Re: [Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
On 8 February 2011 23:22, Ahmad Samir ahmadsamir3...@gmail.com wrote: Personally, as I said before about upstreaming patches, I don't think I have enough experience to judge if a patch should go upstream or not, so that part I can't do. What do you mean by commented? A thing like: #patch from to fix truc Patch0: glibc-2.12-truc.fix.patch That's usually available in the svn log, whoever wrote the patch should have commented it if that is the policy, however I am not aware that such a policy exists (IMBW though). remember we lost Mdv history when importing packages? (SILENT stuff, ...)
Re: [Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 12:22:59AM +0200, Ahmad Samir wrote: On 8 February 2011 08:21, Cazzaniga Sandro cazzaniga.san...@gmail.com wrote: Le 07/02/2011 22:11, Ahmad Samir a écrit : Personally, as I said before about upstreaming patches, I don't think I have enough experience to judge if a patch should go upstream or not, so that part I can't do. What do you mean by commented? A thing like: #patch from to fix truc Patch0: glibc-2.12-truc.fix.patch That's usually available in the svn log, whoever wrote the patch should have commented it if that is the policy, however I am not aware that such a policy exists (IMBW though). There is no specific policy despites the matter being discussed some time ago, but to me, this is the only way to know what was send upstream and what wasn't. It is ok if someone is not sure to send upstream or not, but we cannot know if this is not written. And searching the svn log is tedious, people usually say add patch to fix stuff, without giving the name. And you have to search for every patch, and nobody ever say what is the upstream status of the patch. So writing in the spec, just before the patch what it does, if it was sent upstream, and where ( or why it shouldn't ) allow to quickly see the status. For example, I found while cleaning newt that some patches where never send to developpers ( and so I did ), that 2 patchs were wrong. So we cannot assumed that it was send back, even when we take the file from another distribution. I started working on a prototype of a web interface to manage this ( called ghostwheel ), but it requires some functions on sophie to work ( and didn't had time to code them ). ( a django web application, so far it does nothing except declaring a db and having a cool name ). If we do not comment and send upstream, we will end up with rpm like gdb : When you look at it ( http://svnweb.mageia.org/packages/cauldron/gdb/current/SPECS/gdb.spec?revision=21081view=markup ), the patch 320 ( and others ) that seems to come from gdb 6.5, you see there is something fishy since we are now running gdb 7.1. Some seems to be linked to bugzilla ( no mention of the url of the bz ), but does it mean they were sent uptream or not ? The various format-security patches, etc, should also be commented and send upstream. The patches about IA64 should maybe have been cleaned, etc. Ask teuf why it took so long to upgrade gdb :) -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
On 9 February 2011 11:27, Michael scherer m...@zarb.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 12:22:59AM +0200, Ahmad Samir wrote: On 8 February 2011 08:21, Cazzaniga Sandro cazzaniga.san...@gmail.com wrote: Le 07/02/2011 22:11, Ahmad Samir a écrit : Personally, as I said before about upstreaming patches, I don't think I have enough experience to judge if a patch should go upstream or not, so that part I can't do. What do you mean by commented? A thing like: #patch from to fix truc Patch0: glibc-2.12-truc.fix.patch That's usually available in the svn log, whoever wrote the patch should have commented it if that is the policy, however I am not aware that such a policy exists (IMBW though). There is no specific policy despites the matter being discussed some time ago, but to me, this is the only way to know what was send upstream and what wasn't. It is ok if someone is not sure to send upstream or not, but we cannot know if this is not written. And searching the svn log is tedious, people usually say add patch to fix stuff, without giving the name. And you have to search for every patch, and nobody ever say what is the upstream status of the patch. So writing in the spec, just before the patch what it does, if it was sent upstream, and where ( or why it shouldn't ) allow to quickly see the status. For example, I found while cleaning newt that some patches where never send to developpers ( and so I did ), that 2 patchs were wrong. So we cannot assumed that it was send back, even when we take the file from another distribution. I started working on a prototype of a web interface to manage this ( called ghostwheel ), but it requires some functions on sophie to work ( and didn't had time to code them ). ( a django web application, so far it does nothing except declaring a db and having a cool name ). If we do not comment and send upstream, we will end up with rpm like gdb : When you look at it ( http://svnweb.mageia.org/packages/cauldron/gdb/current/SPECS/gdb.spec?revision=21081view=markup ), the patch 320 ( and others ) that seems to come from gdb 6.5, you see there is something fishy since we are now running gdb 7.1. Some seems to be linked to bugzilla ( no mention of the url of the bz ), but does it mean they were sent uptream or not ? The various format-security patches, etc, should also be commented and send upstream. The patches about IA64 should maybe have been cleaned, etc. Ask teuf why it took so long to upgrade gdb :) -- Michael Scherer I agree it's good practice to comment on patches in the spec. But if you expect me to trudge through the svn log of each package I import/imported to see why a patch was added and add a comment in the spec then I won't import any packages. I am not going to correct a behaviour that was in effect for years as it's not my fault to begin with... :) -- Ahmad Samir
Re: [Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
On 8 February 2011 08:21, Cazzaniga Sandro cazzaniga.san...@gmail.com wrote: Le 07/02/2011 22:11, Ahmad Samir a écrit : Personally, as I said before about upstreaming patches, I don't think I have enough experience to judge if a patch should go upstream or not, so that part I can't do. What do you mean by commented? A thing like: #patch from to fix truc Patch0: glibc-2.12-truc.fix.patch That's usually available in the svn log, whoever wrote the patch should have commented it if that is the policy, however I am not aware that such a policy exists (IMBW though). -- Ahmad Samir
Re: [Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
Romain d'Alverny a écrit : On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 16:35, Marcello Annimarcello.a...@alice.it wrote: we will be able to create a LiveCD version of Mageia for this alpha release? this is really important as interested people that don't want problems may want to try it and then install it only when a stable release is ready for everyday use. As pointed out several times (and will be underlined in all announcements) this Alpha 1 is - NOT a stable release - NOT for the average user, it's a developper release - NOT ready for everyday use in fact, a livecd version allow to keep the funny side of linux without having any risk. so? Again, that's not the focus of this alpha release. We don't want people to try it around just to see what Mageia has in reserve, because they will be disappointed in this regard: take this alpha as an alpha-developer/packager-technical-raw-preview. It will be ugly. It will scare Santa Claus. It will make the rain vaporize. It may even break your neighbour's TV set. Right -- Mageia is powerful stuff :) Point well made. Our alpha release will be far from ready for the average user. But an essential step in the process. Romain -- André
Re: [Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
Le lundi 07 février 2011 à 21:30 +0200, Ahmad Samir a écrit : On 26 January 2011 20:20, Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote: Le mercredi 26 janvier 2011 à 18:13 +0200, Ahmad Samir a écrit : More DE's will be in soon; note that the big hurdle of importing the most basic packages is over, so importing packages now is much easier :) Yeah, but personally, i would prefer to see that people focus more on cleaning ( and sending patches upstream ) than importing And who said that when we import a package we didn't clean it too? Well, most of the time, patches are not commented nor send upstream :/ -- Michael Scherer
Re: [Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
On 7 February 2011 22:24, Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote: Le lundi 07 février 2011 à 21:30 +0200, Ahmad Samir a écrit : On 26 January 2011 20:20, Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org wrote: Le mercredi 26 janvier 2011 à 18:13 +0200, Ahmad Samir a écrit : More DE's will be in soon; note that the big hurdle of importing the most basic packages is over, so importing packages now is much easier :) Yeah, but personally, i would prefer to see that people focus more on cleaning ( and sending patches upstream ) than importing And who said that when we import a package we didn't clean it too? Well, most of the time, patches are not commented nor send upstream :/ -- Michael Scherer Personally, as I said before about upstreaming patches, I don't think I have enough experience to judge if a patch should go upstream or not, so that part I can't do. What do you mean by commented? -- Ahmad Samir
Re: [Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
Le 07/02/2011 22:11, Ahmad Samir a écrit : Personally, as I said before about upstreaming patches, I don't think I have enough experience to judge if a patch should go upstream or not, so that part I can't do. What do you mean by commented? A thing like: #patch from to fix truc Patch0: glibc-2.12-truc.fix.patch
Re: [Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
Am 26.01.2011 16:35, schrieb Marcello Anni: As pointed out several times (and will be underlined in all announcements) this Alpha 1 is - NOT a stable release - NOT for the average user, it's a developper release - NOT ready for everyday use -- wobo in fact, a livecd version allow to keep the funny side of linux without having any risk. so? Correct me of I'm wrong, but afaik the alpha will be just the base of the upcoming mageia, without any DE or X. Regards, Thorsten
Re: [Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
2011/1/26 Marcello Anni marcello.a...@alice.it: 2011/1/26 Marcello Anni marcello.a...@alice.it: Hi there As usual feel free to propose any other topic provided our meeting stay in human timetable :). hi Anne, we will be able to create a LiveCD version of Mageia for this alpha release? this is really important as interested people that don't want problems may want to try it and then install it only when a stable release is ready for everyday use. As pointed out several times (and will be underlined in all announcements) this Alpha 1 is - NOT a stable release - NOT for the average user, it's a developper release - NOT ready for everyday use -- wobo in fact, a livecd version allow to keep the funny side of linux without having any risk. so? I am not sure what this means in this context, but the time for discussion about live CDs will certainly come sooner or later. This first Alpha is meant to - test the build system in all its parts up to a release - test the bootstrapping process - (last but not least) show the progress of the project. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it will net even have a graphical interface (x server). -- wobo
Re: [Mageia-dev] 26/01/2011 meeting
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 16:35, Marcello Anni marcello.a...@alice.it wrote: we will be able to create a LiveCD version of Mageia for this alpha release? this is really important as interested people that don't want problems may want to try it and then install it only when a stable release is ready for everyday use. As pointed out several times (and will be underlined in all announcements) this Alpha 1 is - NOT a stable release - NOT for the average user, it's a developper release - NOT ready for everyday use in fact, a livecd version allow to keep the funny side of linux without having any risk. so? Again, that's not the focus of this alpha release. We don't want people to try it around just to see what Mageia has in reserve, because they will be disappointed in this regard: take this alpha as an alpha-developer/packager-technical-raw-preview. It will be ugly. It will scare Santa Claus. It will make the rain vaporize. It may even break your neighbour's TV set. ah ah : ) ok then, i've understood i can't try it : ) Moverover, for future alpha/beta/finale release, formats to be released (live, non-live, cd, dvd, other) _have to_ be specified on the release roadmap/features page (so obviously, there needs to be a discussion about this for the next alpha). And a livecd will be fine as soon as we near the final release (or maybe not, that's to be discussed). ok, thank you for these infos Romain cheers, Marcello
