Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> 18:23:37 #topic ticket 868 F18 Feature: MiniDebugInfo -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MiniDebugInfo
> 18:23:37 .fesco 868
> 18:23:42 nirik: #868 (F18 Feature: MiniDebugInfo -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/MiniDebugInfo) – FESCo -
> https://fedorahoste
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:10:34PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * ticket 864 F18 Feature: DNF -
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DNF (nirik, 17:44:17)
> * AGREED: Feature is approved (+8/0) (nirik, 17:56:59)
It would help a lot if a features are only approved, when they have
descrip
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Till Maas wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:10:34PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> * ticket 864 F18 Feature: DNF -
>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DNF (nirik, 17:44:17)
>> * AGREED: Feature is approved (+8/0) (nirik, 17:56:59)
>
> It would help a
Josh Boyer wrote on 19.06.2012 13:42:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Till Maas wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:10:34PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> * ticket 864 F18 Feature: DNF -
>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/DNF (nirik, 17:44:17)
>>> * AGREED: Feature is approved (+8
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Josh Boyer wrote on 19.06.2012 13:42:
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Till Maas wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 01:10:34PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
* ticket 864 F18 Feature: DNF -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Featur
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 08:36:31AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis
> wrote:
> > Josh Boyer wrote on 19.06.2012 13:42:
> >> Because you can't click on the link and read about the feature where
> >> it describes this in detail?
> >
> > You can, but imm
As reaction to approved MiniDebugInfo feature, we agreed on KDE SIG
meeting that we would have to break CD size limit (and the breaking
of CD size image was used as argument to accept this feature).
We agreed that 800 MiB is achievable target:
- all spins will still fit Multi Desktop Live DVD
- th
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Other possibility is to go directly to 1 GiB but we are not sure
> there's advantage (at least not now).
You would probably want to make the target 1 GB (SI units), not 1 GiB. The
capacity of thumb drives is measured in SI units, so a "1 GB" thumb drive really
is 1000^3 b
Lennart Poettering 0pointer.de> writes:
> For those too lazy to calculate the difference between 1 GB and 1 GiB: 1
> GB equals 953 MiB. We hence should probably stick to to 950 MiB as new
> target image size.
To avoid confusion over units or rounding/truncation (1 GB isn't *exactly* 953
MiB, for
Kevin Kofler chello.at> writes:
> Download times are not the only reason for not going up to the full
> (> 4 GiB) DVD size, though IMHO they are also a valid reason. There's also
> the Multi Desktop Live DVD distributed by the ambassadors, which needs to
> fit all the spins in both 32-bit and 6
Bruno Wolff III wolff.to> writes:
> Some file systems don't handle files greater than 4 GiB. That is why the
> spins
> sig limited spins published as ISOs to that size. livemedia-creator does
> support larger sizes.
Which is why immediately afterwards I wrote the following (I'm aware that fil
On Tue, 19.06.12 16:42, Andre Robatino (robat...@fedoraproject.org) wrote:
> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
> > Other possibility is to go directly to 1 GiB but we are not sure
> > there's advantage (at least not now).
>
> You would probably want to make the target 1 GB (SI units), not 1 GiB. The
> ca
On 06/19/2012 04:19 PM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
So we'd like to hear from rel-engs, QA etc. what's theirs position
here.
First and foremost each SIG sets and choose what is on the spin they
ship so if you dont want to ship the bloat that gets added with the
"MiniDebugInfo" then simply don't at
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> First and foremost each SIG sets and choose what is on the spin they
> ship so if you dont want to ship the bloat that gets added with the
> "MiniDebugInfo" then simply don't atleast afaik now there is nothing
> forcing spins to ship something that they don't want to.
On 06/19/2012 05:02 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
950 MiB as new target image size.
Arguably we should not have any specific target image size but rather a
list of valid image sizes ( cd/dvd/usb keys ) for spins to aim at which
SIG's themselves choose to use each release cycle and can adjust
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> How would you suggest we implement this? rm -rf the stuff in %post?
> (Yuck!!!) As I understand it, the symbols will be bloating the main packages
> and not be in subpackages. (Debuginfo subpackages are what we have now.)
It would be nice if the minidebuginfo data was store
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> It would be nice if the minidebuginfo data was stored similar to
> debuginfo data. That way spins could easily rm -rf the minidebuginfo
> folder to keep images smaller.
The only similarity being the separated symbol data from the binary. I
do not mean sub-packages.
--
On 06/19/2012 05:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
The target size is one of the release-blocking criteria you're supposed to
validate.
Yeah but that's just for the "Default" spin not spins in general which
is the Gnome Desktop environment.
If we did not have the so called "Default" we would be val
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 12:19 -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> As reaction to approved MiniDebugInfo feature, we agreed on KDE SIG
> meeting that we would have to break CD size limit (and the breaking
> of CD size image was used as argument to accept this feature).
>
> We agreed that 800 MiB is achie
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 17:26 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> Lennart Poettering 0pointer.de> writes:
>
> > For those too lazy to calculate the difference between 1 GB and 1 GiB: 1
> > GB equals 953 MiB. We hence should probably stick to to 950 MiB as new
> > target image size.
>
> To avoid confusi
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 17:33 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 06/19/2012 05:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > The target size is one of the release-blocking criteria you're supposed to
> > validate.
>
> Yeah but that's just for the "Default" spin not spins in general which
> is the Gnome De
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 17:26 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
>> Lennart Poettering 0pointer.de> writes:
>>
>> > For those too lazy to calculate the difference between 1 GB and 1 GiB: 1
>> > GB equals 953 MiB. We hence should probably stick to
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 13:32 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 17:26 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
> >> Lennart Poettering 0pointer.de> writes:
> >>
> >> > For those too lazy to calculate the difference between 1 GB and 1 Gi
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 13:32 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 17:26 +, Andre Robatino wrote:
>> >> Lennart Poettering 0pointer.de> writes:
>> >>
>> >> > For
On 06/19/2012 06:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
The criterion says "The network installation image, DVD image, and live
images for release-blocking desktops must meet current size requirements
Yup and as usual what is actually considered release blocking desktops
question needs to be answered w
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 18:41 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 06/19/2012 06:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > The criterion says "The network installation image, DVD image, and live
> > images for release-blocking desktops must meet current size requirements
>
> Yup and as usual what is a
On 06/19/2012 07:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
"The term 'release-blocking desktops' should be understood to mean all
the desktop environments in which bugs are currently considered capable
of blocking a Fedora release. The current set of release-blocking
desktops is GNOME and KDE."
The reason
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:00:46 -0700
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 06/19/2012 12:16 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> >
> > In any case Kevin K. probably can comment on what landed the KDE
> > distribution on the Relengs DVD and on the release blocker in the
> > first place.
>
>
> Gnome and KDE we
On 06/19/2012 02:03 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:00:46 -0700
Jesse Keating wrote:
On 06/19/2012 12:16 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
In any case Kevin K. probably can comment on what landed the KDE
distribution on the Relengs DVD and on the release blocker in the
first p
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 19:16 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 06/19/2012 07:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > "The term 'release-blocking desktops' should be understood to mean all
> > the desktop environments in which bugs are currently considered capable
> > of blocking a Fedora release.
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 14:10 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Having a desktop be a blocking desktop also somewhat assumes you'll be
> getting QA volunteer time to run through your test cases, whereas when
> it's not blocking there isn't that assumption. The SIG can still create
> and validate the
On 06/19/2012 09:03 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
I'll add to that to note that we now have Xfce, LXDE and Sugar all on
the DVD.
Which should have been added to the release blocker process when it got
added there.
From my point of view any handed out media at various events etc and
what's on it sh
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 22:14 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 06/19/2012 09:03 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > I'll add to that to note that we now have Xfce, LXDE and Sugar all on
> > the DVD.
>
> Which should have been added to the release blocker process when it got
> added there.
>
> Fr
On 06/19/2012 03:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
If an manpower to cover anything else then critical path became a
>concern we should fetch that manpower from the relevant SIG's community.
>
>Basically the plan was to reach out for example to the
>Gnome/KDE/XFCE/LXDE/Sugar community's to ask for as
On 06/19/2012 10:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Basically the plan was to reach out for example to the
>Gnome/KDE/XFCE/LXDE/Sugar community's to ask for assistant to cover
>their relevant part of required testing if that was the case.
>
>If you think about it who are better qualified and more will
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 15:31 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 06/19/2012 03:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> If an manpower to cover anything else then critical path became a
> >> >concern we should fetch that manpower from the relevant SIG's community.
> >> >
> >> >Basically the plan was to reach
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 22:33 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 06/19/2012 10:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> >> Basically the plan was to reach out for example to the
> >> >Gnome/KDE/XFCE/LXDE/Sugar community's to ask for assistant to cover
> >> >their relevant part of required testing if t
On 06/19/2012 10:36 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 15:31 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
On 06/19/2012 03:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
If an manpower to cover anything else then critical path became a
concern we should fetch that manpower from the relevant SIG's community.
Basi
On 06/19/2012 10:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 22:33 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
On 06/19/2012 10:19 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
Basically the plan was to reach out for example to the
Gnome/KDE/XFCE/LXDE/Sugar community's to ask for assistant to cover
their relev
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:47 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
> Again anything that gets handed out at various events should be considered
> release blockers since the quality of that product reflects back at us as a
> community thus if an relevant SIG cannot cover it's own release testing
> apa
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 22:55 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> I always look at the [1] and the top spins for (potential) contributing
> base and always when I look there people seem to be downloading LXDE
> more than XFCE heck I even mention that to Christoph one time and he was
> not sur
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 14:59 -0800, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> We get a spin out the door we get on the spins page for a release or
> twowe are rocking the world. And then for some reason on the next
> release we all fall behind and we don't keep up with the necessary
> integration changes. And CDE
On 06/19/2012 03:59 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote:
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:47 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
wrote:
Again anything that gets handed out at various events should be considered
release blockers since the quality of that product reflects back at us as a
community thus if an relevant SIG can
- Original Message -
> On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 22:14 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > On 06/19/2012 09:03 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > I'll add to that to note that we now have Xfce, LXDE and Sugar
> > > all on
> > > the DVD.
> >
> > Which should have been added to the release block
- Original Message -
> It's worth noting that we certainly have shipped non-blocking spins
> in
> completely broken states in past releases, and there is at present
> nothing to prevent this happening. There is zero guarantee of testing
> for non-blocking spins. QA did no formal validatio
- Original Message -
> As far as QA is concerned it's entirely your decision (as a personal
> note to self, I'll have to update the Deliverables SOP draft). We
> just
> need to know so we know what limit to check against in testing.
>
> As a personal comment, though, doesn't this seem a
On Wed, 2012-06-20 at 04:46 -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> > We get help fairly often for GNOME
> > and KDE, and satellit_ usually covers Sugar, but we very rarely get
> > anything for Xfce or LXDE.
>
> The main issue here is - the TC/RC images are "released" too fast to
> be able to fill in th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:25:50 -0700
Jesse Keating escribió:
> On 06/19/2012 03:59 PM, Jef Spaleta wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 2:47 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> > wrote:
> >> Again anything that gets handed out at various events should be
> >>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
El Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:19:35 -0400 (EDT)
Jaroslav Reznik escribió:
> As reaction to approved MiniDebugInfo feature, we agreed on KDE SIG
> meeting that we would have to break CD size limit (and the breaking
> of CD size image was used as argument to a
Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> How would you suggest we implement this? rm -rf the stuff in %post?
>> (Yuck!!!) As I understand it, the symbols will be bloating the main
>> packages and not be in subpackages. (Debuginfo subpackages are what we
>> have now.)
>
> It would be ni
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> In any case Kevin K. probably can comment on what landed the KDE
> distribution on the Relengs DVD and on the release blocker in the first
> place.
A long fight by KDE SIG. It took several releases (including one or two
releases which shipped a KDE live image with b
Adam Williamson wrote:
> As a personal comment, though, doesn't this seem a little fast to make
> the decision? Wouldn't it at least make sense to wait for minidebuginfo
> to be implemented, then spin a test KDE image and see exactly how big it
> turns out with the current package set?
We will hav
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> Arguably we should not have any specific target image size but rather a
> list of valid image sizes ( cd/dvd/usb keys ) for spins to aim at which
> SIG's themselves choose to use each release cycle and can adjust
> accordingly which gives them the ability to shrink/ex
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 2:51 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> [..]
> So I really wonder whether it isn't more practical to set an arbitrary limit
> and let the user find a suitable medium to burn it on (if in doubt, a DVD;
> we'll probably call it a "Live DVD" in the first place).
Well using a DVD if yo
drago01 wrote:
> (empty dvd costs little to no more then a cd now days)
FWIW, a CD-R90 actually costs more than a DVD-R or a DVD+R around here these
days. (It used to cost significantly less back in the day.)
> So I'd just opt for not worrying about CDs anymore. The only real
> argument for CD s
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 14:29:28 +,
Andre Robatino wrote:
Would it be possible for QA to get access to the Multi Desktops before release
and test those directly against a media-determined hard limit? Also, I think the
limit for DVDs should be the media size, 4.7 GB, not 4 GiB. OpenSUSE fo
Andre Robatino wrote:
> Would it be possible for QA to get access to the Multi Desktops before
> release and test those directly against a media-determined hard limit?
That makes sense, though the problem then is which spin gets the blame if
the overall quota is exceeded? We probably need to defi
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Andre Robatino wrote:
>> Would it be possible for QA to get access to the Multi Desktops before
>> release and test those directly against a media-determined hard limit?
>
> That makes sense, though the problem then is which spin gets the bla
On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 12:29 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
> > (empty dvd costs little to no more then a cd now days)
>
> FWIW, a CD-R90 actually costs more than a DVD-R or a DVD+R around here these
> days. (It used to cost significantly less back in the day.)
>
> > So I'd just opt
On 06/23/2012 05:21 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Now if you ask me about my opinion about the other desktops: IMHO, all the
> desktops on the Multi Desktop Live DVD should be considered release-
> blocking. I don't see why a blocker bug in, say, Xfce shouldn't be treated
> the same way as a block
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 20 Jun 2012 17:10:08 -0500
Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> El Tue, 19 Jun 2012 12:19:35 -0400 (EDT)
> Jaroslav Reznik escribió:
> > As reaction to approved MiniDebugInfo feature, we agreed on KDE SIG
> > meeting that we would have to break CD size l
inode0 wrote:
> The "quota" for these would need to be much higher already as the
> Multi-Desktop is now 6.1GB
The Multi Desktop Live DVD is dual-layer, it's not expected to fit 4.7 GB.
But dual-layer DVDs also have a finite capacity. ;-) So we can allow each
spin to grow to a certain extent, bu
Adam Williamson wrote:
> I don't believe there's currently any requirement that target sizes
> match some form of physical media. So far they always _have_, but if
> there's a requirement that they _must_, I've never seen it.
It might have been a misunderstanding, but I read Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> inode0 wrote:
>> The "quota" for these would need to be much higher already as the
>> Multi-Desktop is now 6.1GB
>
> The Multi Desktop Live DVD is dual-layer, it's not expected to fit 4.7 GB.
> But dual-layer DVDs also have a finite capacity.
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 01:15:14AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Cronenworth wrote:
>
> > Kevin Kofler wrote:
> >> How would you suggest we implement this? rm -rf the stuff in %post?
> >> (Yuck!!!) As I understand it, the symbols will be bloating the main
> >> packages and not be in subpack
On 06/26/2012 02:50 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
A pie in the sky option might be to have minidebuginfo/debuginfo reside
in the same package as the binaries it belongs to but in separate files
which are marked in the rpm filelist. Then rpm could have a --nodebuginfo
similar to how it has --nodoc
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> A pie in the sky option might be to have minidebuginfo/debuginfo reside
> in the same package as the binaries it belongs to but in separate files
> which are marked in the rpm filelist. Then rpm could have a --nodebuginfo
> similar to how it has --nodoc now. Not sure if t
67 matches
Mail list logo
