Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 11:16:03AM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:03:27AM +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > > I suspect that these packages are maintained only to the point where they > > can build (and thus be used as buildreqs) but their maintainer also doesn't > > want

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 12:03:27AM +0100, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > I suspect that these packages are maintained only to the point where they > can build (and thus be used as buildreqs) but their maintainer also doesn't > want them to be updated without making sure that the update will not break >

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On 20.11.2020 13:58, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: We have a lot of packages who are only maintained in the sense that it was orphaned and someone realized that some other package needed it. Yes there are some packages which have not had an update because the upstream feels the package is done..

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Fri, 20 Nov 2020 at 02:58, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On 19.11.2020 23:13, Matthew Miller wrote: > > Some packagers in Fedora do not have time to maintain the build > dependencies > > for the packages that they are actually interested in and have time to

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On 19.11.2020 23:13, Matthew Miller wrote: Some packagers in Fedora do not have time to maintain the build dependencies for the packages that they are actually interested in and have time to build. By allowing such packages, we will open the Pandora's box. Most of them will never receive

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

I'm opposed to this change as well, due to, imo, making it harder/less obvious/more confusing to see where I have to pull from any given package that I want to consume as an end-user on my system, or as a package maintainer in my buildroot. I've however found myself having to maintain packages

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Emmanuel Seyman writes: >> However, I'm not stuck on that one and it's probably not useful to stay >> stuck on it if there's not enough support to do it. So, let's find a >> different solution. > > What exactly do you want to do with this list of lightly-maintained > packages? I have been

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

* Matthew Miller [19/11/2020 17:13] : > > Some packagers in Fedora do not have time to maintain the build dependencies > for the packages that they are actually interested in and have time to > build. I suspect that these packages are maintained only to the point where they can build (and thus be

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:04:26PM -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote: > What I believe Alex and I are arguing is that there is no technical > advantage to RHEL-style repo-splitting where some packages go in one > repo and a non-overlapping set goes in another. Rather, it incurs a > large burden both on

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Thu, Nov 19, 2020 at 03:04:26PM -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote: > >> As my team has found out within Red Hat, this repo split has been a > >> large PITA. Because RHEL also won't self-host and many sub-packages > >> are missing from released bits that are otherwise available in e.g., > >>

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Matthew Miller writes: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 03:37:11PM -0500, Alexander Scheel wrote: >> I second what Robbie has said as well. >> >> I am against the thought of this change. >> >> As my team has found out within Red Hat, this repo split has been a >> large PITA. Because RHEL also won't

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Wed, Nov 18, 2020 at 03:37:11PM -0500, Alexander Scheel wrote: > I second what Robbie has said as well. > > I am against the thought of this change. > > As my team has found out within Red Hat, this repo split has been a > large PITA. Because RHEL also won't self-host and many sub-packages >

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 1:21 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Matthew Miller writes: > > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:52:57PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > >> > I completely agree. This is one of the reasons I switched away from > >> > ubuntu years ago (with its 4 (?) tiers of support +

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Matthew Miller writes: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:52:57PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: >> > I completely agree. This is one of the reasons I switched away from >> > ubuntu years ago (with its 4 (?) tiers of support + repos for its >> > packages ...). >> I agree, Fedora did the

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Ken Dreyer wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 3:23 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: >> That reason was _mainly_ to erase the inside Red Hat, >> community-around-the-edges distinction. That was a huge success and >> Fedora wouldn't be interesting without that. But I think the _technical_ >> choice was in

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Matthew Miller wrote: > But that's policy as well. It would be reasonable to have a different > policy, like "build and soft dependencies are okay from base -> secondary, > but not hard runtime requirements". But a build-time dependency often automatically results in a hard runtime dependency,

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Hi On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:54 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 05:46:46PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > I think for a community distro, having it all in a single repo is > > technically better as well because part of the problem that was being > > solved by the merge was

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 05:46:46PM -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > I think for a community distro, having it all in a single repo is > technically better as well because part of the problem that was being > solved by the merge was not just the community Red Hat delineation but also > the issue of

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 3:23 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > That reason was _mainly_ to erase the inside Red Hat, > community-around-the-edges distinction. That was a huge success and Fedora > wouldn't be interesting without that. But I think the _technical_ choice was > in retrospect a mistake.

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:52:57PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: >> > I completely agree. This is one of the reasons I switched away from >> > ubuntu years ago (with its 4 (?) tiers of support + repos for its >> > packages ...). >> I agree, Fedora did the

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Hi On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 5:23 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > That reason was _mainly_ to erase the inside Red Hat, > community-around-the-edges distinction. That was a huge success and Fedora > wouldn't be interesting without that. But I think the _technical_ choice > was > in retrospect a

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:52:57PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > I completely agree. This is one of the reasons I switched away from > > ubuntu years ago (with its 4 (?) tiers of support + repos for its > > packages ...). > I agree, Fedora did the Core-Extras Merge back in the day for a

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Fabio Valentini wrote: > I completely agree. This is one of the reasons I switched away from > ubuntu years ago (with its 4 (?) tiers of support + repos for its > packages ...). I agree, Fedora did the Core-Extras Merge back in the day for a reason. Kevin Kofler

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > * Kevin Kofler via devel [13/11/2020 00:52] : >> >> The one that keeps getting brought up is Tomcat, but I can tell you from >> my personal experience that the Fedora Tomcat package has always been >> working just fine (not only as a build dependency, but for its intended

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Every single package that failed to build from source and that people > refused to see orphaned and retired when it was pointed out that they are > in fact not really maintained ? As I have already mentioned more than once when the FTBFS policy has been discussed, a

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 04:17:14PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote: > ~~~ > > Provides: lightlymaintainedpackage(foo) > > ~~~ Thats actually not horrific. And it matches some of our other things like "Provides: bundled(foo)" which we use to mark non-ideal packaging situations. -- Matthew Miller

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 06:51:17AM -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote: > I'm not sure anyone's pretending. > > In my experience distros that spilt up into many repos add complexity (and > mistakes) on the releng side and a poor UX for the users. > > If we had labels in Pagure for the packages that you

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 06:15:27PM -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:07:29AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: I still believe that this concept is inherently incompatible with the idea of a cooperative community distribution, and that bringing it up again and again

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Dne 13. 11. 20 v 14:51 Ken Dreyer napsal(a): On Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 4:15 PM Matthew Miller > wrote: On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:07:29AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > I still believe that this concept is inherently incompatible with the

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Thu, 12 Nov 2020 at 18:53, Kevin Kofler via devel < devel@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > Matthew Miller wrote: > > Well, except, it clearly *does* work that way. We have many > > lightly-maintained packages in practice. > > Do we really? Which are those packages? > > The one that keeps

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 2:52 PM Ken Dreyer wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 4:15 PM Matthew Miller wrote: >> >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:07:29AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: >> > I still believe that this concept is inherently incompatible with the idea >> > of a cooperative

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020, 4:15 PM Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:07:29AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > I still believe that this concept is inherently incompatible with the > idea > > of a cooperative community distribution, and that bringing it up again > and > >

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 10:11:28AM +0100, Petr Pisar wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 09:58:22AM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:52:06AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > > Matthew Miller wrote: > > > > Well, except, it clearly *does* work that way. We have

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

* Kevin Kofler via devel [13/11/2020 00:52] : > > The one that keeps getting brought up is Tomcat, but I can tell you from my > personal experience that the Fedora Tomcat package has always been working > just fine (not only as a build dependency, but for its intended use as a web > application

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 09:58:22AM +0100, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:52:06AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Matthew Miller wrote: > > > Well, except, it clearly *does* work that way. We have many > > > lightly-maintained packages in practice. > > > > Do we

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:52:06AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Matthew Miller wrote: > > Well, except, it clearly *does* work that way. We have many > > lightly-maintained packages in practice. > > Do we really? Which are those packages? Every single package that failed to build from

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

Matthew Miller wrote: > Well, except, it clearly *does* work that way. We have many > lightly-maintained packages in practice. Do we really? Which are those packages? The one that keeps getting brought up is Tomcat, but I can tell you from my personal experience that the Fedora Tomcat package

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:07:29AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > I still believe that this concept is inherently incompatible with the idea > of a cooperative community distribution, and that bringing it up again and > again with minimally changed wording is not a constructive thing to

Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

David Cantrell wrote: > * #2475 proposal: let's develop the idea of a new repo for > lightly-maintained packages (dcantrell, 15:16:41) This suggestion keeps coming up again and again, but the repetition does not make it any more practical. A small handful individual maintainers wants to use

Re: Lightly-maintained packages (was: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11))

* Miroslav Suchý [11/11/2020 18:05] : > > We already have "lightly-maintained packages" - it is called Copr projects. > Do we need something in between? The issue here is discoverabilty. If $PACKAGE is in a separate repository, be it a 'lightly-maintained' repo or a copr, how do we go about

Re: Lightly-maintained packages (was: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11))

On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 06:05:20PM +0100, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > Dne 11. 11. 20 v 16:47 David Cantrell napsal(a): > > * #2475 proposal: let's develop the idea of a new repo for > >   lightly-maintained packages  (dcantrell, 15:16:41) > > For the record - the initial ticket can be found here: >

Re: Lightly-maintained packages (was: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11))

Dne 11. 11. 20 v 16:47 David Cantrell napsal(a): > * #2475 proposal: let's develop the idea of a new repo for >   lightly-maintained packages  (dcantrell, 15:16:41) For the record - the initial ticket can be found here: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2475 We already have "lightly-maintained

Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2020-11-11)

= #fedora-meeting-2: FESCO (2020-11-11) = Meeting started by dcantrell at 15:00:45 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2020-11-11/fesco.2020-11-11-15.00.log.html .