Re: lv2-sorcer is not installable

[Code Zombie]

I hope the package gets unretired, because the way things are now, even
dnf groupinstall "Audio Production" fails to work.

- Mehdi

On Sun, Jan 5, 2020, 15:11 Guido Aulisi  wrote:

> Il giorno dom, 05/01/2020 alle 12.21 +0100, Miro Hrončok ha scritto:
> > On 03. 01. 20 19:24, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > > The dep was provided by non-ntk, which got retired about half a
> > > > year
> > > > ago [1] after FTBFSing since F29 [2].
> > >
> > > Isn't it great when the policy designed to
> > > remove
> > > breakage from the distribution actually CREATES breakage? Retiring
> > > packages
> > > with no regards to their reverse dependencies is just broken. It
> > > had never
> > > been done that way in the past, before Miro's recent crackdown,
> > > because it
> > > simply defeats all common sense.
> >
> > As a matter of fact, the policy was changed recently, so depending
> > package
> > maintainers MUST get notifications. The Fedora 31 round was
> > unfortunate, mostly
> > because nobody got properly notified. I have devoted a great amount
> > of energy
> > and time to make it better for next rounds. I hope it worked. Only
> > couple of
> > packages are to be retired, where the maintainers simply don't care
> > anymore with
> > only one dependent package:
> >
> >
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/YRLNHZSV4U47A3MDWIU6MUANVMPEFKD2/
> >
> > For the F31 crackdown - it's not like a retired package cannot ever
> > be
> > unretired. It has been more than 8 weeks now, but I gladly re-review
> > a package
> > that got retired, if new maintainers pop up. Unlike you, I actually
> > believe
> > packages must be maintained in order to be kept.
>
> I'm working for unretiring non-ntk, I think I can file a new review
> request in one week, as soon as I come back home; I'm already working
> on it.
>
> > The solution is not to stop orphaning/retiring FTBFS packages, the
> > solution is
> > to get "broken deps" notifications working again:
> >
> >
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RBV3UTSPIGW3TOZJSYTXCZMRV4QBR7X5/
>
> Ciao
> Guido
>
> FAS: tartina
> ___
> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: lv2-sorcer is not installable

[Guido Aulisi]

Il giorno dom, 05/01/2020 alle 12.21 +0100, Miro Hrončok ha scritto:
> On 03. 01. 20 19:24, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > > The dep was provided by non-ntk, which got retired about half a
> > > year
> > > ago [1] after FTBFSing since F29 [2].
> > 
> > Isn't it great when the policy designed to
> > remove
> > breakage from the distribution actually CREATES breakage? Retiring
> > packages
> > with no regards to their reverse dependencies is just broken. It
> > had never
> > been done that way in the past, before Miro's recent crackdown,
> > because it
> > simply defeats all common sense.
> 
> As a matter of fact, the policy was changed recently, so depending
> package 
> maintainers MUST get notifications. The Fedora 31 round was
> unfortunate, mostly 
> because nobody got properly notified. I have devoted a great amount
> of energy 
> and time to make it better for next rounds. I hope it worked. Only
> couple of 
> packages are to be retired, where the maintainers simply don't care
> anymore with 
> only one dependent package:
> 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/YRLNHZSV4U47A3MDWIU6MUANVMPEFKD2/
> 
> For the F31 crackdown - it's not like a retired package cannot ever
> be 
> unretired. It has been more than 8 weeks now, but I gladly re-review
> a package 
> that got retired, if new maintainers pop up. Unlike you, I actually
> believe 
> packages must be maintained in order to be kept.

I'm working for unretiring non-ntk, I think I can file a new review
request in one week, as soon as I come back home; I'm already working
on it.

> The solution is not to stop orphaning/retiring FTBFS packages, the
> solution is 
> to get "broken deps" notifications working again:
> 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RBV3UTSPIGW3TOZJSYTXCZMRV4QBR7X5/

Ciao
Guido

FAS: tartina


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: lv2-sorcer is not installable

[Miro Hrončok]

On 03. 01. 20 19:24, Kevin Kofler wrote:

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:

The dep was provided by non-ntk, which got retired about half a year
ago [1] after FTBFSing since F29 [2].


Isn't it great when the policy designed to remove
breakage from the distribution actually CREATES breakage? Retiring packages
with no regards to their reverse dependencies is just broken. It had never
been done that way in the past, before Miro's recent crackdown, because it
simply defeats all common sense.


As a matter of fact, the policy was changed recently, so depending package 
maintainers MUST get notifications. The Fedora 31 round was unfortunate, mostly 
because nobody got properly notified. I have devoted a great amount of energy 
and time to make it better for next rounds. I hope it worked. Only couple of 
packages are to be retired, where the maintainers simply don't care anymore with 
only one dependent package:


https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel-annou...@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/YRLNHZSV4U47A3MDWIU6MUANVMPEFKD2/

For the F31 crackdown - it's not like a retired package cannot ever be 
unretired. It has been more than 8 weeks now, but I gladly re-review a package 
that got retired, if new maintainers pop up. Unlike you, I actually believe 
packages must be maintained in order to be kept.


The solution is not to stop orphaning/retiring FTBFS packages, the solution is 
to get "broken deps" notifications working again:


https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/RBV3UTSPIGW3TOZJSYTXCZMRV4QBR7X5/

--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: lv2-sorcer is not installable

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Sat, Jan 04, 2020 at 12:48:21AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > Don't blame Miro for doing the necessary things, just because you don't
> > like the process.
> 
> The issue is that I do not agree that this process is necessary to begin 
> with.
> 
> > We have asked you multiple times to suggest a policy that works for you
> > too, but you haven't done that,
> 
> I have. The policy that I have suggested is to just do nothing. FTBFS by 
> itself has no impact whatsoever on end users. Only if the package actually 
> does not install and/or run, it is appropriate to file a bug, and if that 
> bug is not acted upon and cannot be easily fixed by a provenpackager due to 
> the FTBFS, to initiate the (existing) non-responsive maintainer policy.

Fine. You have created a proposal now. The idea of doing nothing has
been discussed, and rejected. A bunch of various processes has been
discussed, one of them accepted by FESCo. Despite many different
opinions about the best procedure, one thing that everybody seemed to
agree on was that *something* needs to be done. So yeah, the idea of doing
*nothing* was rejected by the tech governance body of Fedora, duly elected
according to our rules.

You keep saying stuff like "Miro's crackdown", as if it was one
person's whim to do this. It is not. It is the official Fedora policy,
see previous paragraph. And yes, this comes very close to being an
attack on the person. If you don't like the policy, convince enough
community members to vote differently and change the policy.

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

Re: lv2-sorcer is not installable

[Kevin Kofler]

Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Don't blame Miro for doing the necessary things, just because you don't
> like the process.

The issue is that I do not agree that this process is necessary to begin 
with.

> We have asked you multiple times to suggest a policy that works for you
> too, but you haven't done that,

I have. The policy that I have suggested is to just do nothing. FTBFS by 
itself has no impact whatsoever on end users. Only if the package actually 
does not install and/or run, it is appropriate to file a bug, and if that 
bug is not acted upon and cannot be easily fixed by a provenpackager due to 
the FTBFS, to initiate the (existing) non-responsive maintainer policy.

You may not like that proposal, which is your right, but please do not claim 
that it does not exist.

Intermediate concepts between my proposal and the status quo could also be 
considered, e.g., retire the packages if nothing depends on them, but if 
retiring some particular package would break some other package, do nothing 
for that particular package.

> instead you only insulted community members.

As far as I can remember, I have not insulted people. I have only described 
processes (not people) with negative terms that I do not believe to be 
insults (such as "broken" or "defeats all common sense"), and I believe that 
criticism to be objectively true. I am sorry if that offends any of you.

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

Re: lv2-sorcer is not installable

[Fabio Valentini]

On Fri, Jan 3, 2020, 19:25 Kevin Kofler  wrote:

> Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > The dep was provided by non-ntk, which got retired about half a year
> > ago [1] after FTBFSing since F29 [2].
>
> Isn't it great when the policy designed to remove
> breakage from the distribution actually CREATES breakage? Retiring
> packages
> with no regards to their reverse dependencies is just broken. It had never
> been done that way in the past, before Miro's recent crackdown, because it
> simply defeats all common sense.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>

Kevin, I agree with you on some topics, but please stop spreading FUD like
this. The maintainers got notifications for *four months* before the
package was retired, and obviously ignored them. Another 5 months passed
without somebody posting this message to the devel list, and nobody
unretired the package during that time. I'd say good riddance to broken and
unmaintained packages like this one.

Don't blame Miro for doing the necessary things, just because you don't
like the process. We have asked you multiple times to suggest a policy that
works for you too, but you haven't done that, instead you only insulted
community members.

Fabio


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

Re: lv2-sorcer is not installable

[Kevin Kofler]

Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> The dep was provided by non-ntk, which got retired about half a year
> ago [1] after FTBFSing since F29 [2].

Isn't it great when the policy designed to remove 
breakage from the distribution actually CREATES breakage? Retiring packages 
with no regards to their reverse dependencies is just broken. It had never 
been done that way in the past, before Miro's recent crackdown, because it 
simply defeats all common sense.

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

Re: lv2-sorcer is not installable

[Tomasz Torcz]

On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 08:36:45AM -0500, Code Zombie wrote:
> Hi
> 
> lv2-sorcer cannot be installed on Fedora 31. Seems like the libntk lib
> needed by the package is not provided by any packages. The full
> installation error is as follows:

  Looks like non-ntk library failed to build for last few releases:
  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=16952

  It was removed from distribution (retired):
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1675550

-- 
Tomasz Torcz Morality must always be based on practicality.
to...@pipebreaker.pl — Baron Vladimir Harkonnen
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: lv2-sorcer is not installable

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Fri, Jan 03, 2020 at 08:36:45AM -0500, Code Zombie wrote:
> Hi
> 
> lv2-sorcer cannot be installed on Fedora 31. Seems like the libntk lib
> needed by the package is not provided by any packages. The full
> installation error is as follows:
> 
> ```
>  sudo dnf install lv2-sorcer
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:32:35 ago on Fri 03 Jan 2020 08:00:41 AM
> EST.
> Error:
>  Problem: conflicting requests
>   - nothing provides libntk.so.1()(64bit) needed by
> lv2-sorcer-1.1-2320131104git18e6891.fc31.x86_64
>   - nothing provides libntk_images.so.1()(64bit) needed by
> lv2-sorcer-1.1-2320131104git18e6891.fc31.x86_64
> (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
> ```

The dep was provided by non-ntk, which got retired about half a year
ago [1] after FTBFSing since F29 [2].

[1] 
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/non-ntk/c/d0ea7bd9216c9d2edae690749a58a7bbe36f2c72?branch=master
[2] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=16952

To keep lv2-sorcer alive, non-ntk would need to be unretired.

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

lv2-sorcer is not installable

[Code Zombie]

Hi

lv2-sorcer cannot be installed on Fedora 31. Seems like the libntk lib
needed by the package is not provided by any packages. The full
installation error is as follows:

```
 sudo dnf install lv2-sorcer
Last metadata expiration check: 0:32:35 ago on Fri 03 Jan 2020 08:00:41 AM
EST.
Error:
 Problem: conflicting requests
  - nothing provides libntk.so.1()(64bit) needed by
lv2-sorcer-1.1-2320131104git18e6891.fc31.x86_64
  - nothing provides libntk_images.so.1()(64bit) needed by
lv2-sorcer-1.1-2320131104git18e6891.fc31.x86_64
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages)
```

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