move beyond distribution in become a distribution of it's own? GNOME Software supports more than just installing packages using PackageKit. It's designed as an abstraction with plugins so you can install web-apps, and in the future we'll be supporting static binaries like click and glick2 packages I'm sure. If you're interested we're designing all this in the open. Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/24/2014 01:51 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 24 January 2014 13:18, Jóhann B. Guðmundssonjohan...@gmail.com wrote: So I get to the point I'm trying to see and understand what role do distribution play in that future for Gnome and why is Gnome contributors wasting so much time and energy in distribution politics and compatability as opposed to fully commit to the next step of the evolution and move beyond distribution in become a distribution of it's own? GNOME Software supports more than just installing packages using PackageKit. It's designed as an abstraction with plugins so you can install web-apps, and in the future we'll be supporting static binaries like click and glick2 packages I'm sure. If you're interested we're designing all this in the open. If you got some link to the design(s) that would be fine since all I'm aware of is what Alexander and Lennart talked about in a bof in guadec last year but bottom line what I'm interested in to know the direction Gnome is heading in as well as ultimately what role distribution play in that direction. Basically Is Gnome preparing themselves for the tablet generation that will be stepping out of schools in the next years? JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 08:18:16 +, \Jóhann B. Guðmundsson\ johan...@gmail.com wrote: We should be able to calculate the number of components we as in distribution actually can manage. We just need to agree on average contribute time which could be 2.5 hours a day 5 days of the week or something and how long each component distribution task takes, and how many packagers we have and reduce ourselves to exactly that size or there about. Note that packager time isn't fungible between packages. If you ban a package a packager isn't necessarily going to use their freed up time to work on another package. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/23/2014 03:26 AM, Richard Hughes wrote: I don't think we need to drop any packages, unless keeping that package is actually making our life harder in a significant way. What I think it's makes a lot of sense doing is -hiding- the applications that are abandonware. Users that really want some low level tool using GTK-1 already know the package name, and are likely very familiar with the command line. The term 'hiding' conveys a wrong implication that abandonware is necessarily an embarrassment to be kept locked up in the attic. I can think of several programs that I use daily that are simple enough so that there's not much development happening to them. For example, the 'units' program, which I showed recently to some mechanical engineers who use Linux and they went 'OMG this is so cool, how come we didn't know about it even though we've been using Linux for ten years'. I do agree with you that we need better 'truth in labeling': the most useful and attractive-looking programs should be prominently featured and super-easy to find, and the known-buggy programs should display caveats---but I think it's important that everything is easily discoverable, rather than hidden away. In conclusion, I think the appdata idea is very good, and can do what both of us want to accomplish, with the right approach. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Hi On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:27 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: It's not pretending anything if you question what I suggest you get input from the arm team they are the once that most recently went through all the packages right. Let's hear from them how well much time they spent fixing unmaintained or badly maintained packages for nothing. If they support your view point, they can provide their input right here. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:37:07PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 01/22/2014 03:47 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 22 January 2014 12:09, Richard Hugheshughsi...@gmail.com wrote: That's a long way from what I'd like to see, but it's going up at about 1% per month, which is encouraging. Replying to my own email, apologies. I've now gone through the entire list of applications-in-fedora-without-appdata. A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release in half a decade, some over a decade. I would estimate that 40% of all the apps in Fedora are dead or semi-dead upstream. Excluding the KDE/XFCE/LXDE applications, I'd say we had a 70% completion of the applications I'd like to see in the software center. I've filed a lot of upstream bugs in the last two hours, so hopefully that's another few percent sorted. I wished we could simply just clean those bits out of our distribution because quite frankly we have 14+k components in the distribution and not nearly enough manpower to cover that all. You seem to be operating under a delusion that, if someone's package is forcibly dropped, (s)he will automatically seek comaintainership of another package to fill the vacuum. That is not very likely. What is likely, however, is that (s)he will become angered, orphan the rest of his/her packages and disappear. D. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 22 January 2014 21:44, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Richard already wrote a plugin :) https://github.com/GNOME/gnome-software/blob/e80d751ae0768a8969ff52e1cfc29a692a79bda0/src/plugins/gs-plugin-fedora-tagger.c Clearly, an excellent idea, then. :) Yes, it's all wired up and working in Fedora rawhide. The ratings flow both ways, so that if the user clicks on the star rating widget then it gets pushed back to fedora-tagger, and if the user hasn't got the app installed then the fedora-tagger rating is shown. It works pretty well now, but when the masses start (hopefully) using it in F21 it'll be more statistically sound. But actually what I meant was whether it would be valuable for the tagger app to _also_ let you add descriptions to applications which should have appdata but don't. This is probably a less-good idea... I was just thinking that since we have a program for user-created package metadata of one sort, maybe it could also help here. I don't think that works, as there's often an n:1 ratio of applications to packages. Richard. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 23 January 2014 08:07, David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com wrote: You seem to be operating under a delusion that, if someone's package is forcibly dropped, (s)he will automatically seek comaintainership of another package to fill the vacuum. That is not very likely. What is likely, however, is that (s)he will become angered, orphan the rest of his/her packages and disappear. I don't think we need to drop any packages, unless keeping that package is actually making our life harder in a significant way. What I think it's makes a lot of sense doing is -hiding- the applications that are abandonware. Users that really want some low level tool using GTK-1 already know the package name, and are likely very familiar with the command line. Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Hi, On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 12:09:25PM +, Richard Hughes wrote: Hi, As the subject suggests, Fedora 22 will require applications to have a long description to be shown in the software center. We're introducing this change so that we can show a powerful application full of high-quality content, rather than what we have now which is a equal mixture of awesome and sadness. If you're interested you can see the number of applications with appdata without installing gnome-software from rawhide here: http://alt.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/screenshots/f21/status.html (warning; huge generated HTML file). I have noticed that there are applications on the list that have NoDisplay=true in their desktop file, e.g., libreoffice-startcenter. Should these be skipped? D. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 23 January 2014 08:34, David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com wrote: I have noticed that there are applications on the list that have NoDisplay=true in their desktop file, e.g., libreoffice-startcenter. I've just downloaded libreoffice-4.2.0.2-2.fc21 and it has: [Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Terminal=false NoDisplay=false Icon=libreoffice-startcenter ... Richard. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/23/2014 08:07 AM, David Tardon wrote: On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:37:07PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 01/22/2014 03:47 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 22 January 2014 12:09, Richard Hugheshughsi...@gmail.com wrote: That's a long way from what I'd like to see, but it's going up at about 1% per month, which is encouraging. Replying to my own email, apologies. I've now gone through the entire list of applications-in-fedora-without-appdata. A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release in half a decade, some over a decade. I would estimate that 40% of all the apps in Fedora are dead or semi-dead upstream. Excluding the KDE/XFCE/LXDE applications, I'd say we had a 70% completion of the applications I'd like to see in the software center. I've filed a lot of upstream bugs in the last two hours, so hopefully that's another few percent sorted. I wished we could simply just clean those bits out of our distribution because quite frankly we have 14+k components in the distribution and not nearly enough manpower to cover that all. You seem to be operating under a delusion that, if someone's package is forcibly dropped, (s)he will automatically seek comaintainership of another package to fill the vacuum. That is not very likely. What is likely, however, is that (s)he will become angered, orphan the rest of his/her packages and disappear. I was operating under the *assumption* that the package was not being maintained as Richard said here... A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release in half a decade Which poses security risk and bugs not being dealt and bad end user experience if our end user base chooses to install it. ( because if they were actually being maintained here with us those fixes would have found it's way upstream and new releases been made right ). But clearly you dont understand that. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Am 23.01.2014 10:23, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release in half a decade Which poses security risk and bugs not being dealt and bad end user experience if our end user base chooses to install it have you ever considered software as done and no known bugs? ( because if they were actually being maintained here with us those fixes would have found it's way upstream and new releases been made right ). But clearly you dont understand that maybe you do not understand that there is no golden rule to fix bugs and release updates for no reason ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/apps/sound/mp3-utils/mp3info/ upstream may dead, upstream my be alive but nothing to do the software does what it is expected to do so why should there be a new release? not every software developer makes changes for the sake of the change signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 23 January 2014 10:12, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: have you ever considered software as done and no known bugs? Okay, I'll bite. ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/apps/sound/mp3-utils/mp3info/ upstream may dead, upstream my be alive but nothing to do the software does what it is expected to do so why should there be a new release? From the README of mp3info-0.8.5a.tgz: --- TO DO = * ID3v2 support is the most often-requested feature and is badly needed, however this will entail an almost complete rewrite and I'm a lazy SOB, so it's going to be a while yet... Anybody wanna volunteer? --- So, a command line program for getting info from an MP3 that doesn't support ID3v2, which is a 16 year old protocol that basically every CD ripping program defaults to? I'm not sure that supports your argument much. Richard -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Am 23.01.2014 12:13, schrieb Richard Hughes: On 23 January 2014 10:12, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: have you ever considered software as done and no known bugs? Okay, I'll bite. ftp://ftp.ibiblio.org/pub/linux/apps/sound/mp3-utils/mp3info/ upstream may dead, upstream my be alive but nothing to do the software does what it is expected to do so why should there be a new release? From the README of mp3info-0.8.5a.tgz: --- TO DO = * ID3v2 support is the most often-requested feature and is badly needed, however this will entail an almost complete rewrite and I'm a lazy SOB, so it's going to be a while yet... Anybody wanna volunteer? --- So, a command line program for getting info from an MP3 that doesn't support ID3v2, which is a 16 year old protocol that basically every CD ripping program defaults to? I'm not sure that supports your argument much well, my usage of that tool is simply to get the duration from files with a PHP script indexing my music archive, that call is unchanged the last 7 years and so i continue to refuse the benefit of throw a package out of the distribution because there is no new upstream release $handle = popen($GLOBALS['music_bin_mp3info'] . ' -p %S ' . escapeshellarg($path), 'r'); yes, i know that it is not a fedora package mp3info-0.8.5a-20.fc20.20131231.rh.x86_64 but it is a good example of something used and just works with our witout new upstream releases signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:23:49AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 01/23/2014 08:07 AM, David Tardon wrote: On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 04:37:07PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 01/22/2014 03:47 PM, Richard Hughes wrote: On 22 January 2014 12:09, Richard Hugheshughsi...@gmail.com wrote: That's a long way from what I'd like to see, but it's going up at about 1% per month, which is encouraging. Replying to my own email, apologies. I've now gone through the entire list of applications-in-fedora-without-appdata. A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release in half a decade, some over a decade. I would estimate that 40% of all the apps in Fedora are dead or semi-dead upstream. Excluding the KDE/XFCE/LXDE applications, I'd say we had a 70% completion of the applications I'd like to see in the software center. I've filed a lot of upstream bugs in the last two hours, so hopefully that's another few percent sorted. I wished we could simply just clean those bits out of our distribution because quite frankly we have 14+k components in the distribution and not nearly enough manpower to cover that all. You seem to be operating under a delusion that, if someone's package is forcibly dropped, (s)he will automatically seek comaintainership of another package to fill the vacuum. That is not very likely. What is likely, however, is that (s)he will become angered, orphan the rest of his/her packages and disappear. I was operating under the *assumption* that the package was not being maintained as Richard said here... But he did not said that. There have been any upstream release and the package is not maintained in _the distribution_ are two completely different statements. A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release in half a decade So? Maybe there have not been any bugs for half a decade that would justify a new release? Or maybe the maintainer just keeps a lot of patches in the package? Which poses security risk and bugs not being dealt Says you. Again, what if there are not any bugs? Hard to tell, because Richard did not list any names. And at what point does package become unmaintained? If I look at a couple of not-so-randomly selected packages, I see libreoffice has got 66 unresolved bugs, evolution 126 and gnome-shell 903... So which of these (if any) are not being maintained? and bad end user experience if our end user base chooses to install it. ( because if they were actually being maintained here with us those fixes would have found it's way upstream and new releases been made right ). Which fixes again? But clearly you dont understand that. No, I think your reasoning is faulty and your attempts to see everything in just black and white is fundamentally flawed. Anyway, that _was not_ the point of my mail. What I wanted to point out is that forced removal of packages _is not_ going to guarantee more packager's attention to the rest of the distribution. And it can in fact have the opposite effect, by alienating and losing existing packagers. D. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Hi, On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 08:51:53AM +, Richard Hughes wrote: On 23 January 2014 08:34, David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com wrote: I have noticed that there are applications on the list that have NoDisplay=true in their desktop file, e.g., libreoffice-startcenter. I've just downloaded libreoffice-4.2.0.2-2.fc21 and it has: [Desktop Entry] Version=1.0 Terminal=false NoDisplay=false Icon=libreoffice-startcenter ... Sigh, it was changed by commit 78e4c8a925f4735a7e9a4c32a29b19fd2b77670d fdo#70553: Fix Unity Quicklists. So back to changing it in the spec... D. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com wrote: As the subject suggests, Fedora 22 will require applications to have a long description to be shown in the software center. What constitutes an 'application' in this sense? Does 'gcc' count for instance? How about 'find'? David -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 23 January 2014 12:37, David Howells dhowe...@redhat.com wrote: What constitutes an 'application' in this sense? Does 'gcc' count for instance? How about 'find'? No. In the AppStream and AppData definitions, a program is an application if it has a .desktop file that is visible in the menu. i.e. not NoDisplay=true and that has at least one valid category. Richard. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/23/2014 12:09 PM, David Tardon wrote: No, I think your reasoning is faulty and your attempts to see everything in just black and white is fundamentally flawed. Anyway, that_was not_ the point of my mail. What I wanted to point out is that forced removal of packages_is not_ going to guarantee more packager's attention to the rest of the distribution. And it can in fact have the opposite effect, by alienating and losing existing packagers. I never implied that it would guarantee any more package attention that's an assumption you made. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Am 23.01.2014 14:06, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: On 01/23/2014 12:09 PM, David Tardon wrote: No, I think your reasoning is faulty and your attempts to see everything in just black and white is fundamentally flawed. Anyway, that_was not_ the point of my mail. What I wanted to point out is that forced removal of packages_is not_ going to guarantee more packager's attention to the rest of the distribution. And it can in fact have the opposite effect, by alienating and losing existing packagers. I never implied that it would guarantee any more package attention that's an assumption you made so what is the benefit then in propose drop packages where *upstream not* every 2-3 years starts a complete rewrite with only half of the features, a lot of bugs and regressions to qualify the next 3 years updates and after all the mess is fixed start the next rewrite to qualify ongoing development for a lifetime? if it ain't broken don't fix it! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 09:23:49AM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: A*lot* of those applications haven't seen an upstream release in half a decade Which poses security risk and bugs not being dealt and bad end user experience if our end user base chooses to install it. ( because if they were actually being maintained here with us those fixes would have found it's way upstream and new releases been made right ). So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default (but maybe removed from any references in comps). That could serve as a signal to both users (who could see that the package comes from a different place) and maintainers (who wouldn't have their package just _dropped_). And it would make it more obvious when packages that are maintained have possibly-dangerous dependencies on unmaintained ones. I'm not sure the benefits of that are worth the effort, but if someone is interested in working on it, it could be worth exploring. But clearly you dont understand that. Jóhann, please review Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct. Let's keep this conversation both civil and focused on the issue itself. -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Am 23.01.2014 16:49, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default That wont reduce the bugs reported against it... well, why not remove all packages so no bugs get reported at all? consider packages for removal because upstream does not jump around and release at least once per year a new version is hmmm... i must not say the words in public signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default That wont reduce the bugs reported against it... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 03:49:17PM +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default That wont reduce the bugs reported against it... That's not necessarily bad. And by categorizing those bugs separately, it would be easier to treat them differently. -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default That wont reduce the bugs reported against it... That's not necessarily bad. And by categorizing those bugs separately, it would be easier to treat them differently. We dont want QA community members testers/reporters/triagers ( and general end users ) wasting their contributed time reporting bugs that wont get fixed. ( I assume infra/releng dont want to spent resources in those either ) Or to put this differently if the WG's expect QA to spend *any* resources in the output they deliver, we in QA need to free up contributed time time in the QA community to do so and one way to achive that is for us to plug resources leakage like this one. So do you want us being able to help you with your cloud effort or do you want us to waste time on dead components? JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 01/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default That wont reduce the bugs reported against it... That's not necessarily bad. And by categorizing those bugs separately, it would be easier to treat them differently. We dont want QA community members testers/reporters/triagers ( and general end users ) wasting their contributed time reporting bugs that wont get fixed. Who is we? Just because upstream is inactive doesn't mean that there are bugs and just because upstream is inactive doesn't mean package maintainers won't fix bug reports. Most such components don't receive any bug reports whatsoever because they are stable and work just fine for the niche users who need them. They don't add any real overhead to Fedora and cutting them will just piss off users without any benefits. As long as package maintainers are willing to maintain them, there is no reason to mess with the process. If we want to have a way to show that upstream is inactive, that is pretty reasonable thing to do. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 23 January 2014 15:55, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: consider packages for removal because upstream does not jump around and release at least once per year a new version is hmmm... i must not say the words in public Please stop posting to this thread. Richard. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/23/2014 04:27 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 01/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default That wont reduce the bugs reported against it... That's not necessarily bad. And by categorizing those bugs separately, it would be easier to treat them differently. We dont want QA community members testers/reporters/triagers ( and general end users ) wasting their contributed time reporting bugs that wont get fixed. Who is we? Obviously not you... Just because upstream is inactive doesn't mean that there are bugs and just because upstream is inactive doesn't mean package maintainers won't fix bug reports. If a package maintainer fixes bug the package is no longer inactive since it's being actively maintained which is what matters regardless if upstream or just downstream with us... Quite frankly it amazes me how much people put themselves on a pedestole for maintaining a component in a distribution and at the same time either fail to understand or simply disregard the time,resources and scope the service sub-community as well as feature owners have to put into that component. QA/Releng/Infra/Doc all have to spend contributed time and resources into that same component for the duration of the lifetime of the component in the distribution which more often than not, is long time after it's maintainer has vanished or the component simply is no longer being maintained downstream/upstream... And all of the above is *beside* the negative effect such components have on end users that expect it to work since it's available to them through an application installer of any kind. How much time would it have saved Richard not having to go through those dead or semi-dead components and how willing do you think people are jumping to assist him when they know there is 40% that the time they are contribute to that work will be for nothing since those app apps are dead or semi-dead upstream? To me this is pure community resources leakage due to distribution litterers with the mentality of packaging *everything* regardless if upstream is dead or not because it works for *them*. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: That doesn't answer the question. You keep using the word we. Who is we? We in quality assurance if you want us to come up with an official respond regarding inactively maintained packages I can put it on the meeting agenda. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:56 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: Obviously not you... That doesn't answer the question. You keep using the word we. Who is we? To me this is pure community resources leakage due to distribution litterers with the mentality of packaging *everything* regardless if upstream is dead or not because it works for *them*. It is not packaging everything. It is packaging things that someone cares enough to volunteer to maintain and there is no reason to cut them off. If you have specific problems in any packages, feel free to point them out. Otherwise, just presuming that they are somehow a problem is unconvincing. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: That doesn't answer the question. You keep using the word we. Who is we? We in quality assurance if you want us to come up with an official respond regarding inactively maintained packages I can put it on the meeting agenda. Sure. Feel free to do that. As I have noted before, if you are just expressing your own opinion, you need to differentiate between that and the QA team. To speak on behalf of the entire team. you need to make sure there is consensus within that team that your opinion is shared by them. Bringing it up in a meeting is an excellent way to ensure that. If the QA team on the whole believes that packages without an active upstream are a significant resource drain on them and especially if they have any kind of metrics confirming this, we can and should look into ways to mitigating that problem. Thanks! Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: If you have specific problems in any packages, feel free to point them out. Tracker bug [1] which fixes requirements on crontab as got approved by the FPC [2]. Each of those ca 50 components contains a patch submitted by myself in last July which updates those components to be in compliance with FPG. By going through those reports you will notice how long it took for those patches to be applied as well as see all those that have yet to be applied. I myself spent several hours of my contributing time patching, rebuilding and test installing packages with those changes with this end result. JBG 1. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947037 2. https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/261 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: By going through those reports you will notice how long it took for those patches to be applied as well as see all those that have yet to be applied. Yep but these are not unique to components with an inactive upstream. All such enhancements take time to get through. Any changes in the packages guidelines unless they break packages from building take a significant amount of time to work through. I still see packages that are just now adopting to using systemd macros for instance or guidelines from years back and sometimes they are deliberately doing so to maintain compatibility with older releases but in many cases, it has just not been urgent enough to look into them until now. I have been working on a package (quassel) where upstream is very active but the Fedora package maintainer has been AWOL for a long time. You have identified a problem but you are misattributing it. Even my own packages there are times where I haven't touched them for a while because I have been busy with other things. I would love to get more co-maintainers and I have requested that from time to time. What we have in Fedora is a general resource shortage and that is not particularly uncommon in any open source project. The question we need to be asking ourselves is not whether upstream is active but whether those package maintainers are active on those specific packages and if they are not, how can we identify those unattended packages and how can we help them get more attention? Cutting of random packages off the distribution is the wrong way to solve that. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/23/2014 05:41 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 01/23/2014 05:06 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: By going through those reports you will notice how long it took for those patches to be applied as well as see all those that have yet to be applied. Yep but these are not unique to components with an inactive upstream. All such enhancements take time to get through. Any changes in the packages guidelines unless they break packages from building take a significant amount of time to work through. I still see packages that are just now adopting to using systemd macros for instance or guidelines from years back and sometimes they are deliberately doing so to maintain compatibility with older releases but in many cases, it has just not been urgent enough to look into them until now. I have been working on a package (quassel) where upstream is very active but the Fedora package maintainer has been AWOL for a long time. You have identified a problem but you are misattributing it. No I'm not in-activity is still in-activity,, In both these cases it falls on the hands of the packager/maintainer ( or none if he no longer is with us ). Now A) You cannot help those packages to get more attention. B) Even if you did our current package maintenance framework does not allow for drive by patching/helping C) Even if that was not the case as you correctly pointed out Fedora suffers from general resource shortage. all leading up to... Cutting off inactively maintained packages being the only way we can deal with that which in turn will reduce the size of the distribution to something we actually can maintain or cover ( which probably is around 5k components ) JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Jan 23, 2014, at 5:09 AM, David Tardon dtar...@redhat.com wrote: And at what point does package become unmaintained? It seems self evident that it's at least insufficiently maintained, if it doesn't meet the long description requirement to appear in software center. I don't know how else you expect this to work. What I wanted to point out is that forced removal of packages _is not_ going to guarantee more packager's attention to the rest of the distribution. Is there a reading comprehension problem in this thread? I don't recall seeing any suggestion that packages will be removed, let alone with force. They simply won't appear in software center if they don't meet the requirements for appearing in software center. Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Hi Cutting off inactively maintained packages being the only way we can deal with that which in turn will reduce the size of the distribution to something we actually can maintain or cover ( which probably is around 5k components ) I don't agree with the premise at all and therefore unsurprising I don't agree with this conclusion. In any case, I sincerely doubt you will get even a single person other than yourself to agree with this proposal but feel free to try filing a ticket with the QA team. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El Wed, 22 Jan 2014 12:09:25 + Richard Hughes hughsi...@gmail.com escribió: Hi, As the subject suggests, Fedora 22 will require applications to have a long description to be shown in the software center. We're introducing this change so that we can show a powerful application full of high-quality content, rather than what we have now which is a equal mixture of awesome and sadness. Its a fine idea but not feasible if we can not work out how to pull the data together and make it available. Dennis -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJS4VsLAAoJEH7ltONmPFDR8KMP/3Lvx0tvrR/sOvWSgwiMmmX3 QVVPtHxgjM8X1C2o8GFZ685BjfOrqGYT4Iu7cFeyHaojFENG3mDw5nbbfhbEBQ1s 5CP/v/z4ZK3gaUfSdcYTX4DXdUX1pct6nEatBqon32aqcm+hn2dw2CYqx/aoV0uU akqEOh0TPbpsKNuqn4EIu7Hcv8FV4rcyscOVMu78IBIVDYhvrU7fJU1yQs2qfc88 /g0E8gNZzoj8+lTdnKljrPnEijoio0PCPKoMv5ZLnko8ZY2m6Fd/cbVZiBxK/LlJ VvapJyxHGv99iClVULV6LHitFUdxtK+nOOhTtCY4xpHFEgZK7XUBbSC6iCFszax3 4/nwQ1qos51Dp9F5k9oUn7dBR3Lw+bBRjwxgMJTWZ00JoSswWHZwobWOpJQplGwO en4t2gATraoDUFPlHcSCpRljK2WuHFQCd+7+SldayKmLdCOpluRzCXk1bksvQ7d/ zGIPcg9RbmJdBFdEFCTInGsl49iHrNRb5LtRccsY8jD7cNdPkduMZEgcmh8wzkHD n7z6t6VLQoWAy54gcVzy5JW+1ZAVtK92oFA8WRE5ea6ZbnElhHxFbT0QXH/i91U8 j3uUGUWbDFnDyV1zcs2RIlknd5D2rr1wd6EV6g546XAM/TIqsRf19t0Jis8Uzo06 tPluJ3Gn69GRntB+bIia =Kd7Z -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On 01/23/2014 06:09 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: I don't agree with the premise at all and therefore unsurprising I don't agree with this conclusion. In any case, I sincerely doubt you will get even a single person other than yourself to agree with this proposal but feel free to try filing a ticket with the QA team. Oh I see you apparently have no idea what we in the QA community do but since you dont we dont handle this matters so there is no point for me to file a ticket it would not lead anywhere , however FESCO does and last time I knew they where trying to deal with this effectively with infra ( I have filed ticket about this before as have others ) but as you can see they are not doing very god job of dealing with it ( last result lead to them trying to find co-maintainers before removing a package as you have proposed but as you can see it has lead nowhere ) And this is a manually run process ( which Bill usually runs I think ) which they have in place which must have fallen through the cracks due the whole .next or wg stuff. ( which is not surprising ) JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: Oh I see you apparently have no idea what we in the QA community do but since you dont we dont handle this matters so there is no point for me to file a ticket it would not lead anywhere This seems pretty incoherent and I cannot parse it. I don't know you define QA community but I have participated in QA activities before and understand the process just fine. In any case, you were the one proposing to file a ticket yourself to bring up your ideas to the QA team just a few mails back and I suggested you follow up on it. If you think you will fail to build any kind of consensus even before trying, I guess we can drop your idea and move on Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Hi, On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 11:06:16AM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: What I wanted to point out is that forced removal of packages _is not_ going to guarantee more packager's attention to the rest of the distribution. Is there a reading comprehension problem in this thread? I don't recall seeing any suggestion that packages will be removed, let alone with force. JBG suggested that. Please re-read the email that started this whole sub-thread. D. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:55 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 23.01.2014 16:49, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default That wont reduce the bugs reported against it... well, why not remove all packages so no bugs get reported at all? consider packages for removal because upstream does not jump around and release at least once per year a new version is hmmm... i must not say the words in public I think this discussion is going down a needlessly divisive path that it doesn't need to at all. The discussion is assuming we have precisely two choices: * Rigidly and with no exceptions throw out software which meets some arbitrary approximations for determining 'maintained or abandoned' * Change nothing I don't think that's true at all. Would anyone on either side of the debate object to an approach which tried to identify software that was truly abandoned either up- or down-stream - not just 'software that no longer required changing' - and throw that out? I'm sure there's at least a certain amount of low-hanging fruit that no-one would really mind getting rid of. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Am 24.01.2014 00:08, schrieb Adam Williamson: On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:55 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 23.01.2014 16:49, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: On 01/23/2014 01:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: So, one possibility would be to move less-maintained packages to a separate repository tree still included as Fedora and enabled by default That wont reduce the bugs reported against it... well, why not remove all packages so no bugs get reported at all? consider packages for removal because upstream does not jump around and release at least once per year a new version is hmmm... i must not say the words in public I think this discussion is going down a needlessly divisive path that it doesn't need to at all. agreed The discussion is assuming we have precisely two choices: * Rigidly and with no exceptions throw out software which meets some arbitrary approximations for determining 'maintained or abandoned' the problem is how this would be defined * Change nothing before doing damage in remove packages working for people who are using them and do no harm to others i would prefer that I don't think that's true at all. Would anyone on either side of the debate object to an approach which tried to identify software that was truly abandoned either up- or down-stream - not just 'software that no longer required changing' - and throw that out? but who is really in the position to make that decision and how would he do it honestly I'm sure there's at least a certain amount of low-hanging fruit that no-one would really mind getting rid of but how make the decisions and who do the work of investigation? the only thing i can imagine is * does not pass the mass-rebuilds for new releases or dependencies * nobody cares to look why anything which goes abvoe this may do more harm as it could have benefits and no, in doubt open bugs only counted has bo value because it would need a deeper look if they are valid at all or only wishful thinking of the reporter or a RFE not declared as such signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:08:13 -0800 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: ...snip... I don't think that's true at all. Would anyone on either side of the debate object to an approach which tried to identify software that was truly abandoned either up- or down-stream - not just 'software that no longer required changing' - and throw that out? I'm sure there's at least a certain amount of low-hanging fruit that no-one would really mind getting rid of. I think the problem would be coming up with a acceptable criteria for detecting 'truely abandoned' packages. I mean, I'm a maintainer for the Fedora apg package. Last upstream release was 2003. I very rarely touch it. Yet, from time to time I still use it here, I suspect, but do not know that others install and use it. It has no bugs currently opened against it. It's not failed a mass rebuild. The last time I touched it was to move it to use systemd unit files (it can optionally run a network service to return it's data). Is this a package that should be removed for being abandoned? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 00:15 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: I'm sure there's at least a certain amount of low-hanging fruit that no-one would really mind getting rid of but how make the decisions and who do the work of investigation? Sure, that's something that would have to get figured out. Presumably those interested in throwing out packages would be the ones who'd have to volunteer to do the work, along the time-honoured principles. :) the only thing i can imagine is * does not pass the mass-rebuilds for new releases or dependencies * nobody cares to look why We already throw such packages out - there's a process by which packages which fail mass rebuilds get orphaned and then retired if no-one fixes them. There are packages that haven't been touched in years that continue to build successfully, though, and at present, they will glide along up until the point at which they fail a mass rebuild (or their maintainer actively chooses to retire them). -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:19 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:08:13 -0800 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: ...snip... I don't think that's true at all. Would anyone on either side of the debate object to an approach which tried to identify software that was truly abandoned either up- or down-stream - not just 'software that no longer required changing' - and throw that out? I'm sure there's at least a certain amount of low-hanging fruit that no-one would really mind getting rid of. I think the problem would be coming up with a acceptable criteria for detecting 'truely abandoned' packages. I mean, I'm a maintainer for the Fedora apg package. Last upstream release was 2003. I very rarely touch it. Yet, from time to time I still use it here, I suspect, but do not know that others install and use it. It has no bugs currently opened against it. It's not failed a mass rebuild. The last time I touched it was to move it to use systemd unit files (it can optionally run a network service to return it's data). Is this a package that should be removed for being abandoned? Well, let's say it's certainly not 'low-hanging fruit' :) I'm not saying I have all the answers, just suggesting a possibly more productive course. At least now we have people co-operatively discussing the possibilities and potential dangers of doing an *intelligent* pruning, rather than throwing crap at each other from entrenched positions about whether a *dumb* pruning is a good idea or not. I'd say that's an improvement. If I was the one drawing up a proposal to do this, I'd start from the *easy* cases. The *hard* cases you can handle later, and it would obviously be perfectly reasonable to adopt a 'conservative' posture, where the default expectation is that packages will be kept, and there has to be a strong argument/consensus/whatever for throwing a package out. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:19:11PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: I mean, I'm a maintainer for the Fedora apg package. Last upstream release was 2003. I very rarely touch it. Yet, from time to time I still use it here, I suspect, but do not know that others install and use it. Ooh. I do! Keep this one! #nothelpful #buttrue -- Matthew Miller-- Fedora Project--mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:26:24 -0800 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: Well, let's say it's certainly not 'low-hanging fruit' :) I'm not saying I have all the answers, just suggesting a possibly more productive course. At least now we have people co-operatively discussing the possibilities and potential dangers of doing an *intelligent* pruning, rather than throwing crap at each other from entrenched positions about whether a *dumb* pruning is a good idea or not. I'd say that's an improvement. If I was the one drawing up a proposal to do this, I'd start from the *easy* cases. The *hard* cases you can handle later, and it would obviously be perfectly reasonable to adopt a 'conservative' posture, where the default expectation is that packages will be kept, and there has to be a strong argument/consensus/whatever for throwing a package out. Agreed. So, this is closely related to the non responsive package maintainer process, which I think almost everyone agrees now is not very good. :( I think ideally any process around this should have at least two parts: a) an automated/scriptable part. In this part the script uses cold hard facts to look for possible packages that are unloved or package maintainers that are not active. There's tons of data we have now with fedmsg. Sadly, we don't have bugzilla in fedmsg, but we could scrape it directly. it generates a list that feeds to the next part. b) The generated list is examined by humans and action taken. Some things that are the list will be false positives. Try and adjust the script to not generate them. As a bonus, the script could also possibly try and figure out components that 'need help'...ie, lots of unanswered bugs or something. If someone wants to write up a concrete proposal around this, I think that would be great. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:53:47PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:26:24 -0800 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: I think ideally any process around this should have at least two parts: a) an automated/scriptable part. In this part the script uses cold hard facts to look for possible packages that are unloved or package maintainers that are not active. There's tons of data we have now with fedmsg. Sadly, we don't have bugzilla in fedmsg, but we could scrape it directly. it generates a list that feeds to the next part. b) The generated list is examined by humans and action taken. Some things that are the list will be false positives. Try and adjust the script to not generate them. As a bonus, the script could also possibly try and figure out components that 'need help'...ie, lots of unanswered bugs or something. Even a simple list of packages ordered by the time from last non-mass-rebuild release multiplied by the number of currently open bugs would be quite useful. Packages with bug-years above 50 or so would be good candidates for inspection. If someone wants to write up a concrete proposal around this, I think that would be great. +1 Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 01:00 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 04:53:47PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 15:26:24 -0800 Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: I think ideally any process around this should have at least two parts: a) an automated/scriptable part. In this part the script uses cold hard facts to look for possible packages that are unloved or package maintainers that are not active. There's tons of data we have now with fedmsg. Sadly, we don't have bugzilla in fedmsg, but we could scrape it directly. it generates a list that feeds to the next part. b) The generated list is examined by humans and action taken. Some things that are the list will be false positives. Try and adjust the script to not generate them. As a bonus, the script could also possibly try and figure out components that 'need help'...ie, lots of unanswered bugs or something. Even a simple list of packages ordered by the time from last non-mass-rebuild release multiplied by the number of currently open bugs would be quite useful. Packages with bug-years above 50 or so would be good candidates for inspection. Hey, I love that idea. Great metric. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Heads up; F22 will require applications to ship appdata to be listed in software center
Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 01:00 +0100, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Even a simple list of packages ordered by the time from last non-mass-rebuild release multiplied by the number of currently open bugs would be quite useful. Packages with bug-years above 50 or so would be good candidates for inspection. Hey, I love that idea. Great metric. Agreed. It is atleast a metric that can be tweaked as opposed to pretending that all packages with inactive upstreams is a deep resource drain on Fedora. I would suggest that when we identify such packages, we take steps to try and get more maintainers for those packages first before trying to cull them off. For instance, sending a note to fedora announce list and here with the list of problematic packages. That way, everyone will have a fair chance to try and rescue the packages they care about. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
